stupid rules like seems to be quite common across some sports, like the 1992 rain rule and whoever came up with the points for the WTC so you could get max points by winning 2 out of 2 in a 2 Test series but would have to win 5 out of 5 to get the same points in a 5 Test series!
England won because of a stupid boundary countback rule that should never have been, runs is runs, and in fact I'd say if a side gives away 20 more runs than their opponents in wides and no balls say, but score five more fours why should they win?!?!? And the law re overthrows deflected off the batsman running a single, probably a stupid throw in fairness and if the player got half the stick Bairstow got for CareyCad we'd still be hearing about that, but anyway stupid law acknowledged by player not wanting them to count and the change after the event
that all said it was a close game, either side could have won, can't really argue a run here or there as to meaning X deserved to win more than Y, and someone had to lose. Personally I see absolutely nothing wrong with, and every sense in, the old deciding factor when games were tied - fewests wickets lost. Took less loss of wicket to achieve the same score although I guess the counter 'logic' is that side should have used its wickets better to score the run or more would have secured the win
Either way the rules and laws didn't change in match, disappointing as it was to lose the kiwis lost to England who benefitted from them but not their fault or intention to deflect overthrows or rely on countbacks and ridiculous other rules.
m.cricbuzz.com
