NRR and forfeited matches
Nikhil R Devanur
I think, as of now, the forfeited matches are just ignored
for calculating the NRR. However, as some have pointed out,
a team might forfeit a match just to improve its NRR.
The right thing to do, IMHO, is to consider that the forfeiting
team scored 0 runs off 50 overs, and the other team scored a run off 1
ball. It would be interesting to see what effect this has on the NRRs of
NZ, ENG, ZIM and KEN.
Mike Holmans
>
>I think, as of now, the forfeited matches are just ignored
>for calculating the NRR. However, as some have pointed out,
>a team might forfeit a match just to improve its NRR.
This is, of course, ridiculous. You cannot *improve* an NRR by not
playing. You could take the view that you are going to lose the match
anyway, and that therefore giving up the points but preserving your
NRR as it was is likely to be slightly advantageous, but really, if a
team is trying to qualify for the next stage of a competition by
deliberately losing but preserving the run rate, they deserve
everything they get if the other match turns out unexpectedly and they
lose the competition anyway.
>
>The right thing to do, IMHO, is to consider that the forfeiting
>team scored 0 runs off 50 overs, and the other team scored a run off 1
>ball. It would be interesting to see what effect this has on the NRRs of
>NZ, ENG, ZIM and KEN.
The right thing to do is not change the rules of the competition once
it's started.
Cheers,
Mike
Andrew Dunford
"Nikhil R Devanur" <nik...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:b3e4c8$rs6$1...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu...
You're right to say "I think". Whatever different opinions we have, the
fundamental problem is that the Playing Conditions don't actually provide a
ruling. In addition I'm not aware of the ICC or tournament organising
committee having offered clarification.
I would guess that if your formula were followed, it would be just about
impossible for NZ to qualify on a run rate countback.
Given that the Pool B permutations have already been recalculated twice to
take account of the WI v Bangladesh and SL v Kenya matches, my money is on
there being at least one more 'sting in the tail' to come: either another
upset or perhaps more likely, another no-result owing to bad weather.
Andrew
Nikhil Deo
"Nikhil R Devanur" <nik...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:b3e4c8$rs6$1...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu...
> The right thing to do, IMHO, is to consider that the forfeiting
> team scored 0 runs off 50 overs, and the other team scored a run off 1
In my opinion, the right thing to do is to deduct some (2/4) points from the
forfeiting team and award 4 points to the other team.
Shripathi Kamath
"Nikhil R Devanur" <nik...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:b3e4c8$rs6$1...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu...
>
> for calculating the NRR. However, as some have pointed out,
> a team might forfeit a match just to improve its NRR.
>
Did you mean 'might forfeit a match not to worsen its NRR'?
> The right thing to do, IMHO, is to consider that the forfeiting
> team scored 0 runs off 50 overs, and the other team scored a run off 1
> ball. It would be interesting to see what effect this has on the NRRs of
> NZ, ENG, ZIM and KEN.
>
Surely you can imagine a scenario where a team which has already been
eliminated, 'helps' out another team whose NRR *is* substantially improved
with the above change, allowing it to advance and thereby screwing up
another team's chances.
Mike
news:d96l5v0kc4db4r27k...@4ax.com...
> This is, of course, ridiculous. You cannot *improve* an NRR by not
> playing. You could take the view that you are going to lose the match
> anyway, and that therefore giving up the points but preserving your
> NRR as it was is likely to be slightly advantageous, but really, if a
> team is trying to qualify for the next stage of a competition by
> deliberately losing but preserving the run rate, they deserve
> everything they get if the other match turns out unexpectedly and they
> lose the competition anyway.
You miss a simple, but to me, very obvious point. Kenya beat NZ
and Zim beat Eng , maybe because of one side not showing up,
but Ken and ZIM still won the game, never the less. One expects
the winning side to have a positive impact on NRR compared to
the losing side, the fact that this did not happens is wrong and
skews the run rate in favour of the teams that lost. If it comes
down to NRR that decides betw Ken and NZ, the fact that
NZ lost the match without any impact on their NRR, is grossly
unfair.
Cheers
Mike
Michael Seth
Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> Given that the Pool B permutations have already been recalculated twice to
> take account of the WI v Bangladesh and SL v Kenya matches, my money is on
> there being at least one more 'sting in the tail' to come: either another
> upset or perhaps more likely, another no-result owing to bad weather.
Kenya vs Bangladesh and WI vs Kenya look like possible places for more
fun and games in the "Group of Mystery". A washout of SL vs WI would
probably add to the confusion.
Right now group B has seven games to play, two for each team
SA v SL
SA v Ca
WI v SL
WI v Ken
NZ v Ca
NZ v Bang
Bang v Ken
Guessing who will get through to the super six seems a bit pointless
given all the weirdness so far but WI, Ken, SA and SL have the inside
running in the sense that all they have to do is keep winning and
maintain a good run rate and
they will be through. NZ have to rely on other results as well as
winning. One possibility is interesting though. If
SA def SL, SA def Ca, SL def WI, WI def Ken, NZ def Ca,
NZ def Ca and Ken def Bang then SL, NZ, SA, Ken are
all tied on 16 points each with 4 wins. According to the
playing conditions then "... the winner of the most number
of matches played between those teams will be placed in
the higher position." In this scenario this divides the
foursome into SA, Ken (two wins) and SL, NZ (one win).
How are these pairs split? Does one go back
to the beginning and return to head-to-head giving a final
order of SA, Ken, SL, NZ? If one looks at the letter of
the playing conditions it looks like the pairs are
split on the basis of run rate "If still equal the team with
the higher net run rate in the group matches..."
The washed out WI-Bang match simplified things a little
because if WI had won it then the above scenario would
have been a five-way tie with all teams with two wins
within the fivesome. In this case it would come
down to run-rate to decide who's top but then after
number one is determined do they go back to the
beginning again and look at most wins within the
remaining four or continue with the runrate ranking?
More and more confusing.
Possibly even more bizarre is that all five of the contending
teams can qualify for the super six with a very healthy
points total of around 10 most of them can qualify
with a very unhealthy points total of about 4 and
all can miss out completely.
Cheers
Michael[Who, as a NZ fan must hope for SL getting badly beaten,
Bangladesh beating Kenya, Kenya beating the WI or SL beating
WI and SA, roughly in that order of preference]
Nikhil R Devanur
> "Nikhil R Devanur" <nik...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:b3e4c8$rs6$1...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu...
>>
>> I think, as of now, the forfeited matches are just ignored
>> for calculating the NRR. However, as some have pointed out,
>> a team might forfeit a match just to improve its NRR.
>>
> Did you mean 'might forfeit a match not to worsen its NRR'?
yes, thank you.
>> The right thing to do, IMHO, is to consider that the forfeiting
>> team scored 0 runs off 50 overs, and the other team scored a run off 1
>> ball. It would be interesting to see what effect this has on the NRRs of
>> NZ, ENG, ZIM and KEN.
>>
> Surely you can imagine a scenario where a team which has already been
> eliminated, 'helps' out another team whose NRR *is* substantially improved
> with the above change, allowing it to advance and thereby screwing up
> another team's chances.
how is this different from a team "helping" by allowing the other team
to say, score 500 runs? what is different in the above case is that
a team might increase its *own* chances by forfeiting a match,
not someone else's chances.
Shripathi Kamath
> Shripathi Kamath <firstnam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Nikhil R Devanur" <nik...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> > news:b3e4c8$rs6$1...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu...
> >>
> >> I think, as of now, the forfeited matches are just ignored
> >> for calculating the NRR. However, as some have pointed out,
> >> a team might forfeit a match just to improve its NRR.
> >>
>
> > Did you mean 'might forfeit a match not to worsen its NRR'?
>
> yes, thank you.
>
> >> The right thing to do, IMHO, is to consider that the forfeiting
> >> team scored 0 runs off 50 overs, and the other team scored a run off 1
> >> ball. It would be interesting to see what effect this has on the NRRs
of
> >> NZ, ENG, ZIM and KEN.
> >>
>
> > Surely you can imagine a scenario where a team which has already been
> > eliminated, 'helps' out another team whose NRR *is* substantially
improved
> > with the above change, allowing it to advance and thereby screwing up
> > another team's chances.
>
> how is this different from a team "helping" by allowing the other team
> to say, score 500 runs?
Not different in intent at all. Which do you believe is more likely to be
put under the microscope under existing match fixing covenants in the CoC?
> what is different in the above case is that
> a team might increase its *own* chances by forfeiting a match,
> not someone else's chances.
>
Yes, but still unfair. If it is unfair to allow a team to increase its own
chances, it is also unfair for a team to decrease (via selection) another
(uninvolved) team's chances, using the *same mechanism* of a forfeit, in a
premeditated fashion.
Nikhil R Devanur
> Nikhil R Devanur <nik...@cc.gatech.edu> decided to say:
>>
>>I think, as of now, the forfeited matches are just ignored
>>for calculating the NRR. However, as some have pointed out,
>>a team might forfeit a match just to improve its NRR.
> This is, of course, ridiculous. You cannot *improve* an NRR by not
> playing. You could take the view that you are going to lose the match
as sripathi pointed out, i meant 'a team might forfeit a match not to worsen its NRR'
> anyway, and that therefore giving up the points but preserving your
> NRR as it was is likely to be slightly advantageous, but really, if a
> team is trying to qualify for the next stage of a competition by
> deliberately losing but preserving the run rate, they deserve
> everything they get if the other match turns out unexpectedly and they
> lose the competition anyway.
i dunno what exactly do you mean by the 'other match'.
but to be particular, suppose, just suppose, that you are playing
the last match of the round, and even if you lose, you get into the next
stage, provided you maintain your runrate. in such a scenario, you might
forfeit a match, rather than risk losing it by a big margin.
>>
>>The right thing to do, IMHO, is to consider that the forfeiting
>>team scored 0 runs off 50 overs, and the other team scored a run off 1
>>ball. It would be interesting to see what effect this has on the NRRs of
>>NZ, ENG, ZIM and KEN.
> The right thing to do is not change the rules of the competition once
> it's started.
correct me if i am wrong, the rules do not specifically say what happens to the
NRR in case of forfeits.
Nikhil R Devanur
> "Nikhil R Devanur" <nik...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> > Surely you can imagine a scenario where a team which has already been
>> > eliminated, 'helps' out another team whose NRR *is* substantially
> improved
>> > with the above change, allowing it to advance and thereby screwing up
>> > another team's chances.
>>
>> how is this different from a team "helping" by allowing the other team
>> to say, score 500 runs?
> Not different in intent at all. Which do you believe is more likely to be
> put under the microscope under existing match fixing covenants in the CoC?
>> what is different in the above case is that
>> a team might increase its *own* chances by forfeiting a match,
>> not someone else's chances.
>>
> Yes, but still unfair. If it is unfair to allow a team to increase its own
> chances, it is also unfair for a team to decrease (via selection) another
> (uninvolved) team's chances, using the *same mechanism* of a forfeit, in a
> premeditated fashion.
yes, i agree, but the point is you can do the latter even without *the mechanism*,
whereas you cannot do the former (now don't tell me that you can do the former
by playing well :)
again, it is *hopeless* to prevent the latter. why, you might help the other team
by just forfeiting, forget the NRR.
but being able to increase one's own chances by non-cricketing means is a "bad" thing.
Shripathi Kamath
Ok, I won't tell you that. It is a fair point.
But the point I am making is that you are introducing a new rule which can
do two things:
a. Make it impossible for a team to avoid worsening its NRR thru
non-cricketing means.
b. Make it possible for a team to worsen an uninvolved team's chances that
are hinged upon NRR.
The fact you can do one of them (b), independent of your rule does not give
your rule the tie-breaker. You are solving one problem, and adding another
one. A sum-zero gain.
> why, you might help the other team
> by just forfeiting, forget the NRR.
>
True, but you might the help the team more given your rules. [Example being
FIFA World Cup 1978, Argentina won on a better goal difference (read NRR),
when it *looked* like its opponent forfeited. A win alone would not have
done it for Argentina.]
> but being able to increase one's own chances by non-cricketing means is a
"bad" thing.
>
>
Yes. There are plenty of things that already do so. Artificial control of
the run rate in a match as was done by NZ (?) and allegedly done by the
Aussies in the VB series, etc.
My last take.
Nikhil R Devanur
>> yes, i agree, but the point is you can do the latter even without *the
> mechanism*,
>> whereas you cannot do the former (now don't tell me that you can do the
> former
>> by playing well :)
>> again, it is *hopeless* to prevent the latter.
> Ok, I won't tell you that. It is a fair point.
> But the point I am making is that you are introducing a new rule which can
> do two things:
> a. Make it impossible for a team to avoid worsening its NRR thru
> non-cricketing means.
> b. Make it possible for a team to worsen an uninvolved team's chances that
> are hinged upon NRR.
> The fact you can do one of them (b), independent of your rule does not give
> your rule the tie-breaker. You are solving one problem, and adding another
> one. A sum-zero gain.
read what you have written above. if you don't find a contradiction,
i can't help you.
>> why, you might help the other team
>> by just forfeiting, forget the NRR.
>>
> True, but you might the help the team more given your rules. [Example being
there is no "more": what can be done with the rules can be done without
as well.
> FIFA World Cup 1978, Argentina won on a better goal difference (read NRR),
> when it *looked* like its opponent forfeited. A win alone would not have
> done it for Argentina.]
i don't know what exactly happened, and i don't understand what you mean by
"looked like its opponent forfeited", are we confusing the term forfeited here?
anyway, i dont think this is the main issue.
>> but being able to increase one's own chances by non-cricketing means is a
> "bad" thing.
>>
>>
> Yes. There are plenty of things that already do so. Artificial control of
> the run rate in a match as was done by NZ (?) and allegedly done by the
> Aussies in the VB series, etc.
IMHO, they are cricketing means.
> My last take.
mine as well: you *cannot* prevent a team deliberately losing/forfeiting
in order to screw some other team. what more, this is a lot less likely
to happen than a team trying to help itself.
'nuff said.
Takle
"Mike" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:b3e9nq$9j3$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d96l5v0kc4db4r27k...@4ax.com...
>
> > This is, of course, ridiculous. You cannot *improve* an NRR by not
> > playing. You could take the view that you are going to lose the match
> > anyway, and that therefore giving up the points but preserving your
> > NRR as it was is likely to be slightly advantageous, but really, if a
> > team is trying to qualify for the next stage of a competition by
> > deliberately losing but preserving the run rate, they deserve
> > everything they get if the other match turns out unexpectedly and they
> > lose the competition anyway.
>
> You miss a simple, but to me, very obvious point. Kenya beat NZ
> and Zim beat Eng , maybe because of one side not showing up,
> but Ken and ZIM still won the game, never the less. One expects
> the winning side to have a positive impact on NRR compared to
> the losing side, the fact that this did not happens is wrong
Not wrong, just unusual.
WI beat RSA, but their NRR from the match was negative.
Still, I'd like to see teams (in future tournaments, of course) lose NRR
points for skipping games. Or else teams could start giving Australia
a walkover in the hope of preserving a respectable NRR.
James Annan
While it seems attractive to penalise the losers, it's hard to see how
to benefit the winners without giving them an unfair advantage over
their other rivals. After all, they didn't even have to turn up and
win the game. In the current competition, there seems no grounds for
retrospectively changing the rules, and (as it happens) the teams that
have forfeited their games have almost certainly both lost 4 points
and a decent NRR advantage too. I agree that the theoretical
possibility of a strategic forfeit so as to avoid the risk of a heavy
defeat is a possible problem, but in any case surely it's much less
likely than a bit of back-room fixing to set up a narrow loss. Given
that points from all matches get carried through, you'd have to be
pretty desperate to set up a forfeit rather than take your chances of
a rainy day or an upset.
James
Take it easy
vri...@excite.com says...
>
> "Mike" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:b3e9nq$9j3$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > "Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:d96l5v0kc4db4r27k...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > This is, of course, ridiculous. You cannot *improve* an NRR by not
> > > playing. You could take the view that you are going to lose the match
> > > anyway, and that therefore giving up the points but preserving your
> > > NRR as it was is likely to be slightly advantageous, but really, if a
> > > team is trying to qualify for the next stage of a competition by
> > > deliberately losing but preserving the run rate, they deserve
> > > everything they get if the other match turns out unexpectedly and they
> > > lose the competition anyway.
> >
> > You miss a simple, but to me, very obvious point. Kenya beat NZ
> > and Zim beat Eng , maybe because of one side not showing up,
> > but Ken and ZIM still won the game, never the less. One expects
> > the winning side to have a positive impact on NRR compared to
> > the losing side, the fact that this did not happens is wrong
>
> Not wrong, just unusual.
> WI beat RSA, but their NRR from the match was negative.
Are you sure? I guess the number of overs for RSA should be 50 even
though they were allowed only 49 overs. Can anybody confirm that?
Takeiteasy.
Andrew Dunford
"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c96ea403.03022...@posting.google.com...
Indeed. We'll have an idea of quite how desperate when we know how much NZ
is fined for not fulfilling the fixture in Nairobi.
Andrew
Richard Edlin
It's not as simple a point as the rule of law. Changing rules half way
through a competition is unjust, even where it is done to address an
injustice. I'm not even sure your solution would correct injustice.
NRR is calculated on games played. The Ken-NZ game was won by walkover
without a ball bowled - the "game" wasn't played. Whilst I think NZ should
have played in Kenya (but understand why they didn't), the likelihood is
that they would have beaten Kenya and done it well. In all probability, NZ
lost 4 points and *have already lost* in their NRR. The "punishment" is
already included.
There is, for the future, a question to be raised about teams pulling out of
final games when a definite underdog in order to preserve their net run
rate. At such a point the tournament directors should have the ability to
assign a punishment of 50 overs and no runs. Note, however, that:
1) This scenario didn't apply for either NZ v Kenya nor England v Zimbabwe
2) No provisions appear to exist in the tournament rules for this. The
decision not to reschedule these games - which was the major factor in the
forfeit in both cases - was made on the basis of these tournament rules.
Why, then, is it just to follow the rules in one instance but not another?
(Are those calling for further punishment more interested in benefiting
certain teams who have had more difficulty than they thought in qualifying?)
3) If, by forfeiting, 50 overs can be added to another team's NRR and
improve their chances, there is a possibility to forfeit precisely in order
to benefit your opposition over a third team. Australia, for instance,
should safely qualify for the semi finals from this point. They could
seriously harm and possibly knock out a serious rival (say India) by gifting
a weaker team (England :-) ) four points and an improved NRR.
Richard.
R. Bharat Rao
> Not wrong, just unusual.
> WI beat RSA, but their NRR from the match was negative.
> Still, I'd like to see teams (in future tournaments, of course) lose NRR
> points for skipping games. Or else teams could start giving Australia
> a walkover in the hope of preserving a respectable NRR.
A simpler fix -- which requires NO monkeying with NRR, is to make
the 2nd tie-breaker (immediately after head-to-head, and before NRR)
is # of matches forfieted. (I.e., in the event of a 3 way tie,
where all 3 teams are 1-1 against each other, and one of the
teams forfeited a game, the forfeiting team gets booted on the
second tie-breaker -- NRR only comes into play if no forfeit's
were recorded.... If you wanted to really penalize teams for
forfeiting games, you could make it the *FIRST* tie-breaker,
even before head-to-head, but I think that is going too far --
but it certainly make a team think twice about forfeiting
any game...)
Mike
"Richard Edlin" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3fj7h$gls$1...@hermes.shef.ac.uk...
> NRR is calculated on games played. The Ken-NZ game was won by walkover
> without a ball bowled - the "game" wasn't played.
Sorry the game was played , and Kenya won by default because NZ
never turned up. The game not being played would be because of
rain etc. NZ forfitted the game, ie they lost. Very different to not
playing and sharing the spoils. No impact on NRR implies sharing
the spoils.
Cheers
Mike
Andrew Dunford
You're splitting hairs. Where Richard wrote "NRR is calculated on games
played" he might well have used "NRR is calculated on actual overs bowled".
How exactly does one team being awarded four points and the other none
amount to "sharing the spoils"? Which is more important, the points or some
artificial net run rate calculation?
Andrew
Nikhil R Devanur
> "Mike" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:b3e9nq$9j3$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> You miss a simple, but to me, very obvious point. Kenya beat NZ
>> and Zim beat Eng , maybe because of one side not showing up,
>> but Ken and ZIM still won the game, never the less. One expects
>> the winning side to have a positive impact on NRR compared to
>> the losing side, the fact that this did not happens is wrong and
>> skews the run rate in favour of the teams that lost. If it comes
>> down to NRR that decides betw Ken and NZ, the fact that
>> NZ lost the match without any impact on their NRR, is grossly
>> unfair.
> It's not as simple a point as the rule of law. Changing rules half way
> through a competition is unjust, even where it is done to address an
> injustice. I'm not even sure your solution would correct injustice.
> NRR is calculated on games played. The Ken-NZ game was won by walkover
> without a ball bowled - the "game" wasn't played. Whilst I think NZ should
no, the rules say only matches where a result was achieved should be considered
for the NRR. That means they are excluding matches abandoned due to rain, etc
and not matches forfeited.
so i am not changing the rules, and hence there is no injustice in that sense.
moreover, the solution i suggested did not arise from my whim or fantasy.
it is simply the "worst case scenario".
> have played in Kenya (but understand why they didn't), the likelihood is
> that they would have beaten Kenya and done it well. In all probability, NZ
> lost 4 points and *have already lost* in their NRR. The "punishment" is
> already included.
ok, in all probability, Kenya would have lost.
But can you guarantee me a 100% that NZ would have won?
is there no chance that Kenya might have won?
why don't we just give the cup to australia, because,
in all probability, australia will win the world cup.
> There is, for the future, a question to be raised about teams pulling out of
> final games when a definite underdog in order to preserve their net run
> rate. At such a point the tournament directors should have the ability to
> assign a punishment of 50 overs and no runs. Note, however, that:
> 1) This scenario didn't apply for either NZ v Kenya nor England v Zimbabwe
> 2) No provisions appear to exist in the tournament rules for this. The
> decision not to reschedule these games - which was the major factor in the
> forfeit in both cases - was made on the basis of these tournament rules.
> Why, then, is it just to follow the rules in one instance but not another?
> (Are those calling for further punishment more interested in benefiting
> certain teams who have had more difficulty than they thought in qualifying?)
> 3) If, by forfeiting, 50 overs can be added to another team's NRR and
> improve their chances, there is a possibility to forfeit precisely in order
> to benefit your opposition over a third team. Australia, for instance,
> should safely qualify for the semi finals from this point. They could
> seriously harm and possibly knock out a serious rival (say India) by gifting
> a weaker team (England :-) ) four points and an improved NRR.
ok, even though you do not say it aloud, what you are doing here is accusing
me that the motivation for the above scheme is my nationality.
so should i conclude that the only reason you are opposing it is your nationality?
samarth harish shah
It's interesting that everyone seems to be coming around to the view that
forfeiting a game must cost the team doing it more than just loss of
points. This was the very point Dalmiya was making!! He went a bit too far
in suggesting that the forfeiting team be *docked* 4 points. But, IIRC,
that was only a corollary to his main point, which was that forfeiting a
game must cost a team more than a mere loss of points. A point which some
RSC posters vehemently opposed at the time, suggesting on the contrary,
that a loss of points was punishment enough.
Sometimes I think Dalmiya's suggestions are scoffed at simply because it
is Dalmiya who is making them.
-Samarth.
Mike Holmans
>On 25 Feb 2003, R. Bharat Rao wrote:
>
>> "Takle" <vri...@excite.com> wrote in message news:<dCB6a.141002$x9.34...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>> > Not wrong, just unusual.
>> > WI beat RSA, but their NRR from the match was negative.
>> > Still, I'd like to see teams (in future tournaments, of course) lose NRR
>> > points for skipping games. Or else teams could start giving Australia
>> > a walkover in the hope of preserving a respectable NRR.
>>
>> A simpler fix -- which requires NO monkeying with NRR, is to make
>> the 2nd tie-breaker (immediately after head-to-head, and before NRR)
>> is # of matches forfieted. (I.e., in the event of a 3 way tie,
>> where all 3 teams are 1-1 against each other, and one of the
>> teams forfeited a game, the forfeiting team gets booted on the
>> second tie-breaker -- NRR only comes into play if no forfeit's
>> were recorded.... If you wanted to really penalize teams for
>> forfeiting games, you could make it the *FIRST* tie-breaker,
>> even before head-to-head, but I think that is going too far --
>> but it certainly make a team think twice about forfeiting
>> any game...)
>
>It's interesting that everyone seems to be coming around to the view that
>forfeiting a game must cost the team doing it more than just loss of
>points.
Your definition of "everyone" is one of the most interesting things
about that sentence.
Cheers,
Mike
Andrew Dunford
Pretty much what I was about to say.
As far as I can see (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) a decent
proportion of those who think the current rules re. forfeiture of a match
should be changed are India supporters, while those opposing their
suggestions are mainly from NZ or England. There must be just a whiff of a
possibility of parochialism on both sides.
Andrew
dri...@inorbit.com
If Pak had forfeited England match, PAK's NRR would be better.
Same holds true for India v Aus
R. Bharat Rao
> > Your definition of "everyone" is one of the most interesting things
> > about that sentence.
>
> Pretty much what I was about to say.
>
> As far as I can see (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) a decent
> proportion of those who think the current rules re. forfeiture of a match
> should be changed are India supporters, while those opposing their
> suggestions are mainly from NZ or England. There must be just a whiff of a
> possibility of parochialism on both sides.
>
> Andrew
Now who is generalizing:-)
Personally, I've always been anti forfeits, and believe that additional
penalties for forfeiture are called for -- beyond the loss of points.
But, I certainly am willing to accept that loss of points alone is
sufficient penalty -- its just not my preference.
My belief has nothing to do with the fact that forfeitures can be
manipulated (for instance, in the way Brain Rose's famous 0 for 0
declared was certainly within the rules, but contrary to the
intentions). See below for an example of where forfeiture can help
a team...
Anyway, I think I posted on this at least a couple of years ago --
in fact, when I set up the rules for our local cricket League
Saturday competition, I added a penalty of minus 2 for forfeitures.
(The problem was that the Sat. League was in addition to our main
Sunday league, and teams that had qualfied for the Sat League
playoffs, often just didn't show up for their final game, if they
were already through, and playing their last game against a team
that couldn't go through -- so no carryover of points.) This is,
IMO, to extreme for WCup, but something is warranted.
Personally, I think the name of the game is to play cricket. Its
one thing to refuse to tour a particular nation due to safety /
govt. policy etc in the ICC Test Competition (though I'd advocate
penalties there as well -- but I suspect no one would care). Its
another to forfeit games in a tourney where you are sharing in
the joint wealth and thus have a responsibility to play all the
games (which go into the overall revenue).
So it is my opinion, that in a World Cup where the governing body
(ICC) has approved, I think some additional penalties are called
for. (Let me be clear -- NOT in THIS WORLD CUP -- but in future
World Cups. Here, the only reasonable solution is to ignore the
forfeited game in NRR computations.)
Just for intellectual curiousity, here is a situation where forfeits
can be manipulated to a team's advantage. In the very last game of
the qualifying round. Team E plays the final game of the round-robin
against Team A, a big favorite.
Team A has qualified for the Super Six, and Team E is in a 3-way
tie with Team I and Team P for one (or two) of the 3 spots to go
through. These 3 teams are tied 1-1 in head-to-head, and those
two teams (obviously) have played all their games. As the NRR
currently stands, Team E is fractionally ahead on NRR, but if their
NRR dropped any further, they would fail to go through.
So Team E forfeits against Team A -- perfectly legal within the rules --
and goes through to the Super Six. I'm not saying this would happen,
but here is a reason to additionally penalize forfeits.
(I agree with Mike though that all forfeits should be treated equally;
the question of trying to determine "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable"
forfeits does not arise. In my book, from a legal point of view
(not a moral point of view), it is just as reasonable for a team to
forfeit a game for a political protest / safety reasons, as it is
is to gain an advantage in NRR. Obviously, morally I would support
one and not the other, but the ICC cannot get into a situation
where it has to determine whether a forfeit is valid or not.)
Again, just my $0.02 -- but I think additional penalties are called
for, and don't think it has anything to do with the nationalities
of the countries involved in THIS World Cup...
Bharat
Mike Holmans
>So Team E forfeits against Team A -- perfectly legal within the rules --
>and goes through to the Super Six. I'm not saying this would happen,
>but here is a reason to additionally penalize forfeits.
>
>(I agree with Mike though that all forfeits should be treated equally;
>the question of trying to determine "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable"
>forfeits does not arise. In my book, from a legal point of view
>(not a moral point of view), it is just as reasonable for a team to
>forfeit a game for a political protest / safety reasons, as it is
>is to gain an advantage in NRR. Obviously, morally I would support
>one and not the other, but the ICC cannot get into a situation
>where it has to determine whether a forfeit is valid or not.)
That's going to seem awfully hard on a team which has failed to fulfil
a fixture because they do not have eleven fit players.
And once you allow a health exemption, you've let everyone through,
because there is no way of legitimating the claim that 8 members of
the squad have gone down with terrible stomach pains after last
night's dodgy prawns.
What you are in fact trying to say is that if a team fails to fulfil a
fixture for what that team considers excellent reasons and the people
who decide that their so-called excuse isn't good enough are mostly
maintaining their position because they don't want to upset the
advertisers and sponsors, then the team really shouldn't have bothered
coming at all, because you are not content that they have been
punished enough for upsetting Murdoch or the Indian corporates.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike
> You're splitting hairs. Where Richard wrote "NRR is calculated on games
> played" he might well have used "NRR is calculated on actual overs
bowled".
No, I am not splitting hairs. If you lose a match, it is a given than the
winning
side will have a better impact on NRR than the losing side. If you can lose
without any detriment to your run rate, then the losing side have gained
an unfair advantage. Imagine Kenya have to play their last match against
a top side they have no hope of winning, but they also no on their current
points tally, NRR is crucial, they are better of forfeighting the game.
> How exactly does one team being awarded four points and the other none
> amount to "sharing the spoils"? Which is more important, the points or
some
> artificial net run rate calculation?
Both are an issue, if their is no effect on NRR then in that aspect, they
are
sharing the spoils. Both are important, if the decision of who goes through
to the Super 6 comes down to NRR betw NZ and Kenya, this is
a perfect example of how important it is.
Cheers
Mike
Mike
> That's going to seem awfully hard on a team which has failed to fulfil
> a fixture because they do not have eleven fit players.
The chances of this happening in a WC must be pretty near zero.
Cheers
Mike
Andrew Dunford
>
> "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:pyS6a.163$8b.3...@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> > You're splitting hairs. Where Richard wrote "NRR is calculated on games
> > played" he might well have used "NRR is calculated on actual overs
> bowled".
>
> No, I am not splitting hairs. If you lose a match, it is a given than the
> winning
> side will have a better impact on NRR than the losing side.
That's true (apart from the pathological case in the opening match of the
tournament when WI won the match but recorded a negative NRR because South
Africa faced only 49 overs).
However, it isn't necessarily true that the winning side's net run rate will
necessarily improve. We have been shown (in another thread) the example
that England can beat Australia yet still see their own NRR drop in the
process.
> If you can lose
> without any detriment to your run rate, then the losing side have gained
> an unfair advantage. Imagine Kenya have to play their last match against
> a top side they have no hope of winning, but they also no on their current
> points tally, NRR is crucial, they are better of forfeighting the game.
>
> > How exactly does one team being awarded four points and the other none
> > amount to "sharing the spoils"? Which is more important, the points or
> some
> > artificial net run rate calculation?
>
> Both are an issue, if their is no effect on NRR then in that aspect, they
> are
> sharing the spoils. Both are important
Granted. But not equally important.
, if the decision of who goes through
> to the Super 6 comes down to NRR betw NZ and Kenya, this is
> a perfect example of how important it is.
Is it? In the scenario you paint, the NRR comparison is only invoked if the
teams can't be separated by other countback methods (points, head-to-head
wins). In both those cases Kenya has had the benefit of the four points
awarded for NZ forfeiture. Falling back on a direct comparison of the
cricket both sides have actually played against the same set of opponents
doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me.
Andrew
samarth harish shah
Space here for number of times teams have forfeited ODIs due to
insufficient number of fit players:. Mike Holmans now has to make
forfeiting ODI tournament games sound like some routine thing now that
England has done it.
Even if it does happen that a team cannot play because it does not have 11
fit players, it would constitute an *inability* to play *forced* upon the
team. Rather than a conscious decision to forfeit (albeit given a Hobson's
choice), even whilst being perfectly able to do so.
-Samarth.
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
>
>
Ashok
>
>However, it isn't necessarily true that the winning side's net run rate will
>necessarily improve. We have been shown (in another thread) the example
>that England can beat Australia yet still see their own NRR drop in the
>process.
I must have missed that (the discussion is scattered over too many
threads). Can you post an excerpt or at least recollect the subject
of the thread?
>, if the decision of who goes through
>> to the Super 6 comes down to NRR betw NZ and Kenya, this is
>> a perfect example of how important it is.
>
>Is it? In the scenario you paint, the NRR comparison is only invoked if the
>teams can't be separated by other countback methods (points, head-to-head
>wins). In both those cases Kenya has had the benefit of the four points
>awarded for NZ forfeiture. Falling back on a direct comparison of the
>cricket both sides have actually played against the same set of opponents
>doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me.
>
>Andrew
Two-way ties never involve run rate; it's three-way (and higher) ties
that do. In these cases, it is invalid to compare a subset of teams
(two teams) in isolation.
For the issue of NRR for forfeit games to be important, it is not
necessary that both the concerned teams are involved in the NRR
comparison. e.g., Kenya is not in the picture and the NRR comparison
is among NZ, SA, and SL.
Ashok
Shripathi Kamath
"Ashok" <adhar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3jve...@enews3.newsguy.com...
<snip>
> Two-way ties never involve run rate; it's three-way (and higher) ties
> that do. In these cases, it is invalid to compare a subset of teams
> (two teams) in isolation.
>
What happens if two teams are tied for the 3rd spot, and their match against
each other was abandoned due to rain?
<snip>
Andrew Dunford
"Shripathi Kamath" <firstnam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ULf7a.1995$Pa.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
They'd go to net run rate, as presumably would be the case if the match was
tied. Then if necessary higher number of wickets taken per balls bowled,
then drawing lots.
The other point seldom mentioned here (perhaps because it's unlikely to
occur) is that the *first* tie-breaker for teams with equal points is number
of wins in the group matches. This would come into effect if one team with
16 points from four victories is tied with another which has won three
matches and had two abandoned (or tied).
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
adun...@artifaxsoftware.com says...
> >
> >However, it isn't necessarily true that the winning side's net run rate
will
> >necessarily improve. We have been shown (in another thread) the example
> >that England can beat Australia yet still see their own NRR drop in the
> >process.
>
> I must have missed that (the discussion is scattered over too many
> threads).
Isn't it just.
Can you post an excerpt or at least recollect the subject
> of the thread?
England's current NRR:
for: 830/173.2 (4.788)
against: 743/200 (3.715)
NRR: +1.073
assume England 225 defeats Australia 200
England's final NRR:
for: 1055/223.2 (4.723)
against: 943/250 (3.772)
NRR: +0.951
> >, if the decision of who goes through
> >> to the Super 6 comes down to NRR betw NZ and Kenya, this is
> >> a perfect example of how important it is.
> >
> >Is it? In the scenario you paint, the NRR comparison is only invoked if
the
> >teams can't be separated by other countback methods (points, head-to-head
> >wins). In both those cases Kenya has had the benefit of the four points
> >awarded for NZ forfeiture. Falling back on a direct comparison of the
> >cricket both sides have actually played against the same set of opponents
> >doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me.
> >
> >Andrew
>
> Two-way ties never involve run rate; it's three-way (and higher) ties
> that do. In these cases, it is invalid to compare a subset of teams
> (two teams) in isolation.
True (apart from the anomalies mentioned by Mr Kamath).
> For the issue of NRR for forfeit games to be important, it is not
> necessary that both the concerned teams are involved in the NRR
> comparison. e.g., Kenya is not in the picture and the NRR comparison
> is among NZ, SA, and SL.
Again true. But I stand by my previous comment: what's wrong with a direct
comparison of the cricket all three sides have played against the same set
of opponents?
Andrew
Craig Sutton
>
> Again true. But I stand by my previous comment: what's wrong with a
direct
> comparison of the cricket all three sides have played against the same set
> of opponents?
>
> Andrew
>
Bugger all that whatever happend to deciding things by the toss of a coin
Myk Cameron
Canada could be odds-on to win the tournament in that case, if they
trained with their soccer team.
Myk
Richard Edlin
> Richard Edlin <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mike" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:b3e9nq$9j3$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > have played in Kenya (but understand why they didn't), the likelihood is
> > that they would have beaten Kenya and done it well. In all probability,
NZ
> > lost 4 points and *have already lost* in their NRR. The "punishment" is
> > already included.
> ok, in all probability, Kenya would have lost.
yes.
> But can you guarantee me a 100% that NZ would have won?
I didn't claim it was a 100% probability. I think you'll find that the
Kenyans would prefer the 4 points they currently have to playing a game with
NZ ...
> is there no chance that Kenya might have won?
> why don't we just give the cup to australia, because,
> in all probability, australia will win the world cup.
You have a point here?
> > 3) If, by forfeiting, 50 overs can be added to another team's NRR and
> > improve their chances, there is a possibility to forfeit precisely in
order
> > to benefit your opposition over a third team. Australia, for instance,
> > should safely qualify for the semi finals from this point. They could
> > seriously harm and possibly knock out a serious rival (say India) by
gifting
> > a weaker team (England :-) ) four points and an improved NRR.
> ok, even though you do not say it aloud, what you are doing here is
accusing
> me that the motivation for the above scheme is my nationality.
I'm not actually. I was trolling for an Englishman in the example: Aussie
isn't actually in a position where it would make any substantial difference
to them.
> so should i conclude that the only reason you are opposing it is your
nationality?
Well, it's partially true!
Richard.
R. Bharat Rao
> That's going to seem awfully hard on a team which has failed to fulfil
> a fixture because they do not have eleven fit players.
I think there is a distinction between inability to play the game,
and failing to do so even when you are perfectly capable.
> And once you allow a health exemption, you've let everyone through,
> because there is no way of legitimating the claim that 8 members of
> the squad have gone down with terrible stomach pains after last
> night's dodgy prawns.
Not at all. Lets say a team fakes a health exemption (or you suspect
they do) and is miraculously better for their next scheduled game --
simply offer to reschedule the game. Now if they come down with
dodgy shrimp the second time around, they deserve an extra penalty,
if only on the grounds of stupidity.
If on the other hand they play no more games (they are eliminated)
then the additional docked points hardly matter do they?
But the above is irrelevant - its what you say below that I take issue with.
> What you are in fact trying to say is that if a team fails to fulfil a
> fixture for what that team considers excellent reasons and the people
> who decide that their so-called excuse isn't good enough are mostly
> maintaining their position because they don't want to upset the
> advertisers and sponsors, then the team really shouldn't have bothered
> coming at all, because you are not content that they have been
> punished enough for upsetting Murdoch or the Indian corporates.
Don't be putting words there in my mouth, Mike:-)
I am against forfeiture, pure and simple. I respect your right to
do it, but if you do, I think an extra penalty (beyond the 4 points)
is called for. The financial implications are only a minor part of
the deal -- I really don't care so much for that -- it is the fact
that by participating in the WCup, you implicitly agree to play in
all aspects of the tourney that to me seems to be the key.
I, in fact, don't think financial penalties should be levied. I think
you just penalize extra points, or simply use that as a second tie
breaker. IMO, this is just as valid a position as "the 4 points is
enough" -- you assume that the forfeiture is equivalent to a loss,
I think it should be more than that -- if only a smidgen (make forfeits
part of tie-breakers).
It has absolutely NOTHING with Dalmiya, the nationalities currently
forfeiting games in WC, my ethnicicity (did I spell that correctly?),
or the phase of the moon.
I was one of the few Indians against the boycott of Ind-Pak cricket,
and think it is ludicrous to play them in hockey, but not in cricket.
I'm probably one of a handful, who thinks that if we boycott Pak,
we then should not play them in the World Cup on principle, even if
it keeps us out of the Super Six, or we come up against them in
the Finals. (That is IF we boycott Pak -- I don't think we should.)
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Cheers, Hope to see you this summer...
Bharat
Lenin Maran
news:49ee1537.03022...@posting.google.com...
>
> Cheers, Hope to see you this summer...
back either in Boston or NJ with nobody around face to face?
Peace,
Lenin
Nikhil R Devanur
> "Nikhil R Devanur" <nik...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
>> But can you guarantee me a 100% that NZ would have won?
>> is there no chance that Kenya might have won?
> I didn't claim it was a 100% probability.
that is the point. there is a chance that NZ would have lost.
since it is the NZ that forfeited the game, u just assume the worst-case
scenario from NZ point of view, viz., 0 runs of 50 overs.
> I think you'll find that the
> Kenyans would prefer the 4 points they currently have to playing a game with
> NZ ...
not if kenya get eliminated on NRR.
even worse is ZIM-ENG. I think ZIM had a decent chance against
ENG. Again, if ZIM gets eliminated on NRR, they have the right to
complain.
>> why don't we just give the cup to australia, because,
>> in all probability, australia will win the world cup.
> You have a point here?
yes.
it is that "in all probability" doesn't mean shit.
J
> I think, as of now, the forfeited matches are just ignored
> for calculating the NRR. However, as some have pointed out,
> a team might forfeit a match just to improve its NRR.
>
> The right thing to do, IMHO, is to consider that the forfeiting
> team scored 0 runs off 50 overs, and the other team scored a run off 1
> ball. It would be interesting to see what effect this has on the NRRs of
> NZ, ENG, ZIM and KEN.
How about this scenario
Advani issues a statement that pakistan is terrorist state, blah blah...
india forfeit pak game
eng beats aus (hey its a hypothetical scenario :) )
pak beats zim
3 way tie between ind pak eng, but ind and eng qualify by NRR.
The Dalmiya are r listening?
J
J
Actually same holds for any team after a loss :)
J
Ashok
>> >However, it isn't necessarily true that the winning side's net run rate
>will
>> >necessarily improve. We have been shown (in another thread) the example
>> >that England can beat Australia yet still see their own NRR drop in the
>> >process.
>Can you post an excerpt or at least recollect the subject
>> of the thread?
>
>England's current NRR:
>for: 830/173.2 (4.788)
>against: 743/200 (3.715)
>NRR: +1.073
>
>assume England 225 defeats Australia 200
>
>England's final NRR:
>for: 1055/223.2 (4.723)
>against: 943/250 (3.772)
>NRR: +0.951
Thanks. Yes, it is an "average" concept. If any team's
exisitng NRR is positive and if the team's new
single-match NRR is less than that, its new NRR
goes down, although it won the match.
>>
>> Two-way ties never involve run rate; it's three-way (and higher) ties
>> that do. In these cases, it is invalid to compare a subset of teams
>> (two teams) in isolation.
>
>True (apart from the anomalies mentioned by Mr Kamath).
>
>> For the issue of NRR for forfeit games to be important, it is not
>> necessary that both the concerned teams are involved in the NRR
>> comparison. e.g., Kenya is not in the picture and the NRR comparison
>> is among NZ, SA, and SL.
>
>Again true. But I stand by my previous comment: what's wrong with a direct
>comparison of the cricket all three sides have played against the same set
>of opponents?
>
>Andrew
The same problem resurfaces; one of the teams--in the above example,
NZ--would have one fewer opponent than SA and SL. It could be unfair
to SA and SL to ignore their Kenya results in computing NRR. Dumping
the foreitor--Bharat Rao's suggestion--would work in this example,
but what would one do if KE, SL, and SA are involved in NRR comparison?
Some of the discussion in the thread shows signs of prejudice on
account of the identity of the teams involved (Kenya and NZ). It
would be better to pose the question neutrally: how to deal with
all the ramifications in case of a forfeit? I think I have a
solution, but I better wait till after the tournament!
Ashok
R. Bharat Rao
Eh??? I don't recall planning any meeting in Boston or NJ (maybe
I was planning to meet the Bajan in Boston, but thats about it,
and was 8-odd years ago at least).
As for this summer, I'm going to London and Mike's coming to the
US -- it seems at pretty much exactly the same time, which makes
it tough to meet, unless either of our schedules change:-)
Bharat
Andrew Dunford
Ah, I'd overlooked that. Yes, we're back where we started.
> It could be unfair
> to SA and SL to ignore their Kenya results in computing NRR. Dumping
> the foreitor--Bharat Rao's suggestion--would work in this example,
> but what would one do if KE, SL, and SA are involved in NRR comparison?
>
> Some of the discussion in the thread shows signs of prejudice on
> account of the identity of the teams involved (Kenya and NZ).
Touche. I surrender, I'll get my coat etc.
> It
> would be better to pose the question neutrally: how to deal with
> all the ramifications in case of a forfeit? I think I have a
> solution, but I better wait till after the tournament!
Putting my 'I hope for world peace' hat on for a moment, it would be ideal
if all of the matches were played.
Attempting to be neutral for a moment, I don't really have a problem with a
forfeiting team being 'penalised' beyond the match being awarded to the
other team. To some extent we get close to a point where we're saying "ok,
you might as well not bother showing up at all", but there are of course
financial implications involved.
The 'here and now' position should be that the rules (wrt net run rates for
forfeited matches) can't be changed in mid-tournament. However even this
argument is weakened by a lack of explicit definition in the Playing
Conditions.
Now putting the NZ Supporter hat back on, it's a bit frustrating. One
develops a sense of "in all likelihood we should really be walking into the
next round; we've already tied one hand behind our own backs, now you want
to tie the other one as well." All of which is just tough titty, frankly.
If the conviction of NZ players and officials to not play in Kenya is
genuine, then they're happy to put their safety ahead of qualification
concerns.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
If I could be so forward as to offer some advice, the "let's meet
mid-Atlantic at 30,000 feet" option may turn out to be not as convenient as
it first sounds.
Andrew
Aditya Basrur
No doubt you'll both be in business class, so try and get window seats. SMS
each other your seat numbers. Be prepared to wave during the fly-past.
Then again, there's always Gibraltar.
Aditya
Richard Edlin
> Richard Edlin <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Nikhil R Devanur" <nik...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
>
> >> But can you guarantee me a 100% that NZ would have won?
> >> is there no chance that Kenya might have won?
>
> > I didn't claim it was a 100% probability.
>
> that is the point. there is a chance that NZ would have lost.
> since it is the NZ that forfeited the game, u just assume the worst-case
> scenario from NZ point of view, viz., 0 runs of 50 overs.
>
> > I think you'll find that the
> > Kenyans would prefer the 4 points they currently have to playing a game
with
> > NZ ...
>
> not if kenya get eliminated on NRR.
I'm sure the NZ cricket team would be willing to play Kenya in SA to give
them the chance. Of course, the 4 points would have to be up for grabs :-)
> yes.
>
> it is that "in all probability" doesn't mean shit.
It does when you're arguing a special case.
Richard.
Aditya Basrur
"Craig Sutton" <suzXt...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:b3k91a$cbo$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
I think a much fairer method is to decide by the toss of something else.
I'm told that the winner is usually the one who hits the biscuit first.
Perhaps it's a private school thing, I don't know.
Aditya Basrur
Lenin Maran
>
> Eh??? I don't recall planning any meeting in Boston or NJ (maybe
> I was planning to meet the Bajan in Boston, but thats about it,
> and was 8-odd years ago at least).
Peace,
Lenin