As cricket fans following the sport in an era of T20 cricket, we often hear of the Duckworth-Lewis system – or the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method – which decides on targets for the chasing team in rain-affected matches.
But years ago, when Messrs Duckworth and Lewis hadn’t really come up with their version of a rain-rule for white-ball cricket – then only ODI cricket – the methods used to decide on winners in rain-affected matches were clunky at best.
Not too many of those, however, could hold a candle in terms of being controversial as the rain-rule that was used during the 1992 World Cup. This rule so extraordinarily favoured the team batting first that it was only going to be a matter of time before things went rather awry.
Unfortunately for South Africa, it was their 1992 World Cup team that had to bear the brunt of the rule in the cruelest of fashions, resulting in a relook and a total overhaul of this system not so long after.
In this piece, we look at the controversial rain rule of the 1992 World Cup and focus on what went so drastically wrong in the semifinal between England and South Africa.
What was the 1992 World Cup rain rule?
The controversial rain rule that was used in the 1992 World Cup was called the Most Productive Overs method.
It was first used in 1991 and was a replacement for its predecessor rule called the Average Run Rate method, in which the team batting needed to have a scoring rate higher than the one achieved by the team batting first in case of any match interruptions.
So, by the Average Run Rate method rule, if a team scored 199 in their 50 overs, the chasing team could be 80/2 or 80/9 after 20 overs and still be declared a winner. This led to some rather bizarre results favouring the team batting second and led to calls for a change in the system.
It led to the invention of the Most Productive Overs rule for rain interruptions, which was expected to be a lot fairer for the team batting first than the previous rule. As it would turn out, it proved to be quite harsh for the side batting second, tilting the balance completely in favour of the team batting first.
According to the Most Productive Overs rule, in case there were overs lost while chasing due to any reason (including inclement weather), the new target would consider the team batting first’s most productive overs in setting the new target.
So if the team batting first has batted its full quota of 50 overs but the team batting second can bat for only 46 overs because of rain, the target for the team batting second would be one more than the most productive 46 overs for them.
An Example of the 1992 World Cup Rain Rule
Consider the example mentioned in the infographic below.
Team A bats first and scores 289/7 from their 50 overs. This consists of three maiden overs, four overs in which just one run is scored, two overs in which two runs are scored apiece and three other overs in which three runs are made by Team A.
At some point during Team B’s chase, it rains and the match is reduced to 40 overs, i.e. 10 overs are lost to inclement weather.
Team B’s target will look at Team A’s most productive 40 overs, i.e. it will reduce the target by the sum of their least productive 10 overs. In this case, it would be 0X3 + 1X4 + 2X2 + 3X1 = 11 runs.
So for a chase reduced to 40 overs, Team B’s target will be reduced to 289-11+1 = 279. While that by itself seems to be a tougher ask than the original score, where things get really difficult is if we assume that it starts raining after the 38th over where Team A has scored 230/2.
Before it started raining, they would have needed to score 60 runs from 12 overs with eight wickets in hand. But by the Most Productive Overs method, they would be left to score 49 runs from the remaining two overs once the match resumed – an improbable and a ridiculously unfair target.
How many matches was this rain rule used for in the 1992 World Cup?
Before the ill-fated 1992 World Cup semifinal between South Africa and England, the Most Productive Overs method was used a few times during the tournament and there were murmurs regarding the issues surrounding it.
The first time it was used during this tournament was in the game between India and Australia at The Gabba in Brisbane. Australia had finished their innings at 237/9 in 50 overs but it rained during the Indian innings.
This took three overs off India’s chase but the target was reduced from 238 to 236 – a reduction of just two runs.
On that very day, Pakistan played England in what would turn out to be a very crucial result for the former. Batting first, Pakistan were bowled out for a paltry 74 and it looked like it was going to end up as an easy England victory.
As it would turn out, the match was abandoned because of rain with England at 24/1 in 8 overs but not before their target had been reduced to 63 off 15 overs. Had the match continued, England would have needed 39 from the next seven overs – a tricky task for those days – despite having bowled their opponents out for 74.
New Zealand made 162/3 in 20.5 overs with their innings seeing three rain interruptions but in response Zimbabwe needed 154 in 18 overs – what might have been one of those examples in which this rain rule worked reasonably well.
India were involved in another rain-filled game, this time against Zimbabwe. They batted first to pile up 203/7 in 32 overs and by the time Zimbabwe’s innings had been struck by rain again – and ended as a result – they were 55 runs away from their target of 159 in 19 overs.
Pakistan were then at the receiving end of one of the worst outcomes because of this very rule in their game against South Africa. The Proteas posted a mere 211/7 from their 50 overs and at 74/2 in 21.3 overs, Pakistan’s chase looked to be par for the course.
Rain halted play for an hour and Pakistan’s target was reduced to 194 but all of a sudden they had only 36 overs to do that. This was a reduction of 17 runs for the loss of 14 overs – quite clearly the result of a rain rule having gone horribly wrong.
India and West Indies were involved in another rain-affected game. In this, West Indies’ target went from 198 to 195 but they lost four overs to chase that, which they eventually did very easily.
Very interestingly, the group game between England and South Africa played at the MCG in Melbourne had also been affected by rain. This time around, it was England who could have been at the receiving end of the Most Productive Overs method as they ended up losing nine overs in their chase but the target was brought down by only 11 runs.
In the end, England made 226/7 in 40.5 overs in reply to South Africa’s 236/4 in 50 overs, winning with a ball to spare.
This England-South Africa encounter was also the last match that was influenced by that rain rule before the semifinal between these two very teams!
What happened at the 1992 World Cup semifinal?
England finished second on the points table with 11 points followed closely by South Africa who ended on 10 points and they were slated to face off in the second semifinal with the winner taking on Pakistan in the final.
Rather surprisingly – to fans, experts and opponents alike – despite knowing that rain was forecast and the rain rule at the World Cup had been a subject of constant concern, South Africa won the toss and decided to field first.
Captain Kepler Wessels when asked about this decision at the toss, said it was a calculated risk with his team having won all three games they had chased in, during the tournament.
What became a subject for an even bigger controversy was the manner in which South Africa bowled their overs. With England going hammer and tongs in their semifinal, South Africa slowed their overrate down drastically and to the extent that they bowled only 45 overs in the stipulated time.
Those days, the cut-off time for the end of the first innings was sacrosanct and even if the overs weren’t bowled within that time, the innings would be closed at that stage.
Chris Lewis (18* off 16) and Dermot Reeve (25* off 14) were at the crease, having added a quickfire 31 runs for the seventh wicket when their innings was closed out because of this very cutoff time rule.
Left to chase 253 from 45 overs, South Africa looked to be very much in the hunt with England losing the advantage they looked like they had going into the final three overs.
In fact, a whirlwind of a knock by Jonty Rhodes got them closer and then some tactically strong batting by Brian McMillan and Dave Richardson got them 25 runs in just three overs.
This meant that while England were still ahead with 13 balls to go, South Africa had a chance too, with 22 needed for the win at that stage.
It also started raining at this stage.
The players had to come off the field and the pitch had to be covered. Despite the presence of a reserve day, the broadcasting rules of those days meant the game had to be finished that day itself and by the time the rain had stopped and the two teams returned to play two overs had to be docked off South Africa’s chase.
What this meant was that suddenly South Africa had just one ball to face instead of the original 13 but the target was reduced by a mere 1 run!
Yes, that Most Productive Overs rain rule was at it again.
What that meant was South Africa were left to score 21 off 1 ball. Adding a touch of dark comedy to this drama was the announcement made at the ground which said South Africa needed 22 off seven balls only for it to be changed to 22 off one on the giant scoreboard.
The actual target was 21 off one ball and McMillan tapped the last ball bowled by Chris Lewis down to long-on for a single to end the game. England had won by 19 runs!
Was the 1992 World Cup the last tournament in which this rule was used?
Incidentally this rule was continued to be used in ODI matches in Australia for some time to come with a few modifications made to it.
For instance, the Most Productive Overs rule was still used
to determine the chasing team’s target but a deduction of 0.5% was made from those many runs for every over lost.
Most Productive Overs 1992 World Cup Rain Rule FAQs
Q. Who had invented the 1992 World Cup Rain Rule?
A. There was a committee of cricket experts in Australia including former Aussie captain and commentator Richie Benaud who had racked their brains together to come up with this rule.
Q. Why did the 1992 World Cup Rain Rule become so controversial?
A. The 1992 World Cup rain rule was introduced to replace the Average Run Rate method because the latter was deemed to be far too favourable for the team batting second. Unfortunately this new rain rule turned the balance completely in favour of the side batting first in case of rain-affected matches, evoking a lot of controversial.
Q. How many matches in the 1992 World Cup were affected by rain and saw a change in the target?
A. Seven games in the group stages of the 1992 World Cup needed the use of this new rain rule apart from the controversial semifinal between England and South Africa.
Q. What would have been South Africa’s target by the previously-used Average Run Rate method in the 1992 World Cup semifinal?
A. If the previously-used Average Run Rate method had been used in the 1992 World Cup semifinal, South Africa’s target would have been reduced to 241. This would have meant that they would have been left to score 10 runs from that last ball.
Q. What would have been South Africa’s target by the Duckworth-Lewis method in the 1992 World Cup semifinal?
A. Had the Duckworth-Lewis method been applied to this game, South Africa’s target at the start of their chase would have gone up from 253 to 273 in 45 overs because of England’s inability to bat out their entire 50 overs.
At the stage it started raining, South Africa would have then needed 237 from 43 overs, which meant that they would have come back on to face one ball and six runs to win off it.