Ruling an impossible target

Jonty Rhodes got South Africa close to the target in their semi-final against England but his efforts were wasted once the rain-rule came into force © Getty Images

The 1992 World Cup probably contained more innovations than any other. It was the first at which the teams used coloured clothing, the first to use white balls (two at each end so they didn't get grubby), and the first to use floodlights. It also saw the introduction of a new rain rule. By the end of the tournament, the latter was utterly discredited.

The idea behind the rule was to avoid the old system - work out the runs-per-over of the first innings and then deduct that for each over lost by the side batting second - which heavily disadvantaged the side batting first. The solution, drawn up by experts including Richie Benaud, was that when rain interrupted the second innings of a match the reduction in the target was to be proportionate to the lowest scoring overs of the side batting first, a method that took into account the benefits of chasing, as opposed to setting, a target.

There were signs early on that all was not well. England bowled out Pakistan for 74 at Adelaide. The loss of three hours created a much stiffer target than the Pakistani batsmen had set. For the match to stand, a minimum of 15 overs had to be available to England; but as Pakistan's most successful 15 overs had yielded 62 of their 74 runs, under the rain rule the minimum target had to be 63. After a further shower it was set at 64 from 16, and England still needed 40 from eight when play was abandoned and the points shared.

But the nightmare became reality when England met South Africa in the semi-final at the SCG. England, put into bat by Kepler Wessels, scored 252 for 6 in their 45 overs, the innings curtailed as South Africa had bowled their overs slowly. They were fined for that, although as it turned out their actual punishment was far heavier than the monetary one.

South Africa got off to a good start but rather lost their way until Jonty Rhodes got them back on course. With five overs remaining they needed 47 to win, and that had been reduced to 25 from three when the rain, which had been falling for a few minutes, grew heavier.

The umpires consulted and then spoke to the players. Brian McMillan and Dave Richardson, the South African batsmen, wanted to carry on. Graham Gooch was equally adamant that he wanted to come off as the England bowlers struggled with a wet ball and a sodden outfield. The umpires decided that conditions were unfit.

The recalculations began. South Africa had bowled two maiden overs in England's innings, which meant that with 2.1 overs remaining any time lost would not result in a reduction in the target but would mean South Africa had fewer balls in which to score the runs.

The rain soon stopped and the total time lost was 12 minutes. It was announced that the new target was 22 off seven balls. The news did not go down well with the capacity crowd and they reacted by throwing rubbish onto the outfield.

The reality was even grimmer. The announcement was wrong as the officials had decided that two overs would be knocked off, leaving a ridiculous target of 22 off one ball. The ludicrousness was compounded when it was subsequently decided that the target was actually 21 as a leg-bye in one of the maidens had been overlooked.

The farce was still not over. The players trooped back to the middle for the final ball unaware, like the crowd, that a second over had been deducted. The players were then told, and the crowd looked on bemused as McMillan ambled a single and set off for the pavilion looking as furious as England - deserved victors, if truth be told - were embarrassed. A look at the scoreboard - which by then had been amended - led to more booing as the reality dawned.

The scoreboard said it all: After all the calculations South Africa needed 21 runs from one ball © Patrick Eagar

To their credit, the South Africans came onto the outfield to shake hands with the England side and then embarked on a lap of honour to warm applause from everyone, especially the England supporters.

The organisers were, rightly, lambasted, although as John Woodcock in The Cricketer noted: "It must have been a source of great embarrassment to the organisers, though to the best of my knowledge they came nowhere near to admitting it."

In The Independent, Martin Johnson was typically forthright. "Had Martians landed at the SCG they would have concluded there was no intelligent life on earth and gone home."

But he also laid the blame for their loss firmly at the feet of the defeated side. "The tears shed by non-South Africans last night would barely have filled an eggcup. Not only did they choose to bat second after winning the toss on a day that had blown in straight from Manchester but they also resorted to tactics that reassured us that the cynical side of South African sport has not disappeared after 22 years in isolation."

England went on to lose the final to Pakistan - a side who only made the semi-finals thanks to the point earned from that abandonment at Adelaide. As for the rain rule, it was quickly consigned to the dustbin and by 1999 the Duckworth-Lewis system, utterly incomprehensible but studiously fair, had arrived.