The nerve-wracking World Cup final between England and New Zealand at Lord's resulted in a tie. Chasing down New Zealand's score of 241/8, the hosts rode on Ben Stokes' heroics to level the match, exacting the Kiwi scorecard while losing all their wickets in the gritty run-chase.
Super Over was brought into play for the very first time in 2019's World Cup tournament to give a winner to millions of eager fans waiting at the Home of Cricket and far away but it could only help much.
According to the ICC rule book, the team batting second in the match got the chance to bat first in the Super Over. England scored 15 in the six deliveries they faced by Trent Boult.
New Zealand responded with equal intent, scoring a brisk 14 off first five. Martin Guptill, facing his first ball of the Super Over, could only fetch a single that resulted in yet another tie in the final - one that put the Black Caps in a heartbreaking, losing spot.
Because the law book of governing body of cricket also states that should the Super Over end in a tie, the team hitting more boundaries in their innings and the Super Over win.
This did not go down well with the cricket fans supporting Kane Williamson's unit and the ICC was ridiculed for its "outrageous" rule that "robbed" the cup from New Zealand's kitty.
Many on social networking site Twitter wondered as to why ICC did not take the wickets picked up by the respective teams into consideration instead.
"If in a super over a country can win by the virtue of more boundaries then why can a country not win by the virtue of losing lesser wickets in the actual match? There is a serious problem with the your rules,(sic)" filmmaker Anurag Kashyap tweeted.
Ok @ICC please change two rules tomorrow:1. No extra runs for deflection of overthrow 2. When super over is tied, there should be another super over. Win on no. of boundaries is stupid. #welldoneNZ— Sushant (@sushants) July 14, 2019
If in a super over a country can win by the virtue of more boundaries then why can a country not win by the virtue of losing lesser wickets in the actual match? There is a serious problem with the your rules @ICC @cricketworldcup— Anurag Kashyap (@anuragkashyap72) July 14, 2019
Congratulations to England!Commiserations New Zealand.I’ve got to say that it’s a horrible way to decide the winner. This rule has to change.— Brett Lee (@BrettLee_58) July 14, 2019
I don’t agree with that rule ! But rules are rules congratulations to England on finally winning the World Cup , my heart goes out for the kiwis they fought till the end 😥. Great game an epic final !!!! #CWC19Final— yuvraj singh (@YUVSTRONG12) July 14, 2019
Cruel!— Stephen Fleming (@SPFleming7) July 14, 2019
Because one team scored more boundaries than the other, they are the winners. For what joy? Why can't it be "The team that has scored more singles will be the winner"? An absolutely ridiculous rule. @ICC, it's a real shame!— Srini Mama (@SriniMaama16) July 14, 2019
I understand the frustration/anger around the #SuperOver rules, deciding a #WorldCupfinal on a boundary count is contentious. The rule I'm confused about is - "The team batting second in the main match will bat first in the Super Over" How is this a level playing field? @ICC— Tom Moody (@TomMoodyCricket) July 15, 2019
The online conversation soon shifted from unanswered questions to the mockery of ICC's rule book.
Hello @ICC, here are some comparatively less-random 'rules' for choosing the winner in future:1. Jis team ke captain ki jeb mein pink rumaal ho.2. The captain with more instagram followers.3. The country NOT going through a confusing process to exit a continent.— Aisi Taisi Democracy (@AisiTaisiDemo) July 14, 2019
In case you're wondering, here's what the broadcasters informed the viewers about ICC's Super Over rules before going into it: