NEWS: Worcestershire Awarded Win In “Tied” T20 Cup Match

Worcestershire have been awarded the win in their “tied” T20 Cup match against Surrey at Edgbaston Foundation Ground on Sunday.

Confusion reigned after the sides finished level on 117 runs after their 20 overs, and it transpired that the officials didn’t know how to proceed to determine a result, whether by a Super Over or wickets down. Attempts to clarify the situation were hampered by lack of clarity in the T20 Cup playing conditions.

In the end it was decided not to play the Super Over, and the teams shook hands on a tie; but the ECB has now determined that the match should be awarded to Worcestershire by virtue of having lost fewer wickets, in accordance with the rules set out in the generic non-professional T20 Playing Conditions. (See the discussions here for why this looks to us like the correct decision.)

The revised Div 1 T20 Cup table now looks like this:

Div 1 Played Won Lost NRR Points
Warwickshire 2 2 0 1.67 8
Middlesex 2 2 0 1.16 8
Lancashire 2 2 0 1.08 8
Kent 2 1 1 0.93 4
Sussex 2 1 1 -0.19 4
Worcestershire 2 1 1 -0.17 4
Surrey 2 0 2 -1.5 0
Yorkshire 2 0 2 -0.9 0
Nottinghamshire 2 0 2 -1.88 0

4 thoughts on “NEWS: Worcestershire Awarded Win In “Tied” T20 Cup Match

  1. All of which still leaves me (at least) mystified why, given they are both leagues, there is a different match points allocation in the T20 county championship compared to the 50 over county championship.
    Furthermore, the definition of a tie should be identical.
    By not allowing a tie to be a tie one is increasing the chances of more teams ending the season on the same points (which might be resolved by the ‘winner of the match between’ if 2 teams tie but its that nasty NRR if there are more than 2 teams on the same points).


  2. This retrospective resolution of matches is not really good enough. Rules need to be clearly set out and clarified beforehand. Would not be acceptable in other sports!

    Personally I’m happy with not allowing ties in T20 unless the matches are abandoned before the minimum allocation of overs. Super-overs should surely be encouraged and used whenever possible.


    • I’m inclined to agree with James. T20 is supposed to be modern and “sexy”. A tie is a bit unsatisfactory, let’s have a winner and a loser! I’ve said on the earlier thread that a Super Over would be my preferred method but I guess time constraints make that difficult in the current format.

      Now, here’s a thing…

      I also mentioned on the previous thread that Staffs ‘won’ two T20 fixtures in Div 2 last season after Super Overs. On wickets lost, both matches should actually have gone to their opponents. One was against Scotland, and the 4 extra points the Scots would/should have gained would have seen them promoted at the expense of… Worcestershire!


Comments are closed.