Sonofbrowny25 wrote:any updates with the Iggies vs grove outcome?
Still listed as TBC on mycricket.
Will make for an interesting dinner tonight if the turf can't announce who is playing!!!
For mine it is very simple, and I can not believe it has taken this long to sort out.
1) This result has never been a tie in 150 years of cricket. It is always a draw, and there are plenty of examples to show that. (1996 Zimbabwe vs England, 2011 India vs West Indies). To try and claim it is a tie now is disingenuous from Old Ignatians.
2) Even if you ignore the laws of cricket which show the game to be a draw, and look at the bylaws which for whatever reason have decided to try and define a tie (not needed given the laws of cricket already cover it), even then, it is still ambiguous at best. For the game to be called a tie under the bylaws, you need to categorically show that Iggies innings was completed after 14 overs. Based on the snipit from the laws of cricket posted above, you can not say that was the case, for two reasons:
a) Golden Grove's innings was not limited to 14 overs (that is, a similar agreement on the number of overs of BOTH sides second innings did not apply).
b) Even Old Iggies innings wasn't restricted to 14 overs. 14 was a minimum, not a maximum number of overs to be bowled. IE: Had the 14th over been completed before the scheduled close of play (assuming 5:30 but given weather might be different), then Golden Grove would have been required to bowl a 15th. As such, Old Iggies innings was not necessarily completed after 14 overs.
3) If you throw both the laws of cricket out, and the bylaws, and look at this situation logically, once again you can not come up with a tie as the correct result.
Assume this was a minor round game. For a tie to be awarded, Golden Grove would pick up half the outright points, that is, an extra 2.5pts, when they only took 5 second innings wickets. There is no way they deserve these points, and if it were to be granted a tie and they received these points, no doubt the remaining teams would challenge that ruling.
Given the laws of cricket are clear it is a draw, the bylaws are ambiguous at best, and the intent of the bylaws are that this game is not a tie, I can not see how anyone can rule in good faith that Old Iggies are the side to go through.