Maybe a super duper over?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKE1216243

max.it

On 18/01/2024 00:05, max.it wrote:
>
> Maybe a super duper over?
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKE1216243
I'd still prefer to let the tie stand, unless it's a knockout match
where there is a particular need to find a winner, which wasn't the case
here, as it was a bilateral series (which India had already won anyway).

It seems that if either side gets less than 5 overs to bat in a T20, or
20 overs in a one-dayer, that's not enough to constitute a match, and
it's OK to have a "no-result", but if the match ends in a tie, that's
not OK, and they have to have as many one-over contests as it takes to
decide it.

I'm guessing that Rohit is the first player to retire out during a super
over.

--
David North

David North wrote:

> On 18/01/2024 00:05, max.it wrote:
>>
>> Maybe a super duper over?
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKE1216243
> I'd still prefer to let the tie stand, unless it's a knockout match
> where there is a particular need to find a winner, which wasn't the case
> here, as it was a bilateral series (which India had already won anyway).

> It seems that if either side gets less than 5 overs to bat in a T20, or
> 20 overs in a one-dayer, that's not enough to constitute a match, and
> it's OK to have a "no-result", but if the match ends in a tie, that's
> not OK, and they have to have as many one-over contests as it takes to
> decide it.

> I'm guessing that Rohit is the first player to retire out during a super
> over.

i'm surprised that having retired out for tactical reasons [so rinku could
run faster than him] he was allowed to bat again immediately after in the
final innings but i guess theres nothing in the laws to say you cant.

mike

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:46:11 PM UTC+11, miked wrote:
> David North wrote:
>
> > On 18/01/2024 00:05, max.it wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe a super duper over?
> >>
> >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKE1216243
> > I'd still prefer to let the tie stand, unless it's a knockout match
> > where there is a particular need to find a winner, which wasn't the case
> > here, as it was a bilateral series (which India had already won anyway)..
>
> > It seems that if either side gets less than 5 overs to bat in a T20, or
> > 20 overs in a one-dayer, that's not enough to constitute a match, and
> > it's OK to have a "no-result", but if the match ends in a tie, that's
> > not OK, and they have to have as many one-over contests as it takes to
> > decide it.
>
> > I'm guessing that Rohit is the first player to retire out during a super
> > over.
> i'm surprised that having retired out for tactical reasons [so rinku could
> run faster than him] he was allowed to bat again immediately after in the
> final innings but i guess theres nothing in the laws to say you cant.
>
The T20I playing conditions say you can't bat in a 2nd super over if you've been dismissed in the first one.
He couldn't continue his innings in the first one so he should have counted as dismissed meaning he shouldn't have been able to bat again

On 1/18/2024 5:55 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:46:11 PM UTC+11, miked wrote:
>> David North wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/01/2024 00:05, max.it wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe a super duper over?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKE1216243
>>> I'd still prefer to let the tie stand, unless it's a knockout match
>>> where there is a particular need to find a winner, which wasn't the case
>>> here, as it was a bilateral series (which India had already won anyway).
>>
>>> It seems that if either side gets less than 5 overs to bat in a T20, or
>>> 20 overs in a one-dayer, that's not enough to constitute a match, and
>>> it's OK to have a "no-result", but if the match ends in a tie, that's
>>> not OK, and they have to have as many one-over contests as it takes to
>>> decide it.
>>
>>> I'm guessing that Rohit is the first player to retire out during a super
>>> over.
>> i'm surprised that having retired out for tactical reasons [so rinku could
>> run faster than him] he was allowed to bat again immediately after in the
>> final innings but i guess theres nothing in the laws to say you cant.
>>
> The T20I playing conditions say you can't bat in a 2nd super over if you've been dismissed in the first one.
> He couldn't continue his innings in the first one so he should have counted as dismissed meaning he shouldn't have been able to bat again
>

What does the MCC playing conditions say about batting in Super Overs?

25.4.2 – If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other
unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her innings. If
for any reason this does not happen, that batter is to be recorded as
‘Retired – not out’.

25.4.3 – If a batter retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2, the
innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of the
opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not resumed, that
batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired – out’.

IN CASE OF A TIED SUPER OVER: Any batsman dismissed in any previous
Super Over shall be ineligible to bat in any subsequent Super Over.

What the ICC rules say about batting in Super Overs?

Per the ICC Playing Conditions in case of a tied super over, “Any
batsman dismissed in any previous Super Over shall be ineligible to bat
in any subsequent Super Over.”

It must be noted that the match officials have not yet clarified whether
Rohit was retired out or retired hurt. If it was the latter, he would
have been eligible to bat again since he was not out in the first Super
Over.

On 1/18/2024 2:19 AM, David North wrote:
> On 18/01/2024 00:05, max.it wrote:
>>
>> Maybe a super duper over?
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKE1216243
> I'd still prefer to let the tie stand, unless it's a knockout match
> where there is a particular need to find a winner, which wasn't the case
> here, as it was a bilateral series (which India had already won anyway).
>
> It seems that if either side gets less than 5 overs to bat in a T20, or
> 20 overs in a one-dayer, that's not enough to constitute a match, and
> it's OK to have a "no-result", but if the match ends in a tie, that's
> not OK, and they have to have as many one-over contests as it takes to
> decide it.
>
> I'm guessing that Rohit is the first player to retire out during a super
> over.
>

Afghanistan deserved to win this game after CHASING 212 and tying in 20
overs.

I also wanted this game to be declared a TIE after the first super over.

On 18/01/2024 14:03, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/18/2024 5:55 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:46:11 PM UTC+11, miked wrote:
>>> David North wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18/01/2024 00:05, max.it wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe a super duper over?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKE1216243
>>>> I'd still prefer to let the tie stand, unless it's a knockout match
>>>> where there is a particular need to find a winner, which wasn't the
>>>> case
>>>> here, as it was a bilateral series (which India had already won
>>>> anyway).
>>>
>>>> It seems that if either side gets less than 5 overs to bat in a T20, or
>>>> 20 overs in a one-dayer, that's not enough to constitute a match, and
>>>> it's OK to have a "no-result", but if the match ends in a tie, that's
>>>> not OK, and they have to have as many one-over contests as it takes to
>>>> decide it.
>>>
>>>> I'm guessing that Rohit is the first player to retire out during a
>>>> super
>>>> over.
>>> i'm surprised that having retired out for tactical reasons [so rinku
>>> could
>>> run faster than him] he was allowed to bat again immediately after in
>>> the
>>> final innings but i guess theres nothing in the laws to say you cant.
>>>
>> The T20I playing conditions say you can't bat in a 2nd super over if
>> you've been dismissed in the first one.
>> He couldn't continue his innings in the first one so he should have
>> counted as dismissed meaning he shouldn't have been able to bat again
>>
>
>
>
> What does the MCC playing conditions say about batting in Super Overs?
>
> 25.4.2 – If a batter retires because of illness, injury or any other
> unavoidable cause, that batter is entitled to resume his/her innings. If
> for any reason this does not happen, that batter is to be recorded as
> ‘Retired – not out’.
>
> 25.4.3 – If a batter retires for any reason other than as in 25.4.2, the
> innings of that batter may be resumed only with the consent of the
> opposing captain. If for any reason his/her innings is not resumed, that
> batter is to be recorded as ‘Retired – out’.
>
> IN CASE OF A TIED SUPER OVER: Any batsman dismissed in any previous
> Super Over shall be ineligible to bat in any subsequent Super Over.
>
> What the ICC rules say about batting in Super Overs?
>
> Per the ICC Playing Conditions in case of a tied super over, “Any
> batsman dismissed in any previous Super Over shall be ineligible to bat
> in any subsequent Super Over.”
>
> It must be noted that the match officials have not yet clarified whether
> Rohit was retired out or retired hurt. If it was the latter, he would
> have been eligible to bat again since he was not out in the first Super
> Over.
It would also have been a miraculous recovery. ;)

ISTM that the word "dismissed" in the playing conditions should be
replaced with "out".

--
David North

On 18/01/2024 14:03, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Per the ICC Playing Conditions in case of a tied super over, “Any
> batsman dismissed in any previous Super Over shall be ineligible to
> bat in any subsequent Super Over.”

Is "retired -- out" a dismissal? To me, English implies that
for a batsman to be "dismissed", there has to be some positive action
by the fielding side causing the batsman to be out [if only an appeal
for obstruction, or other less usual way of being out].

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Henselt

On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 14:42:04 UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 18/01/2024 14:03, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > Per the ICC Playing Conditions in case of a tied super over, “Any
> > batsman dismissed in any previous Super Over shall be ineligible to
> > bat in any subsequent Super Over.”
> Is "retired -- out" a dismissal? To me, English implies that
> for a batsman to be "dismissed", there has to be some positive action
> by the fielding side causing the batsman to be out [if only an appeal
> for obstruction, or other less usual way of being out].

Agreed. I hadn't realised that "dismissed" is actually defined in the Laws:

"31.2 Batter dismissed

"A batter is dismissed if he/she is

"either given out by an umpire, on appeal

"or out under any of the Laws and leaves the wicket as in 31.1"
https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/appeals

If a batter retires under Law 25.4.3., "that batter is to be _recorded_ as ‘Retired - out’", but ISTM that that is not the same as being "out under any of the Laws", in which case they have not been dismissed, and the umpires were correct to allow Rohit to bat in the 2nd Super Over.

By retiring, Rohit not only increased the chances of his side making the two runs that they needed to win off the last ball of the 1st Super Over, he also eliminated the possibility of being run out and therefore not being allowed to bat in the 2nd Super Over.

I think it would be a good idea to change the regulation so that a batter who has retired out is prevented from batting in a subsequent Super Over. If a match has gone to a Super Over, it will probably already have overrun the scheduled time, so I think it's best if the regulations don't encourage any further delays such as tactical retirements. Note that if India had already lost a wicket in the 1st Super Over, Rohit would not have been able to retire out, because "The loss of two wickets shall end the batting team’s one over innings."

David North wrote:

> On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 14:42:04 UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 18/01/2024 14:03, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> > Per the ICC Playing Conditions in case of a tied super over, “Any
>> > batsman dismissed in any previous Super Over shall be ineligible to
>> > bat in any subsequent Super Over.”
>> Is "retired -- out" a dismissal? To me, English implies that
>> for a batsman to be "dismissed", there has to be some positive action
>> by the fielding side causing the batsman to be out [if only an appeal
>> for obstruction, or other less usual way of being out].

> Agreed. I hadn't realised that "dismissed" is actually defined in the Laws:

> "31.2 Batter dismissed

> "A batter is dismissed if he/she is

> "either given out by an umpire, on appeal

> "or out under any of the Laws and leaves the wicket as in 31.1"

> https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/appeals

> If a batter retires under Law 25.4.3., "that batter is to be _recorded_ as ‘Retired - out’", but ISTM that that is not the same as being "out under any of the Laws", in which case they have not been dismissed, and the umpires were correct to allow Rohit to bat in the 2nd Super Over.

> By retiring, Rohit not only increased the chances of his side making the two runs that they needed to win off the last ball of the 1st Super Over, he also eliminated the possibility of being run out and therefore not being allowed to bat in the 2nd Super Over.

i'm impressed by Rohits extensive knowledge of the regulations in these unusual matters, but was
it really necessary? its not as if india didnt have other excellent batters.

> I think it would be a good idea to change the regulation so that a batter who has retired out is prevented from batting in a subsequent Super Over. If a match has gone to a Super Over, it will probably already have overrun the scheduled time, so I think it's best if the regulations don't encourage any further delays such as tactical retirements.

definitely agree, although usually when i get on a high horse its pointed out that england
have done something similar, but this was a first as you say.

mike

On 1/19/2024 8:30 AM, miked wrote:
> David North wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 14:42:04 UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2024 14:03, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> > Per the ICC Playing Conditions in case of a tied super over, “Any >
>>> batsman dismissed in any previous Super Over shall be ineligible to >
>>> bat in any subsequent Super Over.”
>>> Is "retired -- out" a dismissal? To me, English implies that for a
>>> batsman to be "dismissed", there has to be some positive action by
>>> the fielding side causing the batsman to be out [if only an appeal
>>> for obstruction, or other less usual way of being out].
>
>> Agreed. I hadn't realised that "dismissed" is actually defined in the
>> Laws:
>
>> "31.2 Batter dismissed
>
>> "A batter is dismissed if he/she is
>
>> "either      given out by an umpire, on appeal
>
>> "or        out under any of the Laws and leaves the wicket as in 31.1"
>
>> https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/appeals
>
>> If a batter retires under Law 25.4.3., "that batter is to be
>> _recorded_ as ‘Retired - out’", but ISTM that that is not the same as
>> being "out under any of the Laws", in which case they have not been
>> dismissed, and the umpires were correct to allow Rohit to bat in the
>> 2nd Super Over.
>
>> By retiring, Rohit not only increased the chances of his side making
>> the two runs that they needed to win off the last ball of the 1st
>> Super Over, he also eliminated the possibility of being run out and
>> therefore not being allowed to bat in the 2nd Super Over.
>
> i'm impressed by Rohits extensive knowledge of the regulations in these
> unusual matters,

Rohit is NOT really that knowledgeable in rules and regulations. It was
just a fluke in this case. He just wanted to get somebody who can run
faster on that last ball.

In India vs Pak T20 world cup match in Melbourne, when Kohli and Dinesh
Karthik ran three runs after the ball hit the stumps of a NO-BALL and
got deflected to the third man boundary line, Rohit was seen asking
other players "Kya hua"? i.e. What happened?

Some other player explained to him.

> but was
> it really necessary? its not as if india didnt have other excellent
> batters.
>
>> I think it would be a good idea to change the regulation so that a
>> batter who has retired out is prevented from batting in a subsequent
>> Super Over. If a match has gone to a Super Over, it will probably
>> already have overrun the scheduled time, so I think it's best if the
>> regulations don't encourage any further delays such as tactical
>> retirements.
>
> definitely agree, although usually when i get on a high horse its
> pointed out that england
> have done something similar, but this was a first as you say.
>
> mike

On 19/01/2024 17:36, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 1/19/2024 8:30 AM, miked wrote:
>> David North wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 14:42:04 UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/2024 14:03, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> > Per the ICC Playing Conditions in case of a tied super over, “Any
>>>> > batsman dismissed in any previous Super Over shall be ineligible
>>>> to > bat in any subsequent Super Over.”
>>>> Is "retired -- out" a dismissal? To me, English implies that for a
>>>> batsman to be "dismissed", there has to be some positive action by
>>>> the fielding side causing the batsman to be out [if only an appeal
>>>> for obstruction, or other less usual way of being out].
>>
>>> Agreed. I hadn't realised that "dismissed" is actually defined in the
>>> Laws:
>>
>>> "31.2 Batter dismissed
>>
>>> "A batter is dismissed if he/she is
>>
>>> "either      given out by an umpire, on appeal
>>
>>> "or        out under any of the Laws and leaves the wicket as in 31.1"
>>
>>> https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/appeals
>>
>>> If a batter retires under Law 25.4.3., "that batter is to be
>>> _recorded_ as ‘Retired - out’", but ISTM that that is not the same as
>>> being "out under any of the Laws", in which case they have not been
>>> dismissed, and the umpires were correct to allow Rohit to bat in the
>>> 2nd Super Over.
>>
>>> By retiring, Rohit not only increased the chances of his side making
>>> the two runs that they needed to win off the last ball of the 1st
>>> Super Over, he also eliminated the possibility of being run out and
>>> therefore not being allowed to bat in the 2nd Super Over.
>>
>> i'm impressed by Rohits extensive knowledge of the regulations in
>> these unusual matters,
>
>
>
> Rohit is NOT really that knowledgeable in rules and regulations.

I didn't mean to suggest that he necessarily *knew* that he was getting
the second advantage.

>> but was
>> it really necessary?

Who knows? According to Cricinfo, the Afghan keeper chose not to risk
throwing at the stumps off the last ball of the first Super Over. Maybe
he would have made a different decision if it had been Rohit running to
his end rather than Rinku, as he would presumably have had a bit more time.

>> its not as if india didnt have other excellent
>> batters.

Presumably they thought he was the best option, as he took first strike
in both Super Overs, and he did make 24 off 7 balls. The choice of
Jaiswal to open with him in the first Super Over looks rather
surprising, though, given Rinku's earlier innings.

--
David North

On 1/20/2024 12:36 AM, David North wrote:
> On 19/01/2024 17:36, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 1/19/2024 8:30 AM, miked wrote:
>>> David North wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 14:42:04 UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>> On 18/01/2024 14:03, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>>> > Per the ICC Playing Conditions in case of a tied super over, “Any
>>>>> > batsman dismissed in any previous Super Over shall be ineligible
>>>>> to > bat in any subsequent Super Over.”
>>>>> Is "retired -- out" a dismissal? To me, English implies that for a
>>>>> batsman to be "dismissed", there has to be some positive action by
>>>>> the fielding side causing the batsman to be out [if only an appeal
>>>>> for obstruction, or other less usual way of being out].
>>>
>>>> Agreed. I hadn't realised that "dismissed" is actually defined in
>>>> the Laws:
>>>
>>>> "31.2 Batter dismissed
>>>
>>>> "A batter is dismissed if he/she is
>>>
>>>> "either      given out by an umpire, on appeal
>>>
>>>> "or        out under any of the Laws and leaves the wicket as in 31.1"
>>>
>>>> https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket/appeals
>>>
>>>> If a batter retires under Law 25.4.3., "that batter is to be
>>>> _recorded_ as ‘Retired - out’", but ISTM that that is not the same
>>>> as being "out under any of the Laws", in which case they have not
>>>> been dismissed, and the umpires were correct to allow Rohit to bat
>>>> in the 2nd Super Over.
>>>
>>>> By retiring, Rohit not only increased the chances of his side making
>>>> the two runs that they needed to win off the last ball of the 1st
>>>> Super Over, he also eliminated the possibility of being run out and
>>>> therefore not being allowed to bat in the 2nd Super Over.
>>>
>>> i'm impressed by Rohits extensive knowledge of the regulations in
>>> these unusual matters,
>>
>>
>>
>> Rohit is NOT really that knowledgeable in rules and regulations.
>
> I didn't mean to suggest that he necessarily *knew* that he was getting
> the second advantage.
>
> >>  but was
> >> it really necessary?
>
> Who knows? According to Cricinfo, the Afghan keeper chose not to risk
> throwing at the stumps off the last ball of the first Super Over. Maybe
> he would have made a different decision if it had been Rohit running to
> his end rather than Rinku, as he would presumably have had a bit more time.
>
> >> its not as if india didnt have other excellent
> >> batters.
>
> Presumably they thought he was the best option, as he took first strike
> in both Super Overs, and he did make 24 off 7 balls. The choice of
> Jaiswal to open with him in the first Super Over looks rather
> surprising, though, given Rinku's earlier innings.
>

Probably Right-Left combination of Rohit and Yashasvi was the thinking
that went into the decision.

Dravid and Rohit as coach and captain made considerable no.of IMPERFECT
decisions in the last couple of years.

This could be one of those.