Tony Becca

THE FOURTH round of the semi-professional Super League competition gets under way tomorrow and, but for some over-exuberant appeals, one incident of dissent and some time wasting, so far, so good.

There has been one concern, however, and, once again, it has to do with the points system.

The points system is what eventually determines the winner of a competition, it is supposed to reward performance, and usually it does.

The one being used by the Jamaica Cricket Association (JCA), however, for a long time at that, and despite criticisms, is not good enough to determine the winner. It does not truly reward performance. In fact, it rewards a lack of performance and it should be discarded.

According to the JCA, points are distributed as follows: Completed match: a win - six points to the winner, a tie - three points each, a loss after leading on first innings - two points.

Incompleted match: lead on first innings - three points, tie on first innings - two points each, no result on first innings - one point each, loss on first innings - one point. Abandoned match - one point each.

Discrepancies

A look at the distribution shows many discrepancies.

In a completed match, for example, in a match scheduled for two innings and not one, the team that loses should get no points - and it should not matter whether they led on first innings or not. In the present allocation of points, it should be six points for the winners and no points for the losers.

In a tied match, the number of points allocated is three for each team, which is the same number set aside for the team which, in a drawn match, leads on first innings, and that cannot be right.

A tie deserves more points than first-innings lead in a drawn match.

What is interesting is that in an incompleted match, the team that trails on first innings gets one point - the same one point that goes to the teams in a match in which there is no result on first innings, and also in an abandoned match.

That is strange, really strange, and especially so that a team that loses on first innings gets the same number of points as one which has not lost - as one which has fought so as not to end up trailing on first innings.

In the Super League, for example, in the present standings, not only are St Catherine at the top with 10 points from one win (six points), one first innings lead (three points) and one first innings deficit (one point), but tied in second place are Manchester, Melbourne and St Elizabeth on seven points each, with Manchester and Melbourne leading twice on first innings and suffering one no-result, and St Elizabeth also leading twice on first innings but trailing once on first innings.

Strange

In other words, two teams with two first innings leads who did not trail on first innings are tied with a team that led twice on first innings and was led once on first innings.

That is also strange.

And it gets worse. Based on the fact that one point goes to a team that trails on first innings in an incompleted match, and that one point also goes to both teams in a match in which there is no result on first innings, unless the team they are up against is challenging them for the title, it matters not, as far as points are concerned, to a team whether they trail on first innings or not.

The JCA should look at its points system and, in doing so, it should look at introducing a simple system - a system which, probably, could be like this: a win - 10 points, a tie - five points each, first innings lead in a drawn match - four points, a tie on first innings in a drawn match - three points, trailing on first innings in a drawn match - two points, no-result on first innings in a drawn match - one point each, abandoned match - zero points.

In order to prevent a batsman from surrendering his wicket - from going against all principles of batting by giving away his wicket, the JCA should also look at its definition of a tie and change it.

According to the JCA's system, a tie is only a tie "when the scores are equal at the end of play but only if the side batting last has completed its innings".

That means that if the runs scored are level, the team batting last would have to give a wicket, or wickets, away in order to tie the match, in order to get the points from a tie, as distinct from a draw and in order to win the match and possibly the competition.

The JCA should remember the furore in 1975 when, in the last match of the then Shell Shield, Trinidad and Tobago scored 259 and 252, the Combined Islands replied with 229 and 282 for nine after scoring a single off the last delivery to level the scores, and the match ended in a draw instead of a tie.

The Combined Islands failed to win the Shield simply because Michael Findlay and Hugh Gore did not commit suicide by running themselves out in order, according to the rules, according to the points system, to tie the match.