New Delhi: New Zealand all-rounder Jimmy Neesham on Tuesday mocked International Cricket Council's (ICC) decision to scrap the boundary countback rule for deciding the winner of a match if the super over ends in a tie.
Neesham brought up the reference of Titanic and tweeted: "Next on the agenda: Better binoculars for the ice spotters on the Titanic".
Next on the agenda: Better binoculars for the Ice spotters on the Titanic https://t.co/nwUp4Ks3Mp— Jimmy Neesham (@JimmyNeesh) October 14, 2019
The ICC on Monday scrapped the boundary count rule and in case of a super over tie there will be a repeated super over until one team has more runs than the other.
Following on from a recommendation from the ICC Cricket Committee, the Chief Executives' Committee (CEC) agreed that the use of the super over as a way to decide results at ICC events will be retained. Both the Cricket Committee and CEC agreed it was an exciting and engaging conclusion to the game and will remain in place covering all games at both ODI and T20I World Cups.
Earlier this year, England scripted history as they claimed their first-ever World Cup title. The final will be remembered for ages as it did not have a winner after the 50-over and super over action, both of which were tied. In the end, England was announced as the winner as they had hit more boundaries, 26, as compared to New Zealand's 17 boundaries in the match.
New Zealand had set up 242 for England. As the hosts needed nine runs off three balls, all-rounder Ben Stokes hit the ball into the deep off Trent Boult and ran for a double. New Zealand's Martin Guptill threw the ball in an attempt to run out Stokes but the ball bounced off Stokes' bat and reached the boundary. As a result, England was awarded six runs - two for a double and four for an overthrow.
Former New Zealand batting coach Craig McMillan was similarly irked and he tweeted: "Bit late @icc".
Simon Taufel, who had umpired during the 2011 World Cup final, confirmed that the officiating umpires Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus made a mistake in awarding overthrow runs.
"There was a judgment error on the overthrow. The judgment error was the timing of when the fielder threw the ball. The act of the overthrow starts when the fielder releases the ball. That's the act. It becomes an overthrow from the instant of the throw," the Sydney Morning Herald had quoted Taufel as saying.