Thank you Mike. On behalf of all New Zealanders I accept your apology.

It does feel rather tained, doesn’t it? I don’t even mean the “extra run” business either – just the fact we couldn’t actually win on the day. Yeah, those were the rules and both sides knew beforehand, but… it’s bullshit

It looked like he gestured with his thumb at one point… I thought he was saying “Excuse me chaps, I’m just going to give that blonde filly a guided tour of the clubhouse” – or words to that effect

Would have loved a bowl-out. Bowl-outs are funny. Except when they involve Surrey beating Warwickshire.

A bowl-out after the super over would have been fun though, right?

Hey, it’s arbitrary but that’s sport, right?

Yep.

All sport’s laws are arbitrary. Some result in an entertaining pastime. Some don’t. There isn’t any real difference between the skill to hit three upright poles with a ball and the skill to lob an egg into a moving convertible, but one will get you adulation and a six-figure salary, and the other will get you arrested.

Or in other words, this.

The tie-break in the tennis was stage 1 of determining the winner, a bit like the super over. It was only when the tie-break was tied that another method was used. This is done in tennis also, by playing on till someone gets two clear points. The rules change to force someone to win. You could argue that another super over could have been tried (ad nauseam), but the chances of getting to the stage of even needing one were miniscule, let alone needing two.

None of this is going to change the result.

Cricket!

Presumably he wants to be in the news for anything other than being mates with Jeffrey Epstein.

The laws being the laws doesn’t make the laws any good.

In this case, the law about overthrows was incorrectly applied because they actually “very clearly” state that the batsmen need to have crossed when the fielder fields, which they had not. So that should’ve been a 5, not a 6.

But worse was the Super Over tie, because the decision to use boundaries as the tiebreaker is absurd. It’d be like young Roger losing to younger Novak after they’d reached 12-12 because Djokovic hit more aces.

By your logic, you may as well just toss a coin. Hey, it’s arbitrary but that’s sport, right? The laws are the laws!

Yeah, but swimming’s barely even a sport.
Multiple categories to let people win extra medals for swimming in a sillier way?