Kent Cricket 2020

Zak with 16 off the first over

6 more balls for a result

killerandflash said:

Off for rain again after 4.1 overs, arghhhhhhhh

Could have done with the rain a couple of days ago. 

It's been one of the hottest summer's I can remember. 
And then the cricket starts.
Unbelievable really. 

Bollocks.

Well that sucks.

killerandflash said:

To be within 5 balls on winning was annoying, though sometimes the rain works in your favour, thinking back to the game at Canterbury 2 years ago when Surrey scored 250/6 in their innings and rain prevented us from batting at all...the one time I've been at a game and happy for it to be washed out!

Kent would have knocked them off with 3 overs to spare

Addick Addict said:

What a farce!

A minimum of five overs must be played out by the chasing side to reach a result under the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method, meaning a no result was the final outcome. However, with Kent ahead not just of the five-over par score – 26-0 – but also of what their target would have been had the umpires decreed the minimum possible six-over game could take place – 40 – the interpretation of the DLS rules came under the microscope again, as it did in a washed-out T20I between Australia and Pakistan in 2019.

Had a resumption been possible, Kent, already ahead of what the recalculated target would have been, wouldn’t have had to retake the field to chase down any runs. The farcical situation can be summed up as follows: reaching a result hinged on whether conditions improved enough for play to be possible, even though no more play was actually required to reach a result.

So, in effect, we had already won the game without another ball being bowled but couldn't collect the points because the Umpires said it was unplayable!

Great point! I hadn't realised this - ridiculous as we had already won

thai malaysia addick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Addick Addict said:

What a farce!

A minimum of five overs must be played out by the chasing side to reach a result under the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method, meaning a no result was the final outcome. However, with Kent ahead not just of the five-over par score – 26-0 – but also of what their target would have been had the umpires decreed the minimum possible six-over game could take place – 40 – the interpretation of the DLS rules came under the microscope again, as it did in a washed-out T20I between Australia and Pakistan in 2019.

Had a resumption been possible, Kent, already ahead of what the recalculated target would have been, wouldn’t have had to retake the field to chase down any runs. The farcical situation can be summed up as follows: reaching a result hinged on whether conditions improved enough for play to be possible, even though no more play was actually required to reach a result.

So, in effect, we had already won the game without another ball being bowled but couldn't collect the points because the Umpires said it was unplayable!

Great point! I hadn't realised this - ridiculous as we had already won

But if Surrey had taken four wickets in the next four balls and then it had been rained off, Surrey would have been complaining for the same reason.

Yes but the point being made is that had rain halted proceedings between innings and in the time available the umpires had declared that there was only enough time to bowl the minimum number of overs, six, then Kent would have won once they passed the DLS target of 40.

This isn't the first time that this has happened:

What’s more, this isn’t a new issue. Almost two years ago, before Steven Stern joined the twosome, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis flagged up the problem in a piece for  after Australia were eliminated from the 2017 Champions Trophy in similar circumstances.ESPNcricinfo,

Their argument was that revised numbers of overs and targets should be calculated on a fluid basis, as a delay is in progress and time is being lost, rather than on a static basis, only decided when a resumption time is settled upon. When a team’s current score exceeded what would be the target score should play resume as soon as possible from that moment, they would be judged to have won the game. The pair also argued it would only take a reinterpretation of standard playing conditions, rather than a rewriting, to resolve the problem.

thai malaysia addick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Addick Addict said:

What a farce!

A minimum of five overs must be played out by the chasing side to reach a result under the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method, meaning a no result was the final outcome. However, with Kent ahead not just of the five-over par score – 26-0 – but also of what their target would have been had the umpires decreed the minimum possible six-over game could take place – 40 – the interpretation of the DLS rules came under the microscope again, as it did in a washed-out T20I between Australia and Pakistan in 2019.

Had a resumption been possible, Kent, already ahead of what the recalculated target would have been, wouldn’t have had to retake the field to chase down any runs. The farcical situation can be summed up as follows: reaching a result hinged on whether conditions improved enough for play to be possible, even though no more play was actually required to reach a result.

So, in effect, we had already won the game without another ball being bowled but couldn't collect the points because the Umpires said it was unplayable!

Great point! I hadn't realised this - ridiculous as we had already won

But if Surrey had taken four wickets in the next four balls and then it had been rained off, Surrey would have been complaining for the same reason.

Why?

MrOneLung said:

Because every wicket taken adjusts the runs needed to win. 

Thanks. And thinking it through, if play continued so that Kent batted for more overs, the runs needed to won would change too, which despite starting so well, they might not reach