England won the ICC Cricket World Cup 2019. Not by runs, not by wickets. But by boundaries.
Maybe, as someone aptly said – “Using boundaries to win is an art perfected by the British since 1947”
After the epic final, and also the ensuing Super Over, ended in a tie, England were adjudged the winners of the World Cup on the basis of their superior boundary count. England scored 22 fours and two sixes as compared to New Zealand’s 16. And that was the reason why, after a tie, they got to lift the World Cup
Obviously, it is an absurd rule. The New Zealand team would have felt so cheated and empty handed.
Could there be alternatives?
For decades, the rule was on the basis of wickets lost. That, experts say, is still more logical.
Maybe we could take out extras. The team with most runs with the bat win. But then t is not flawless considering that in disciplinary bowling is not punished
The debate is never ending.
Brings into question the larger issue of fairness in rules that decide human destiny
Consider the instance of Bell Curves in Performance Appraisals. Something that’s so often blamed as a demotivator.
Consider the arbitrary rules in organisations that decide who will be promoted, who will be transferred to remote locations
So whenever there is a tie, there is an element of subjectivity, the rules to decide the winner must be well-crafted and deliberated upon.
So, these rules mustn’t create BOUNDARIES (organisational rift) and there must be adequate measures for grievance redressal as well.
Else the spirit of the game gets defeated. Isn’t it?