Why in the world are they using a "tie-breaker" in a round-robin stage?

[goru]

Shouldn't it only be used where a result must be obtained (in any sport) for the tournament to continue?

[akabir77]

I guess your relatives where in the tournament comity...lol

[Miraz]

Originally Posted by akabir77
I guess your relatives where in the tournament comity...lol

[goru]

Originally Posted by akabir77
I guess your relatives where in the tournament comity...lol

Sorry, but my relatives could do much better, even jobor kat-te kat-te...

[Puck]

Originally Posted by akabir77
I guess your relatives where in the tournament comity...lol

brilliant

[rubel_18]

I agree with wat ur tryin to say cos it wudnt have made any difference

[akabir77]

goru bhai don't mind i was just kidding...

In serious note i think they had it as a backup against three way tie...

And is in NFL they have OT in regular session...

[Miraz]

IMO, it was required.

Despite the round robin stage there can be a three way tie and a tie break would decide who will go to the second round.

[Anher]

Originally Posted by akabir77
I guess your relatives where in the tournament comity...lol

Very tricky joke.

[Spitfire_x86]

They want to make cricket more football-like than football.

Hopefully this stupid rule will be changed. For the decider matches, a reserve day and re-match is a far better option.

[aventis]

Originally Posted by goru
Shouldn't it only be used where a result must be obtained (in any sport) for the tournament to continue?

nothing wrong in it(even though it is not absolutely necessary in a pool match).Enjoyed the first such instance in cricket

[goru]

Originally Posted by Miraz
IMO, it was required.

Despite the round robin stage there can be a three way tie and a tie break would decide who will go to the second round.

Huh? I don't see the relevance of a tie-breaker for a single RR match to a group 3-way tie. See Group B of this tournament. NRR being the same for all 3 teams is almost impossible.

And, hypothetically, each of the group matches could have gone to a bowl-out and each team could have won one of those and you'd still end up with a 3-way tie.

Furthermore, if a "No Result" is perfectly acceptable for an abandoned match like India - Scotland, it makes even less sense that a tied RR game must have a winner through a bowl-out. There is some really messed up thinking behind this!

[Dhruvo]

yes i think its pretty stupid of them,they could had used this system like the team that loses more wickets loses the match,so i think it should had been paki stan but that my opinion.

[Puck]

i think there is a real need for consistency. tie breakers make the matches a tad more exciting.

[stuge]

Originally Posted by Puck
i think there is a real need for consistency. tie breakers make the matches a tad more exciting.

You are absolutely right ,but Tie breaker in the league stages is still not necessary

[cricfanz]

well, it was unnecessary but great fun for sure. c'mon, who didnt love the atmosphere and tension of the bowl-out? (ok, don't answer that). Before anyone says anything about my cricketing inclinations, I love Test cricket just as much. Our target guy, S Rajesh wrote very strongly against the bowl-out decision in Cricinfo. And in his tour diary, in a random survey, apparently most of the crowd loved it.

[Hatebreed]

Yea I think it's kinda stupid to have tie-breaker in group stage, especially if the points don't carry to the next stage. It should only come into effect if there both teams are facing knock-out and it cannot be decided by NRR or otherwise.

[Puck]

well, at the conception stage it was decided that 20/20 was to be pure entertainment for the viewing public. a result in all matches became a necessity