New Rule For T20 International: The Eliminator

[max_dillon2007]

Hi there everyone, i was just doing my usual surfing and then i stumbled upon something which i first read as Terminator,though it was eliminator. However,even Eliminator kinda word is pretty wierd when u read it on cricinfo so i clicked the link i was surprised to read that ICC had made a Change in T20 international rules related to the Tie. they hav replaced the Bowl Out with Eliminator. here it how it goes:



The eliminator


A tie is not a tie - not in Twenty20. And this is how it is resolved


January 13, 2009

Eliminator to go before I sleep: Sulieman Benn gets a single off the last ball to get a tie against New Zealand... but there is a decider to be played ? Getty Images



What is an eliminator?
It is the tiebreaker for Twenty20 internationals. In July 2008 the eliminator, also referred to as the Super Over, replaced the bowl-out as the official tool to separate teams that finish at the same score at the end of a completed Twenty20 game.

How does it work?
Both the teams get to play one over each after the match, and the team that wins that contest is the winner: in a way it's a One1 to resolve a Twenty20 tie.

How many players take part in the eliminator?
Both sides have to nominate three batsmen and one bowler each for the eliminator. A team can be bowled out in the traditional sense, if it loses two wickets. The bowler and batsmen, once nominated, cannot be changed. All the fielders take a part in the contest. The eliminator is played with the same fielding restrictions as those in place for the last over of a normal Twenty20 intenrational.

Is there a toss for the eliminator?
No. The team that batted second in the actual match bats first.

Is there a change in any of the other ground conditions?
The eliminator - conditions permitting - has to played on the same day, on the same pitch, with the umpires standing at the same ends as they finished the match, and with the ball that was in use at the end of the second innings. Both eliminator innings are played from the same end, which is chosen by the umpires. The usual cricket rules governing no-balls, wides etc apply to the eliminator overs.

What if the teams are tied at the end of the eliminator?
In case of a second tie, the total number of sixes hit - in the main match and in the eliminator - becomes the tiebreaker. If the teams are still tied, the team that has hit the most boundaries - fours and sixes - in the eliminator is declared the winner.

Has the need arisen for the eliminator so far?
Yes, the recent Twenty20 between New Zealand and West Indies in Auckland was a tie, and West Indies won the match after the eliminator. Chasing New Zealand's 155 for 7, West Indies managed 155 for 8. In the tiebreaker, Chris Gayle hit three sixes and a four to take West Indies to 25 for 1. Jacob Oram and Ross Taylor managed a six each, but both got out with two balls remaining.

Is the system here to stay?
The first experiment with the eliminator highlighted some inherent flaws. In the main match, both teams had managed seven sixes each. When New Zealand were bowled out in the eliminator, they had hit two sixes, as opposed to West Indies' three sixes and a four. Since they had two balls remaining and were 10 short of West Indies' total, New Zealand could well have tied the eliminator with a six and a four off those two deliveries - rendering the game a tie even after the eliminator.

New Zealand's captain, Daniel Vettori, is not a fan of the concept at any rate. "I think a tie's a tie," Vettori said after the game. "What's wrong with a tie? I have no issues with it."

? Cricinfo



So post your views on how this can affect result of the match.

max_dillon2007 added 3 Minutes and 22 Seconds later...

I am an indian fan,so i feel kinda safe with this rule. IMO, u gotta select 3 batsmen, india has Yuvraj,Sehwag,Dhoni for the job and either Zaheer or Ishant Can be bowler.
Basically it is an One1 match to resolve T20,so i would send Yuvi,he wud atleast cream 3 out of 6 balls for six.:happy

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Better than bowl out for sure.

 

[Leggie]

Can't really comment seeing as I haven't actually seen a 'Super Over' in process live yet. Sure it will better than the bowl out though, although the bowl was exciting, it just didn't seem very 'crickety' imo.

 

[srikarr12]

tbh it should be 6 batsmen and one bowler. This would create more tension and skill involved. The build up would be immense after the first over.

 

[max_dillon2007]

tbh it should be 6 batsmen and one bowler. This would create more tension and skill involved. The build up would be immense after the first over.

well 6 batsmen for 6 balls?: dude come on get realistic. didtnt you read it, it was just for 1 over. 3 batsmen for 6 ball gives bowling side a chance to bowl other team out even in super over. though i think it wud benefit india immensly:happy,coz of yuvi. just give yuvi a beer and then send him for six balls.

max_dillon2007 added 2 Minutes and 3 Seconds later...

I can understand why vettori isnt in favour of this rule. Kiwis were winning easily.It is just that W.I somehow managed to tie the match and then Chris gayle gone nuts, hit 3 six and a 4 to finish 25/1 in super over. so thus Kiwis managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Dare]

umm anyone watch the NZ vs WI 1st ODI. they used this thing, from what I saw the crowd was entertained.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Maybe there should be no such things. Keep points for run rates, wicket in hand, catches etc. If it's a tie, add up the points. One that has more points wins. If there's a tie still, just take one parameter out(catches for ex.), in order of importance.

The bowl-out or eliminator rules are a popular spectacle for sure, but they can be totally unfair to the teams playing.

 

[max_dillon2007]

The bowl-out or eliminator rules are a popular spectacle for sure, but they can be totally unfair to the teams playing.

I agree with u. Especially team fielding second wud feel as if they had been cheated.

 

[aussieopener13]

I reckon it could be one over, except 6 batsman face a ball each, with the next batsman at the non-strikers, for shots they need to run, and 6 separate bowlers bowl one ball each. It may be a little complicated, but think of itt this way. The winner will, normally be the team with a more consistent side, rather than one guy that can tonk everything.

I can understand why vettori hated it, especially with Gayle at the other end. I was a bowl-off fan myself, probably because I like Football

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I liked the bowl out...

This is fun too. I think the one ball per bowler and batsman would make it fairer.

 

[IloveGilly]

I liked the bowl out...

This is fun too. I think the one ball per bowler and batsman would make it fairer.

That would require a lot of time for everyone to pad up, to walk on and off the field, to discuss the tactics, to set the fields for each batsman etc..

One Bowler, Two Wickets and 3 Batsman is okay I guess. Would prefer Two Bowlers each taking 3 balls.

 

[formula1man]

i would prefer a tie is a tie. this is a bit fidly and unfair.

 

[irottev]

I'm not a fan of it for many reasons. It's pretty fun to watch, but fairness-wise it's not great. Firstly, the side who bats second in the actual game can potentially send out a batsman who has just been batting and has their eye in a bit better.

Secondly it took AGES to organize it. I think it was basically a half hour+ break until they started it. If grounds have a curfew or people in the crowd want to leave it takes too long.

Thirdly, in the one Eliminator played to date, NZ batted first in the match and for some reason West Indies went first in the eliminator. That made no sense to me. I'm not sure if they had an extra coin toss, but if that was the case it backs up my argument that really, it's just an extra 1 over game a side. It takes none of the previous 20 overs into account.

Lastly it's just not cricket. Cricket is a team game, and this doesn't measure which team is better, only which player can slog the most boundaries and get the most luck. 4 players get to take part in it. 1 bowler and possibly 3 batsman. It's another thing that makes it a batsman's game. The bowler has nothing to gain from it really.

If they keep it though, bowling a spinner is a bad idea. You should use your regular death bowlers who can bowl yorkers and possibly a bouncer. Much harder to hit. Both sides got it wrong I felt when picking their bowlers.

 

[Jaztheman]

I'd rather just have a tie as a tie, I don't really like the need to have a result just for the sake of a result on occasions.