Rain rule methods

Sources:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050426014532/http://cricketarchive.com/Miscellaneous/Rain\_Rule\_Methods.html

http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT\_CRICKET/RAIN\_RULES/AUS\_RAIN\_RULE

http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ABOUT\_CRICKET/RAIN\_RULES/ICC\_RAIN\_RULE

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/a-biology-inspired-rain-rule-for-t20s-917955

https://www.birminghamleague.org/Download/Handbook\_2021.pdf

https://p.imgci.com/db/DOWNLOAD/100/0145/DLSvsKleiber.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20170216153908/http://ntca.tas.cricket.com.au/files/3190/files/2016-17%20NTCA%20Rules%20and%20Bylaws.pdf

If it is known that some rain rule was used, but the details of exactly which method was used is not, the method is shown as unknown.

In the notes which follow, **team1** means the team batting first and **team2** means the team batting second.

There are two possibilities, either a team was chasing a recalculated target following an interruption earlier in the match (in which case the target is calculated based on the score needed by **team2** in the revised number of overs) or else there is a terminal interruption (when there is an interruption and no further play is possible). A team could already be chasing a revised target because of an earlier interruption when a terminal interruption occurs, necessitating a further recalculation.

## Adjusted highest scoring overs

Compare the maximum runs scored by **team1** in any set of overs (not necessarily consecutive) equal to the number of completed overs received by **team2** factored down by 0.5% per over lost against **team2** in those completed overs. So if **team2** received 36.3 overs in a 50-over match, their score after 36 overs is compared to the highest scoring 36 overs of **team1's** innings (so could be any 36 of the 50 overs) factored down by 7%.

Example: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-series-1993-94-60948/new-zealand-vs-south-africa-7th-match-65512/full-scorecard

New Zealand scored 256/7 from 50 overs. South Africa had scored 19/0 from 5 overs when play was halted. When play was able to resume, there was time for South Africa to receive 39 overs, so their target was revised to 229 as the highest scoring 39 overs of the New Zealand innings yielded 242 which was reduced by 5.5% for the loss of 11 overs.

**Birmingham League method**: New Zealand's run rate is 5.12 per over. 11 overs are lost. South Africa's required run rate is (100 + (11 x 1.2)) x 5.12 ÷ 100 = 113.2 x 5.12 ÷ 100 = 5.80. Then 5.80 x 39 = 227 (rounded up).

**DLS method**: The target for South Africa in 39 overs is 224.

**D/L method**: New Zealand's resources = 100%. Resources (45 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 95.0%. Resources (34 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 81.3%. Resources lost = 95.0 - 81.3 = 13.7%. South Africa's resources = 100 - 13.7 = 86.3%. Target = 256 x 86.3 / 100 = 220.928 = 221 (rounded up).

**Highest scoring overs**: The target for South Africa in 39 overs is 243.

**ICC rain rule**: Target = 256 x 89.3 / 100 = 229 (rounded up).

**ICC rain rule (modified)**: Target = 256 x 89.24 / 100 = 229 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: New Zealand scored 5.12 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.84. South Africa lost 11 overs; 3.84 \* 11 = 42.24. Target = 256 + 1 - 42.24 = 214 (rounded down).

**Run rate**: The target for South Africa in 39 overs is 200.

**VJD method**: The target for South Africa in 39 overs is 219.

**Unnamed method #1**: New Zealand's run rate is 5.12 per over. Target = 5.12 x 39 + 11 = 210 (rounded down).

## Birmingham League method

The target run rate shall be calculated by using the following formula: (100 + {B x 1.2}) x C ÷ 100

B = difference in the number of overs received by each team.

C = average run rate per over achieved by the team batting first.

Average run rate per over = Innings total / number of overs allocated.

Note 1: The run rate of both the first and second innings shall be calculated to two decimal places.

Note 2: After any interruption during the first innings and time is lost, the formula shall be applied, and the adjusted run rate shall be agreed by the umpires and both scorers before the start of the second innings. Once agreed, it shall be final unless there is a further interruption and time is lost during the second innings.

Note 3: If there are any interruptions to play during the second innings and time is lost, the formula shall be re-applied and the run rate for the innings shall be re-calculated on each occasion.

Note 4: After any interruption during the second innings and time is lost, the adjusted run rate shall be agreed by the umpires and both scorers prior to the re-commencement of play and, once agreed, shall be final unless there are any further interruptions.

Examples from https://www.birminghamleague.org/Download/Handbook\_2021.pdf

## Clark curves method

For any interruption there are tables based on Clark Curves which give the revised target figure. In some types of interruption there is a calculation that involves a ratio of final score to wickets remaining to give a second figure and then using the lower of the two in the calculation.

Example: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/standard-bank-international-one-day-series-1996-97-60998/south-africa-vs-india-final-66078/full-scorecard

Rain between innings after South Africa had scored 278/8 from 50 overs resulted in an adjusted target for India of 251 in 40 overs.

**Birmingham League method**: South Africa's run rate is 5.56 per over. 10 overs are lost. India's required run rate is (100 + (10 x 1.2)) x 5.56 ÷ 100 = 112 x 5.56 ÷ 100 = 6.23. Then 6.23 x 40 = 250 (rounded up).

**DLS method**: The target for India in 40 overs is 247.

**D/L method**: South Africa's resources = 100%. India's resources (40 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 89.3%. Target = 278 x 89.3 / 100 = 249 (rounded up).

**ICC method**: 278 x 90.7 / 100 = 253 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 278 x 90.48 / 100 = 252 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: South Africa scored 5.56 runs per over. 75% of this equals 4.17. India lost 10 overs. 4.17 \* 10 = 41.7. Target = 278 + 1 - 41.7 = 237 (rounded down).

**VJD method**: The target for India in 40 overs is 242.

**Unnamed method #1**: South Africa scored 5.56 runs per over. Target for India = 5.56 x 40 + 10 = 232 (rounded down).

## Consecutive overs or run rate

**Team2** had to exceed both the score achieved by **team1** in their last number of overs received by **team2** and also **team1'**s overall runs per over through their complete innings. The latter was to allow for a team slowing down after a fast start to their innings. So if **team2** were to receive 36 overs in a 50-over match, they had to exceed **team1's** total runs for overs to 15 to 50 and also **team1's** runs per over for their 50 overs (still based on 50 overs if bowled out).

Example: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/rothmans-cup-triangular-series-1989-90-60902/new-zealand-vs-australia-6th-match-65938/full-scorecard

Play was halted when New Zealand had scored 115/1 against Australia's 239/6 from 47 overs. When play resumed the New Zealand innings was reduced to 40 overs and the target revised to 204 as Australia had scored 203 in the last 40 overs of their innings. New Zealand then reached 167/2 from 34.5 overs when play ended.

Actual result: The target calculated was 178. Australia won by 10 runs.

**Birmingham League method**: Australia's run rate is 5.09 per over. 12.1 overs are lost. New Zealand's required run rate is (100 + ((12 + 1/6) x 1.2)) x 5.09 ÷ 100 = 114.6 x 5.09 ÷ 100 = 5.83314. Then 5.83314 x (34 + 5/6) = 204 (rounded up).

**ICC method**: 239 x 83.7 / 97.8 = 205 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 239 x 83.51 / 97.70 = 204.28751279426 = 205 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Australia scored 5.09 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.8175. New Zealand lost 12.5 overs. 3.8175 \* (12 + 5/6) = 48.99125. Target = 239 + 1 - 48.99125 = 191 (rounded down).

**Unnamed method #1**: Australia's run rate is 5.085106383 per over. Target = 5.085106383 x (34 + 5/6) + (12 + 1/6) = 189 (rounded down).

## Countback to score at equivalent point of team1

Compare the **team1** score after the exact number of overs received by **team2**.

Example: http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1960S/1969/ENG\_LOCAL/SUNLG/DERBY\_ESSEX\_SUNLG\_18MAY1969.html

Derbyshire batted first and scored 68/9 from 16 overs. Essex had reached 40/3 from 10 overs when play was halted, so their score was compared to the Derbyshire score after 10 overs of their innings (38).

**Birmingham League method**: Derbyshire's run rate was 4.25 per over. 6 overs are lost. Essex's required run rate is (100 + (6 x 1.2)) x 4.25 ÷ 100 = 107.2 x 4.25 ÷ 100 = 4.56. Par score = 4.56 x 10 = 45 (rounded down).

**ICC method (modified)**: Par score is 68 x 30.48 / 46.26 = 44 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Derbyshire scored 4.25 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.1875. Essex lost 6 overs. 3.1875 \* 6 = 19.125. Par score = 68 - 19.125 = 48 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Derbyshire scored 68 runs from 16 overs of which there were no maidens (4.25 per over). Essex scored 40 runs from 10 overs of which 1 was a maiden (4.44 per over).

**Run rate**: Derbyshire scored 68 runs from 16 overs (4.25 per over). Essex scored 40 runs from 10 overs (4.00 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: Derbyshire's run rate is 4.25 per over. Target = 4.25 x 10 + 6 = 48 (rounded down).

## Countback to score at equivalent last completed over of team1

Compare the team1 score after the number of completed overs received by **team2**, i.e. ignoring an incomplete over in the **team2** innings.

Example: http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1970/ENG\_LOCAL/SUNLG/NORTHANTS\_HANTS\_SUNLG\_10MAY1970.html

Hampshire scored 172/7 from 28 overs. Northamptonshire had reached 108/4 from 17.4 overs when play was halted, so their score after 17 overs (105) was compared to the Hampshire score after 17 overs of their innings (90).

**Birmingham League method**: Hampshire's run rate was 6.142857143 per over. 10.2 overs are lost. Northamptonshire's required run rate is (100 + ((10 + 2/6) x 1.2)) x 6.142857143 ÷ 100 = 6.904571429. Par score = 6.904571429 x (17 + 4/6) = 121 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Hampshire scored 6.142857143 runs per over. 10.2 overs were lost, so 5.166667% is added. The adjusted run rate is 6.142857143 \* 105.166667 / 100 = 6.460238095. Then 6.460238095 \* (17 + 4/6) = 114.130873 (115 is a win, 114 is a loss).

**ICC method (modified)**: Par score = 172 x 50.30 / 72.14 = 119 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Hampshire scored 6.14 runs per over. 75% of this equals 4.605. Northamptonshire lost 10.2 overs. 4.605 \* (10 + 2/6) = 47.585. Par score = 172 - 47.585 = 124 (rounded down).

**Run rate** and **maidens ignored run rate**: Hampshire scored 172 runs from 28 overs (6.14 per over). Northamptonshire scored 108 runs from 17.4 overs (6.11 per over). There were no maidens in the match, hence the results from the two systems are the same.

**Unnamed method #1**: Hampshire's run rate is 6.142857143 per over. Target = 6.142857143 x (17 + 4/6) + (11 + 2/6) = 119 (rounded down).

## Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method (formerly Duckworth/Lewis method)

For any interruption there are tables which give the revised target based on the resources left at the time of any interruption. Unlike most other methods, the Duckworth–Lewis–Stern (DLS) tables take account of the number of wickets a team had left at the point of interruption. The tables have been revised over the years to follow trends in scoring rates in matches, and in early years a tie was not usually a possible result which it is now that the par score is rounded.

Example (D/L method): https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/carlton-series-2000-01-61080/west-indies-vs-zimbabwe-7th-match-65607/full-scorecard

Play was halted when West Indies had scored 235/6 from 47 out of their allocated 50 overs. When play was able to resume Zimbabwe's target was adjusted to 253 in 47 overs, the higher score being to compensate the West Indies for Zimbabwe having to bat for three less overs but still having their full 10 wickets to use.

Actual result: Zimbabwe were bowled out for 175 in 40.2 overs. West Indies won by 77 runs (D/L method).

**DLS method**: The target is 255.

**Maidens ignored run rate**: West Indies scored 235 from 47 overs of which 2 were maidens (5.22 runs per over). Zimbabwe scored 175 from 47 overs of which 2 were maidens (3.89 runs per over).

**VJD method**: The target is 251.

## East League Calculator Method

For a terminal interruption, there are tables which give a revised par score based on the resources left when the match had to be ended.

## Factored run rate

The required run rate of **team2** at the beginning of their innings is calculated by increasing **team1's** run rate by a percentage factor per over lost. The required run rate at the start of the innings is unaltered if there is a subsequent interruption including the case where the team batting second's innings was still 50 overs. A tie is only possible if the calculation leads to an integer.

For example, **team1** score 225 in 45 of their 50 overs when rain stops play and prevents a resumption until 40 overs remain. **Team2's** required run rate is 102.5% in the case where each over lost is an increase of 0.5% (5 overs lost) so (225 x 40 / 45) \* 102.5 / 100 = 205 (exactly).

**Birmingham League method**: Team1's run rate is 5.00 per over. 5 overs are lost. Team2's required run rate is (100 + (5 x 1.2)) x 5.00 ÷ 100 = 5.30. Target = 5.30 x 40 = 212 (exactly). The target is 213.

**ICC method**: 225 x 90.7 / 96.0 = 213 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 225 x 90.48 / 95.90 = 213 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Team1 scored 5.00 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.75. Team2 lost 5 overs. 3.75 \* 5 = 18.75. Target = 225 + 1 - 18.75 = 207 (rounded down).

**Unnamed method #1**: Team1's run rate is 5.00 per over. Target = 5.00 x 40 + 5 = 205 (rounded down).

## Highest scoring consecutive overs

Compare the maximum runs scored by **team1** in any consecutive set of overs equal to the number of completed overs received by **team2** against the **team2** in those completed overs. So if **team2** received 36.3 overs their score after 36 overs is compared to the highest consecutive 36 overs of **team1's** innings (so that might be overs 1 to 36, 2 to 37, ..., 15 to 50). An incomplete **team2** over was counted if there were more runs scored in it than the corresponding extra full over that would have been counted for **team1**. Any further interruptions resulted in a target being calculated on the average runs per over derived from the first interruption.

## Highest scoring overs (aka *Most Productive Overs method*)

Compare the maximum runs scored by **team1** in any set of overs (not necessarily consecutive) equal to the number of completed overs received by **team2** against **team2** in those completed overs. So if **team2** received 36.3 overs, their score after 36 overs is compared to the highest scoring 36 overs of **team1's** innings (so could be any 36 of the 50 overs).

Example: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-cup-1991-92-60924/england-vs-south-africa-2nd-sf-65155/full-scorecard

(1992 World Cup semi-final between England and South Africa)

England scored 252/6 from 45 overs when innings ended early due to slow bowling by South Africa. South Africa had scored 231/6 from 42.5 overs when play was halted. When play was able to resume, there was time for South Africa to receive only one more ball (43 overs in total), so their target was revised to 252 by discarding the two worst overs in the England innings (0 and 1).

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: England's highest 43 overs totalled 251. 2 overs were lost, so 1% is deducted. 251 \* 99 / 100 = 249 (rounded up).

**Birmingham League method**: England's run rate is 5.60 per over. 2 overs are lost. South Africa's required run rate is (100 + (2 x 1.2)) x 5.60 ÷ 100 = 102.4 x 5.60 ÷ 100 = 5.73. Then 5.73 x 43 = 247 (rounded up).

**D/L method**: Resources (45 overs left, 0 wickets lost) = 95.0%. England's resources = 95.0%. Resources (2.1 overs left, 6 wickets lost) = 7.1%. Resources (0.1 overs left, 6 wickets lost) = 0.6%. Resources lost by South Africa = 7.1 - 0.6 = 6.5%. South Africa's resources = 95.0 - 6.5 = 88.5%. Target = 252 x 88.5 / 95.0 = 235 (rounded up).

**ICC method**: 252 x 94.2 ÷ 96.0 = 248 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)** : 252 x 94.06 ÷ 95.90 = 248 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: England scored 5.60 runs per over. 75% of this equals 4.20. South Africa lost 2 overs. 4.20 \* 2 = 8.40. Target = 252 + 1 - 8.40 = 244 (round down).

**Unnamed method #1**: England's run rate is 5.60 per over. Target = 5.60 x 43 + 2 = 242 (rounded down).

## ICC rain rule

If the innings of **team2** is delayed or interrupted and it is not able to receive its full quota of overs, the target score shall be calculated as follows: the score of **team1** shall be multiplied by the percentage factor for the number of overs to be bowled to **team2**, as set out on the Target Score Calculation Chart. Fractions shall be rounded to the next higher whole number.

The percentage factors have been derived from a detailed mathematical analysis of a database of one day matches with the object of establishing "normal" performance.

For example, **team1** score 188. The innings of **team2** is limited to 37 overs:

188 \* 86.7% = 162.996

Target score = 163 runs

Note: This gives absolutely no indication of how a match should be treated when the first side does not face 50 overs, and the second side faces even fewer overs. For example, in the 1995/96 India-Pakistan match in Singapore:

India: 226/8 off 47.1 overs

Pakistan target: 187 off 33 overs

Here is how I made it work:

Target = 226 \* ( 33 over factor / 47.1 over factor )
 = 226 \* ( 80.9 / 97.9 ) where 97.9 is an estimation of the 47.1 factor (47 ov = 97.8%)
 = 186.75587
 = 187

Actual result: Pakistan made 190/2 from 28 overs. Pakistan won by 8 wickets (with 30 balls remaining).

**Birmingham League method**: India's run rate is 4.79 per over. 14.1 overs are lost. Pakistan's required run rate is (100 + ((14 + 1/6) x 1.2)) x 4.79 ÷ 100 = 117 x 4.79 ÷ 100 = 5.60. Then 5.60 x 33 = 185 (rounded up).

**Countback to score at equivalent point of team1** and **Countback to score at equivalent last completed over of team1**: After 33 overs, India were 151/3.

**DLS method**: The target for Pakistan in 33 overs is 199.

**D/L method**: Resources (2.5 overs remaining, 8 wickets lost) = 6.9%. This was lost, so India's resources = 100 - 6.9 = 93.1%. Resources (33 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 79.8%. Target for Pakistan = 226 x 79.8 / 93.1 = 194 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: India scored 4.791519435 runs per over. 14.1 overs were lost, so 7.08333% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.791519435 \* 107.08333 / 100 = 5.130918728. Then 5.130918728 \* 33 = 169.320318 (170 is a win, 169 is a loss).

**ICC method (modified)**: 226 x 80.70 / 97.84 = 187 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: India scored 4.71 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.5325. Pakistan lost 14.1 overs. 3.5325 \* (14 + 1/6) = 50.04375. Target = 226 + 1 - 50.04375 = 176 (round down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: India scored 226 off 47.1 overs of which 1 was a maiden (4.90 runs per over). Pakistan scored 190 in 28 overs of which 1 was a maiden (7.04 per over).

**Run rate**: India scored 226 off 47.1 overs (4.79 runs per over). Pakistan scored 190 in 28 overs (6.79 per over).

**VJD method**: The target for Pakistan in 33 overs is 187.

**Unnamed method #1**: India's run rate is 4.791519435 per over. Target = 4.791519435 x 38 + (9 + 1/6) = 191 (rounded down).

Below is a modified version based on the original. Using the original version, I found that a quadratic formula best fitted the original. This version is a ball-by-ball version from 0 to 50 overs, and the *% factor* is rounded to 2 decimal places.

## Jayadevan's system (aka *VJD method*)

For any interruption, there are tables which give the revised target based on the resources left at the time of any interruption. Unlike most other methods the VJD tables take account of the number of wickets a team had left at the point of interruption. The tables also take account of the number of overs for which fielding restrictions apply.

A new method for the computation of target scores in interrupted, limited-over cricket matches: https://web.archive.org/web/20230226031449/https://jayadevan.yolasite.com/resources/Firstarticle.pdf

an improved system for the computation of target scores in interrupted limited over cricket matches adding variations in scoring range as another parameter: https://jayadevan.yolasite.com/resources/secondarticle.pdf

Example: http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/85/85164.html

## Kleiber method

This method is designed for T20 cricket, and its construction is based on the analogy between a team's run-scoring propensity and the metabolism rate in animals. The latter is governed by Kleiber's three-quarter power law, which states that the metabolic rate (B) varies with the mass (M) as B ∼ M^(3/4). If the resources of a team, which consist of the overs remaining and wickets in hand, are considered analogous to the mass, then the run-scoring ability of the team can be regarded as the analogue of the metabolism rate. Motivated by this analogy, we define the utilisable resource percentage of a team (on which the run-scoring depends on) as:

[
(

O
20

)
(
1
−

e

W
−
10

W
1

)

]

3
4

{\displaystyle [(\frac{O}{20})(1-e^{\frac{W-10}{W+1}})]^\frac{3}{4}}

where O are the number of overs remaining and W are the number of wickets lost at the stage of the innings when the calculations are carried out.

This specific construction of the resource percentage formula is primarily driven by the requirement that the resources must diminish as the innings progresses and more wickets are lost. This model does a reasonable job of mimicking the progression of a typical T20 innings, thereby providing the confidence to employ it as a rain rule. It must also be noted that unlike the DLS and VJD methods, this model does not employ data from past matches in its construction, which is a unique aspect of the proposed model.

The determination of revised targets in interrupted games is simple and requires only the calculations of the resources of the two teams. If B1 is the resources utilised by Team1 in scoring S runs and B2 is the resurces available for Team2, then the par score (to tie the match) is simply S\*B2/B1 and the target is one added to the par score (both rounded off to the nearest integer). The effective resources for the teams are calculated by subtracting the resources lost, such as those due to multiple interruptions in either innings, from the resources available at the start. Since the Kleiber mathematical rule forms the basis of the resource calculations, the target obtained is referred to as the Kleiber target and the rain rule as the Kleiber rain rule.

## Lancashire League adjusted target

The adjusted target for **team2** is calculated by taking the number of overs by first computing the run rate of **team1** from runs scored divided by overs received (a part over is counted as a full one). If all out, then full allocation used for overs. Round the figure to two decimal places. 75% of this runs per over is then computed. The runs adjustment is then calculated from the adjusted runs per over multiplied by the number of overs lost. The target is the **team1** total minus the runs adjustment, then truncate, then add 1.

## Maidens ignored run rate

Compare the runs per over of **team1'**s complete innings against that of **team2** for the number of overs they received but ignoring maiden overs.

Example: http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/47/47948.html

Play was halted when Pakistan had scored 155/6 from 43.5 overs of which 6 were maidens (4.096 runs per over) against West Indies 196/7 from 50 overs of which 7 were maidens (4.558 runs per over).

**Birmingham League method**: West Indies run rate is 3.92 per over. 6.1 overs are lost. Pakistan's required run rate is (100 + ((6 + 1/6) x 1.2)) x 3.92 ÷ 100 = 107.4 x 3.92 ÷ 100 = 4.21 . Then 4.21 x (43 + 5/6) = 185 (rounded up).

**DLS method**: At 43.5 overs, the par score is 162.

**D/L method**: West Indies' resources = 100%. Resources (6.1 overs remaining, 6 wickets lost) = 16.7%. This was lost, so Pakistan's resources = 100 - 16.7 = 83.3%. Target for Pakistan = 196 x 83.3 / 100 = 164 (rounded up).

**ICC method**: 196 x 94.95 / 100 = 186.102 = 187 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 196 x 94.75 / 100 = 185.71 = 186 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: West Indies scored 3.92 runs per over. 75% of this equals 2.94. Pakistan lost 6.1 overs. 2.94 \* (6 + 1/6) = 18.13. Target = 196 + 1 - 18.13 = 178 (rounded down).

**Run rate**: Pakistan scored 3.54 runs per over. West Indies scored 3.92 runs per over.

**VJD method**: At 43.5 overs, the par score is 160.

**Unnamed method #1**: West Indies' run rate is 3.92 per over. Target = 3.92 x (43 + 5/6) + (6 + 1/6) = 177 (rounded down).

## Parabola (or norm – normal performance) method

The revised target for **team2** is based on a parabolic equation based on the number of overs and **team1's** score (called the normal method as the equation was intended to simulate the norm in a particular situation).

Example: http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/65/65621.html

A sandstorm during the interval reduced the number of overs for India to 46 in reply to Australia's 284/7 in 50 overs. The parabola equation has the factor for a reduction to 46 overs to be 96.7% so the target was adjusted to 276.

**Birmingham League method**: Australia's run rate is 5.68 per over. 4 overs are lost. India's required run rate is (100 + (4 x 1.2)) x 5.68 ÷ 100 = 104.8 x 5.68 ÷ 100 = 5.95. Then 5.95 x 46 = 274 (rounded up).

**DLS method**: The target for India in 46 overs is 272.

**D/L method**: Australia's resources = 100%. Resources (46 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 96.1%. Target for India = 284 x 96.1 / 100 = 273 (rounded up).

**ICC method**: 284 x 96.70 / 100 = 275 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 284 x 96.82 / 100 = 275 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Australia scored 5.68 runs per over. 75% of this equals 4.26. India lost 4 overs. 4.26 \* 4 = 17.04. Target = 284 + 1 - 17.04 = 267 (round down).

**VJD method**: The target for India in 46 overs is 270.

**Unnamed method #1**: Australia's run rate is 5.68 per over. Target = 5.68 x 46 + 4 = 265 (rounded down).

The table is a ball-by-ball version from 0 to 50 overs, and the *% factor* is rounded to 2 decimal places.

## Run rate

Compare the runs per over of **team1's** complete innings against that of **team2** for the number of overs they received.

Example: http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1971/ENG\_LOCAL/SUNLG/LEICS\_DERBY\_SUNLG\_06JUN1971.html

Play was halted when Leicestershire had scored 129/7 from 34 overs (3.794 runs per over) against Derbyshire's 149/8 from 40 overs (3.725 runs per over).

**Birmingham League method**: Derbyshire's run rate is 3.73 per over. 6 overs are lost. Leicestershire's required run rate is (100 + (4 x 1.2)) x 3.73 ÷ 100 = 104.8 x 3.73 ÷ 100 = 3.91. The par score is 3.91 x 34 = 132 (rounded down).

**DLS method**: The par score for Leicestershire in 34 overs is 126.

**D/L method**: Resources (40 overs, 0 wickets lost) = 89.3%. Derbyshire's resources = 89.3%. Resources (6 overs remaining, 7 wickets lost) = 13.9%. This was lost, so Leicestershire's resources = 89.3 - 13.9 = 75.4%. Par score for Leicestershire = 149 x 75.4 / 89.3 = 125 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Derbyshire's run rate is 3.725 runs per over. 6 overs were lost, so 3% is added. 3.725 \* 103 / 100 = 3.83675. Then 3.83675 \* 34 = 130.4495 (131 is a win, 130 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 40 overs = 90.7%; 34 overs = 82.2%. Leicestershire's par score is 149 \* 82.2 / 90.7 = 135 (rounded down).

**ICC method (modified)**: Par score = 149 x 82.26 / 90.48 = 135 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Derbyshire's run rate is 3.725 runs per over. 75% of this equals 2.79375. 6 overs were lost; 6 \* 2.79375 = 16.7625. Leicestershire's par score is 149 - 16.7625 = 132 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Derbyshire scored 149 from 40 overs of which 2 were maidens (3.92 runs per over). Leicestershire scored 129 from 34 overs of which 3 were maidens (4.16 runs per over).

**VJD method**: The par score for Leicestershire in 34 overs is 128.

**Unnamed method #1**: Derbyshire's run rate is 3.725 per over. Target = 3.725 x 34 + 6 = 132 (rounded down).

## Run rate wickets

Compare the runs per over of **team1's** complete innings against that of **team2** for the number of overs they received but number of wickets **team2** allowed to use reduced.

## Runs per wicket on countback to score at equivalent point

Compare the **team1** runs per wicket figure after the exact number of overs received by **team2** against that of **team2**.

Example: http://www.cricketarchive.com/Archive/Scorecards/32/32911.html

Play was halted when Northern Transvaal had scored 92/2 from 32 overs against Rhodesia's 235 all out from 59.2 of their 60 overs. Northern Transvaal's runs per wicket (46) was superior to the Rhodesia runs per wicket after 32 overs of their innings.

**Birmingham League method**: Rhodesia's run rate is 3.92 per over. 28 overs are lost. Northern Transvaal's required run rate is (100 + (28 x 1.2)) x 3.92 ÷ 100 = 133.6 x 3.92 ÷ 100 = 5.24. The par score is 5.24 x 32 = 167 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Rhodesia scored 3.92 runs per over. 75% of this equals 2.94. Transvaal lost 28 overs. 2.94 \* 28 = 82.32. Target = 235 + 1 - 82.32 = 153 (round down).

**Unnamed method #1**: Rhodesia's run rate is 3.916666667 per over. Target = 3.916666667 x 32 + 28 = 153 (rounded down).

## Unnamed method #1

Suppose a suspension of play causes the team batting second to receive a lesser number of overs than the team that batted first. In that case, a revised target score to win shall be for the team batting second to score the average per over equal to the first innings score plus one run for each over less than the first innings.

For example, Team 1 scores 168 from its 20 overs = 8.4 runs per over.

Team 2's innings reduced to 9 overs; 9 x 8.4 = 75 (discount the fraction) plus 11 for the reduction of 11 overs = a target of 86.

**Birmingham League method**: Team 1's run rate is 8.40 per over. 11 overs are lost. Team 2's required run rate is (100 + (11 x 1.2)) x 8.40 ÷ 100 = 113.2 x 8.40 ÷ 100 = 9.0588. The target is 9.0588 x 9 = 86 (rounded up).

**D/L method**: 168 x 29.3 / 56.6 = 86.968197879858 = 87 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Team 1 scored 8.4 runs per over. 11 overs were lost, so 5.5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 8.4 \* 105.5 / 100 = 8.862. Then 8.862 \* 9 = 79.758 (80 is a win, 79 is a loss).

**ICC method (modified)**: 168 x 27.67 / 55.72 = 84 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Team 1 scored 8.40 runs per over. 75% of this equals 6.30. Team 2 lost 11 overs. 6.30 \* 11 = 69.3. Target = 168 + 1 - 69.3 = 99 (rounded down).

## Other examples

The examples given are from those not already given in other methods, using both real-life and hypothetical examples.

Cricket uses 6-ball overs, therefore 1 ball is 1/6 of an over.

### Example 1

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-series-cup-1981-82-60816/australia-vs-west-indies-15th-match-65333/full-scorecard

West Indies scored 189 all out from 50 overs. Australia were 168/7 from 43.1 overs when rain terminated the match.

Actual result: Australia won on run rate (3.89 vs 3.78 runs per over).

**Birmingham League method**: West Indies scored 3.78 runs per over. 4.5 overs were lost. Australia's required run rate is (100 + ((6 + 5/6) x 1.2)) x 3.78 ÷ 100 = 108.2 x 3.78 ÷ 100 = 4.09. The par score is 4.09 \* (43 + 1/6) = 176 (round down).

**DLS method**: The par score for Australia in 43.1 overs is 118.

**D/L method**: West Indies' resources = 100%. Resources (6.5 overs remaining, 7 wickets lost) = 15.0%. Australia's resources = 100 - 15.0 = 85.0%. Par score = 189 x 85.0 / 100.0 = 160 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: West Indies scored 3.78 runs per over. 6.5 overs were lost, so 3.41666% (0.5 \* 6.83333) is added. The adjusted run rate is 3.78 \* 103.41666 / 100 = 3.90915. Then 3.90915 \* (43 + 1/6) = 168.744975 (169 is a win, 168 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 50 overs = 100%; 43.1 overs ~= 94.35%. The par score is 189 \* 94.35 / 100 = 178.3215 = 178 (round down).

**ICC method (modified)**: 189 x 94.06 / 100 = 177.7734 = 177 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: West Indies scored 3.78 runs per over. 75% of this equals 2.835. Australia lost 6.5 overs. 2.835 \* (6 + 5/6) = 19.3725. Par score = 189 - 19.3725 = 169 (rounded down).

**VJD method**: The par score for Australia in 43.1 overs is 163.

**Unnamed method #1**: West Indies scored 3.78 runs per over. Target for Australia is 3.78 x (43 + 1/6) + (6 + 5/6) = 170 (rounded down).

### Example 2

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-series-1990-91-60910/australia-vs-new-zealand-1st-match-65465/full-scorecard

Rain between innings after Australia had scored 236/9 from 43.5 overs resulted in an adjusted target for New Zealand of 236 in 40 overs.

Actual result: New Zealand scored 174/7 in 40 overs.

**Birmingham League method**: Australia scored 5.36 runs per over. 4.5 overs were lost. New Zealand's required run rate is (100 + ((3 + 5/6) x 1.2)) x 5.36 ÷ 100 = 104.98333 x 5.36 ÷ 100 = 5.63. The target is 5.63 \* 40 = 226 (round up).

**DLS method**: The target for New Zealand in 40 overs is 225.

**D/L method**: Resources (6.1 overs remaining, 9 wickets lost) = 4.7%. Australia's resources = 100 - 4.7 = 95.3%. Resources (40 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 89.3%. Target = 236 x 89.3 / 95.3 = 222 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Australia scored 5.384030418 runs per over. 6.1 overs were lost, so 3.08333% (0.5 \* 6.16666) is added. The adjusted run rate is 5.384030418 \* 103.08333 / 100 = 5.550038023. Then 5.550038023 \* 40 = 222.0015209 (223 is a win, 222 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 43.5 overs ~= 94.95%; 40 overs = 90.7%. 236 \* 90.7 / 94.95 = 226 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 236 x 90.48 / 94.75 = 225.36443271767 = 226 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Australia scored 5.36 runs per over. 75% of this equals 4.02. New Zealand lost 3.5 overs. 4.02 \* (3 + 5/6) = 15.41. Target = 236 + 1 - 15.41 = 221 (round down).

**Run rate**: The target for New Zealand in 40 overs is 216.

**VJD method**: The target for New Zealand in 40 overs is 215.

**Unnamed method #1**: Australia scored 5.384030418 runs per over. Target for New Zealand is 5.384030418 x 40 + (3 + 5/6) = 219 (rounded down).

### Example 3

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-series-cup-1982-83-60826/england-vs-new-zealand-14th-match-65351/full-scorecard

England were 45/3 from 17.3 overs when rain interrupted play. The match was reduced to 23 overs per side. England's final score was 88/7 from 23 overs. New Zealand's target was 89.

Actual result: New Zealand scored 89/3 from 20.3 overs.

**DLS method**: The target for New Zealand in 23 overs is 102.

**D/L method**: Resources (32.3 overs remaining, 3 wickets lost) = 63.9%. Resources (5.3 overs remaining, 3 wickets lost) = 18.0%. Resources lost = 63.9 - 18.0 = 45.9%. England's resources = 100 - 45.9 = 54.1%. Resources (23 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 62.7%. Target = 88 + 245 x (62.7 – 54.1)/100 + 1 = 110 (rounded down).

**VJD method**: The target for New Zealand in 23 overs is 102.

### Example 4

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1999-2000/AUS\_LOCAL/MMC/TAS\_WA\_MMC\_12FEB2000.html and http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1999-2000/AUS\_LOCAL/MMC/TAS\_WA\_MMC\_12FEB2000\_RR-COMPARISON.html

Tasmania scored 233/7 from 50 overs. Western Australia were 138/5 after 31.3 overs when rain interrupted play. The maximum number of overs was reduced to 48 and the target to 229 (Duckworth/Lewis method).

Actual result: Western Australia were all out for 182 in 42.4 overs.

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: The highest-scoring 48 overs totalled 233. Because 2 overs were lost, 1% is deducted. Western Australia's target is 233 \* 99 / 100 = 231 (rounded up).

**Birmingham League method**: Tasmania scored 4.66 runs per over. 2 overs were lost. Western Australia's required run rate is (100 + 2 x 1.2) x 4.66 ÷ 100 = 102.4 x 4.66 ÷ 100 = 4.77. The target is 4.77 x 48 = 229 (rounded up).

**Consecutive overs or run rate**: Tasmania's last 48 overs totalled 226 (4.71 per over), while its overall run rate is 4.66 per over. The target is 227.

**Countback to score at equivalent point of team1** and **Countback to score at equivalent last completed over of team1**: Tasmania was 217/7 after 48 overs. The target is 218 for both methods.

**DLS method**: The target for Western Australia in 48 overs is 230.

**D/L method**: Tasmania's resources = 100%. Resources (18.3 overs, 5 wickets lost) = 37.3%. Resources (16.3 overs, 5 wickets lost) = 35.2%. Resources lost = 37.3 - 35.2 = 2.1%. Western Australia's resources = 100 - 2.1 = 97.9%. Target = 233 x 97.9 / 100 = 229 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Tasmania scored 4.66 runs per over. 2 overs were lost, so 1% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.66 \* 101 / 100 = 4.7066. Then 4.7066 \* 48 = 225.9168 (226 is a win, 225 is a loss).

**Highest scoring overs**: The highest-scoring 48 overs for Tasmania totalled 233. The target is 234.

**ICC rain rule**: 50 overs = 100%; 48 overs = 98.7%. Target = 233 \* 98.7 / 100 = 230 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: Target = 233 x 98.52 / 100 = 230 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Tasmania scored 4.66 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.495. Western Australia lost 2 overs. 3.495 \* 2 = 6.99. Target = 233 + 1 - 6.99 = 227 (round down).

**Run rate**: The target for Western Australia in 48 overs is 224.

**VJD method**: The target for Western Australia in 48 overs is 227.

**Unnamed method #1**: Tasmania scored 4.66 runs per over. Target for Western Australia is 4.66 x 48 + 2 = 225 (rounded down).

### Example 5

Scenario 2 from https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/numbers-game-a-comparison-of-two-rain-rules-567639

### Example 6

Example 1 of https://web.archive.org/web/20051030021837/http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/odi\_playing\_conditions.pdf

Team1 reaches 79/3 after 20 overs when there is a suspension of play. It is decided to reduce the match to 40 overs per side. Team1 reaches 180 after 40 overs.

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: The target is 185.

**DLS method**: The target is 184.

**VJD method**: The target is 180.

### Example 7

Example 2 of https://web.archive.org/web/20051030021837/http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/odi\_playing\_conditions.pdf

In a 45-over match, Team1 scores 212 in its allocated 45 overs. Rain fells between innings, reducing Team2's innings to 35 overs.

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: The target is 185.

**DLS method**: The target is 188.

**Factored run rate**: Team1 scored 4.7111 runs per over. 10 overs were lost, so 5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.7111 \* 105 / 100 = 4.9467. Then 4.9467 \* 35 = 173.1333 (174 is a win, 173 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 35 overs = 84.0%; 45 overs = 96.0%. 212 \* 84.0 / 96.0 = 186 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 212 \* 83.76 / 95.90 = 186 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Team1 scored 4.71 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.5325. Team2 lost 10 overs. 3.5325 \* 10 = 35.325. Target = 212 + 1 - 35.325 = 177 (rounded down).

**Run rate**: The target is 165.

**VJD method**: The target is 184.

**Unnamed method #1**: Team1 scored 4.7111111111 runs per over. Target for Team2 is 4.7111111111 x 35 + 10 = 175 (rounded down).

### Example 8

Example 3 of https://web.archive.org/web/20051030021837/http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/odi\_playing\_conditions.pdf

Team1 scores 250 in its allocated 50 overs. Team2 were 40/1 after 12 overs when rain fell, reducing Team2's innings to 40 overs.

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: The target is 218.

**DLS method**: The target is 221.

**Factored run rate**: Team1 scored 5 runs per over. 10 overs were lost, so 5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 5 \* 105 / 100 = 5.25. Then 5.25 \* 40 = 210 (211 is a win, 210 is a tie, 209 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 40 overs = 90.7%; 50 overs = 100.0%. 250 \* 90.7 / 100 = 227 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 250 \* 90.48 / 100.00 = 227 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Team1 scored 5.00 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.75 . Team2 lost 10 overs. 3.75 \* 10 = 37.5. Target = 250 + 1 - 37.5 = 213 (round down).

**Run rate**: The target is 201.

**VJD method**: The target is 216.

**Unnamed method #1**: Team1 scored 5.00 runs per over. Target for Team2 is 5.00 x 40 + 10 = 210 (rounded down).

### Example 9

Example 4 of https://web.archive.org/web/20051030021837/http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/odi\_playing\_conditions.pdf

Team1 scores 250 in its allocated 50 overs. Team2 were 40/1 after 12 overs when rain fell, reducing Team2's innings to 40 overs. Team2 takes its score to 98/3 after 22 overs when rain fell, reducing Team2's innings to 38 overs. Team2 is 154/6 after 30.2 overs when rain washes out the match.

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: The par score is 159. Team 1 wins by 5 runs (D/L method).

**DLS method**: The par score is 163.

**Factored run rate**: Team1 scored 5 runs per over. 19.4 overs were lost, so 9.8333% is added. The adjusted run rate is 5 \* 109.8333 / 100 = 5.4916. Then 5.4916 \* (30 + 2/6) = 166.58 (167 is a win, 166 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 30.2 overs ~= 76.6%; 50 overs = 100.0%. 250 \* 76.6 / 100 = 192 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 250 \* 76.30 / 100.00 = 190.75. Target is 191.

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Team1 scored 5.00 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.75. Team2 lost 10 overs. 3.75 \* (19 + 4/6) = 73.75. Target = 250 + 1 - 73.75 = 177 (round down).

**Run rate**: The target is 191.

**VJD method**: The par score is 164.

**Unnamed method #1**: Team1 scored 5.00 runs per over. Target for Team2 is 5.00 x (30 + 2/6) + (19 + 4/6) = 171 (rounded down).

### Example 10

Example 5 of https://web.archive.org/web/20051030021837/http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/odi\_playing\_conditions.pdf

Team1 scores 226/8 in 47.1 of the scheduled 50 overs. Rain then terminates Team1's innings and delays Team2's innings, reducing it to 33 overs.

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: The target is 194.

**DLS method**: The target is 199.

**Factored run rate**: Team1 scored 4.7915194346289 runs per over. 14.1 overs were lost, so 7.08333% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.7915194346289 \* 107.08333 / 100 = 5.1309187279151. Then 5.1309187279151 \* 33 = 169.32031802119 (170 is a win, 169 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 47.1 overs ~= 97.95%; 33 overs = 80.9%. 226 \* 80.9 / 97.95 = 187 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 226 \* 80.70 / 97.84 = 187 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Team1 scored 4.71 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.53125. India lost 14.1 overs. 3.53125 \* (14 + 1/6) = 50.02604. Target = 226 + 1 - 50.02604 = 176 (round down).

**Run rate**: The target is 159.

**VJD method**: The target is 187.

**Unnamed method #1**: Team1 scored 4.791519435 runs per over. Target for Team2 is 4.791519435 x 33 + (14 + 1/6) = 172 (rounded down).

### Example 11

Example 6 of https://web.archive.org/web/20051030021837/http://www.icc-cricket.com/rules/odi\_playing\_conditions.pdf

Team1 scores 226/8 in 47.1 of the scheduled 50 overs. Rain then terminates Team1's innings and delays Team2's innings, reducing it to 33 overs. Team2 takes its score to 140/2 after 25 overs when weather reduced its innings to 28 overs.

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: The target is 158.

**DLS method**: The target is 161.

**Factored run rate**: Team1 scored 4.7915194346289 runs per over. 19.1 overs were lost, so 9.58333% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.7915194346289 \* 109.58333 / 100 = 5.2507067138908. Then 5.2507067138908 \* 28 = 147.01978798586 (148 is a win, 147 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 47.1 overs ~= 97.95%; 28 overs = 72.4%. 226 \* 72.4 / 97.95 = 168 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 226 \* 72.14 / 97.84 = 167 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Team1 scored 4.71 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.53125. India lost 19.1 overs. 3.53125 \* (19 + 1/6) = 67.68229. Target = 226 + 1 - 67.68229 = 159 (rounded down).

**Run rate**: The target is 135.

**VJD method**: The target is 148.

**Unnamed method #1**: Team1 scored 4.791519435 runs per over. Target for Team2 is 4.791519435 x 28 + (19 + 1/6) = 153 (rounded down).

### Example 12

https://theconversation.com/crickets-duckworth-lewis-method-how-to-work-out-who-wins-when-rain-interrupts-118442

Team1 bats for 20 overs, during which time two wickets are lost. There is then a break for rain, after which the match is reduced to 40 overs per side. They get through a further 15 overs (35 overs total), losing a further three wickets, but then the rain returns and puts an end to their innings at 150/5. Team2 has just 22 overs to bat by the time the rain has stopped.

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: The target is 137.

**DLS method**: The target is 135.

**Factored run rate**: Team1 scored 4.285714286 runs per over. 13 overs were lost, so 6.5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.285714286 \* 106.5 / 100 = 4.564285714. Then 4.564285714 \* 22 = 100.4142857 (101 is a win, 100 is a loss).

**ICC method (modified)**: 150 \* 60.14 / 83.76 = 107.7005731. Target is 108.

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Team1 scored 4.29 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.2175. Team2 lost 13 overs. 3.2175 \* 13 = 41.8275. Target = 150 + 1 - 41.8275 = 109 (round down).

**Run rate**: The target is 95.

**VJD method**: The target is 135.

**Unnamed method #1**: Team1 scored 4.285714286 runs per over. Target for Team2 is 4.285714286 x 22 + 13 = 107 (rounded down).

### Example 13

Scenario 1 from https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/numbers-game-a-comparison-of-two-rain-rules-567639

### Example 14

Scenario 3 from https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/numbers-game-a-comparison-of-two-rain-rules-567639

In a T20 match, Team1 scores 35 or 50 runs from 0, 1, or 2 wickets in 6 overs. Team2 has 6 overs.

### Example 15

http://ntca.tas.cricket.com.au/common/pages/public/rv/match.aspx?matchID=3798798&entityID=3190

Mowbray were bowled out for 142 (50 overs scheduled). Latrobe were 125/5 from 27 overs when rain washed out the match.

Actual result: The DLS par score was 86. Latrobe won by 39 runs (DLS method).

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: Mowbray's best 27 overs totalled 127. 23 overs were lost, so 11.5% is deducted. Latrobe's par score is 127 \* 88.5 / 100 = 112.395 = 112 (round down).

**Birmingham League method**: Mowbray's run rate is 2.84 per over. 23 overs are lost. Latrobe's required run rate is (100 + (23 x 1.2)) x 2.84 ÷ 100 = 127.6 x 2.84 ÷ 100 = 3.62. The par score is 3.62 x 27 = 97.74 = 97 (rounded down).

**Consecutive overs or run rate**: Mowbray's last 27 overs totalled 68 (2.52 per over); their overall run rate is 2.84 per over. Latrobe's par score is is 2.84 \* 27 = 76.68 = 76 (round down).

**Countback to score at equivalent point of team1** and **Countback to score at equivalent last completed over of team1**: After 27 overs Mowbray were 95/3.

**D/L method**: Mowbray's resources = 100%. Resources (23 overs remaining, 5 wickets lost) = 40.9%. Latrobe's resources = 100 - 40.9 = 59.1%. Par score = 142 x 59.1 / 100 = 83 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Mowbray's run rate was 2.84 per over. 23 overs were lost, so 11.5% is added. 2.84 \* 111.5 / 100 = 3.1666. Then 3.1666 \* 27 = 85.4982 (86 is a win, 85 is a loss).

**Highest scoring overs**: Mowbray's best 27 overs totalled 127.

**ICC rain rule**: 50 overs = 100%; 27 overs = 70.2%. Latrobe's par score is 142 \* 70.2 / 100 = 99.684 = 99 (round down).

**ICC method (modified)**: Par score = 142 \* 70.28 / 100 = 99.7976 = 99 (round down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Mowbray's run rate was 2.84 per over. 75% of this is 2.13. 23 overs were lost; 2.13 \* 23 = 48.99. Latrobe's par score is 142 - 48.99 = 93 (round down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Mowbray scored 142 from 50 overs of which 6 were maidens (3.23 runs per over). Latrobe scored 125 from 27 overs of which 3 were maidens (5.21 runs per over).

**Run rate**: Mowbray scored 142 from 50 overs (2.84 runs per over). Latrobe scored 125 from 27 overs (4.63 runs per over).

**VJD method**: The par score was 85.

**Unnamed method #1**: Mowbray scored 2.84 runs per over. Target for Latrobe is 2.84 x 27 + 23 = 99 (rounded down).

### Example 16

http://ntca.tas.cricket.com.au/common/pages/public/rv/match.aspx?matchID=3798797&entityID=3190

Devonport scored 194/7 from 50 overs. Launceston were 157/4 from 29.5 overs when rain washed out the match.

Actual result: The DLS par score was 108. Launceson won by 49 runs (DLS method).

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: Devonport's best 29 overs totalled 170. 21 overs were lost, so 10.5% is deducted. Launceston's par score is 170 \* 89.5 / 100 = 152.15 = 152 (round down). After 29 overs Launceston were 152/4.

**Consecutive overs or run rate**: Devonport's last 29 overs totalled 137 (4.724137931 per over); their overall run rate is 3.88 per over. The par score in 29 overs is 137. After 29 overs Launceston were 152/4.

**Countback to score at equivalent point of team1**: After 29.5 overs Devonport were 93/3.

**Countback to score at equivalent last completed over of team1**: After 29 overs Devonport were 87/3; Launceston were 152/4.

**D/L method**: Devonport's resources = 100%. Resources (20.1 overs remaining, 4 wickets lost) = 44.8%. Launceston's resources = 100 - 44.8 = 55.2%. Par score = 194 x 55.2 / 100 = 107 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Devonport's run rate was 3.88 per over. 20.1 overs were lost, so 10.08333% is added. 3.88 \* 110.08333 / 100 = 4.27123. Then 4.27123 \* (29 + 5/6) = 127.4251278 (128 is a win, 127 is a loss).

**Highest scoring consecutive overs**: Devonport's best 29 conescutive overs is 137. After 29 overs Launceston were 152/4.

**Highest scoring overs**: Devonport's best 29 overs totalled 170. After 29 overs Launceston were 152/4.

**ICC rain rule**: 50 overs = 100%; 29.5 overs ~= 75.7%. Launceston's par score is 194 \* 75.7 / 100 = 146.858 = 146 (round down).

**ICC method (modified)**: Par score = 194 \* 75.43 / 100 = 146.3342 = 146 (round down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Devonport's run rate was 3.88 per over. 75% of this is 2.91. 20.1 overs were lost; 2.91 \* (20 + 1/6) = 58.685. Launceston's par score is 194 - 58.685 = 135 (round down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Devonport scored 194 from 50 overs of which 4 were maidens (4.22 runs per over). Launceston scored 157 from 29.5 overs of which 2 were maidens (5.64 runs per over).

**Run rate**: Devonport scored 194 from 50 overs (3.88 runs per over). Launceston scored 157 from 29.5 overs (5.26 runs per over).

**VJD method**: The par score was 106.

**Unnamed method #1**: Devonport scored 3.88 runs per over. Target for Launceston is 3.88 x (29 + 5/6) + (20 + 1/6) = 135 (rounded down).

### Example 17

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-cup-1991-92-60924/australia-vs-india-12th-match-65129/full-scorecard

Australia scored 237/9 from 50 overs. India were 45/2 from 16.2 overs when rain halts play and reduces India's innings to 47 overs.

Actual result: The highest-scoring 47 overs by Australia was 235. India were bowled out for 234. Australia won by 1 run.

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: The highest-scoring 47 overs by Australia was 235. Because 3 overs were lost, 1.5% is deducted. India's target is 235 \* 98.5 / 100 = 231.475 = 232 (round up).

**Birmingham League method**: Australia's run rate is 4.74 per over. 3 overs are lost. India's required run rate is (100 + (3 x 1.2)) x 4.74 ÷ 100 = 103.6 x 4.74 ÷ 100 = 4.91064. Then 4.91064 x 47 = 230.80008 = 231 (rounded up).

**DLS method**: The target is 231.

**D/L method**: Australia's resources = 100%. Resources (33.4 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 71.6%. Resources (30.4 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 68.2%. Resources lost = 71.6 - 68.2 = 3.4%. India's resources = 100 - 3.4 = 96.6%. Target = 237 x 96.6 / 100 = 229 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Australia's run rate was 4.74 per over. 3 overs were lost, so 1.5% is added. 4.74 \* 101.5 / 100 = 4.8111. Then 4.8111 \* 47 = 226.1217 (227 is a win, 226 is a loss).

**ICC method**: 50 overs = 100%; 47 overs = 97.8%. India's target is 237 \* 97.8 / 100 = 231.786 = 232 (round up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 50 overs = 100%; 47 overs = 97.70%. India's target is 237 \* 97.70 / 100 = 231.549 = 232 (round up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Australia's run rate was 4.74 per over. 75% of this is 3.555. 3 overs were lost; 3.555 \* 3 = 10.665. India's target is 237 + 1 - 10.665 = 227 (round down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Australia scored 237 from 50 overs of which 2 were maidens (4.94 runs per over). India scored 234 from 47 overs of which 4 were maidens (5.44 runs per over).

**Run rate**: Australia scored 237 from 50 overs (4.74 runs per over). India scored 234 from 47 overs (4.98 runs per over).

**VJD method**: The target is 228.

**Unnamed method #1**: Australia scored 4.74 runs per over. Target for India is 4.74 x 47 + 3 = 225 (rounded down).

### Example 18

https://p.imgci.com/db/DOWNLOAD/100/0145/DLSvsKleiber.pdf

### Example 19

Scenario 1 from https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/steven-stern-why-dls-trumps-vjd-881493

50-over first innings, 20-over second innings.

### Example 20

Scenario 2 from https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/steven-stern-why-dls-trumps-vjd-881493

10-over target for shortened 20-over innings.

### Example 21

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/women-s-national-cricket-league-2022-23-1322373/south-australia-women-vs-victoria-women-5th-match-1322431/full-scorecard

South Australia scored 200/9 from 50 overs. Rain fell between innings; the target for Victoria is 119 runs in 23 overs.

Actual result: Victoria scored 118/5 in 23 overs. Match tied (DLS method).

**Birmingham League method**: South Australia scored 4.00 runs per over. Victoria's required runs per over is (100 + 27 x 1.2}) x 4.00 ÷ 100 = 132.4 x 4.00 / 100 = 5.296. Then 5.296 x 23 = 121.808 = 122 (rounded up).

**D/L method**: South Australia's resources = 100%. Resources (23 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 62.7%. Target = 200 x 62.7 / 100 = 126 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: South Australia scored 4.00 runs per over. 27 overs were lost, so 13.5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4 \* 113.5 / 100 = 4.54. Then 4.54 \* 23 = 104.42 (105 is a win, 104 is a loss).

**ICC method (modified)**: 23 overs = 62.28%; 50 overs = 100.00%. Target = 100 x 62.28 / 100.00 = 124.56 = 125 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: South Australia scored 4.00 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.00. Victoria lost 27 overs. 27 x 4 = 108. Target = 200 + 1 - 108 = 93.

**Maidens ignored run rate**: South Australia scored 200 from 50 overs of which 2 were maidens (4.17 per over). Victoria scored 118 from 23 overs of which 2 were maidens (5.62 per over).

**Run rate**: South Australia scored 200 from 50 overs (4.00 per over). Victoria scored 118 from 23 overs (5.13 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: South Australia scored 4.00 runs per over. Target for Victoria is 4.00 x 23 + 27 = 119 (rounded down).

### Example 22

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/women-s-national-cricket-league-2022-23-1322373/new-south-wales-women-vs-western-australia-women-7th-match-1322433/full-scorecard

New South Wales were 175/4 from 32.5 overs when it was curtailed due to rain. Western Australia innings reduced to 32 overs; target was 222.

Actual result: Western Australia bowled out for 213 (31.5 overs). New South Wales won by 8 runs (DLS method).

**Birmingham League method**: New South Wales scored 5.33 runs per over. Western Australia's required runs per over is (100 + (5/6) x 1.2}) x 5.33 ÷ 100 = 101 x 5.33 / 100 = 5.3833. Then 5.3833 x 32 = 172.2656 = 173 (rounded up).

**D/L method (standard method, G50 = 200)**: Resources (17.1 overs remaining, 4 wickets lost) = 40.9%. New South Wales' resources = 100 - 40.9 = 59.1%. Resources (32 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 78.3%. Target = 175 + 200 x (78.3 – 59.1)/100 + 1 = 214 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: New South Wales scored 5.33 runs per over. 0.5 were lost, so 0.41666667% is added. The adjusted run rate is 5.33 \* 100.41666667 / 100 = 5.3522083333. Then 5.3522083333 \* 32 = 171.2706666667 (172 is a win, 171 is a loss).

**ICC method**: 32 overs = 79.1%; 32.5 overs ~= 80.6%. Target = 175 x 79.1 / 80.6 = 171.74317617866 = 172 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: 32 overs = 79.10%; 32.5 overs = 80.44%. Target = 175 x 79.10 / 80.44 = 172.08478368970 = 173 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: New South Wales scored 5.33 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.9975. Western Australia lost 0.5 overs. (5/6) x 3.9975 = 3.33125. Target = 175 + 1 - 3.33125 = 172.6875 = 173 (rounded up).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: New South Wales scored 175 from 32.5 overs of which 2 were maidens (5.68 per over). Western Australia scored 213 from 32 overs of which 1 was a maiden (6.87 per over).

**Run rate**: New South Wales scored 175 from 32.5 overs (5.33 per over). Western Australia scored 213 from 32 overs (6.65 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: New South Wales scored 5.329949239 runs per over. Target for Western Australia is 5.329949239 x 32 + (5/6) = 171 (rounded down).

### Example 23

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/women-s-national-cricket-league-2022-23-1322373/queensland-women-vs-australian-capital-territory-women-8th-match-1322434/full-scorecard

Queensland were 270/4 from 47 overs when it was curtailed due to rain. Australian Capital Territory were 106/6 from 20.4 overs when it was curtailed due to rain.

Actual result: Par score was 153. Queensland won by 47 runs (DLS method).

**Birmingham League method**: Queensland scored 5.7446808510638 runs per over. Australian Capital Territory's required runs per over is (100 + (26 + 2/6) x 1.2}) x 5.7446808510638 ÷ 100 = 145.6 x 5.7446808510638 / 100 = 8.3642553191489. Par score = 8.3642553191489 x (20 + 4/6) = 172.86127659602 = 172 (rounded down).

**D/L method**: Resources (3 overs remaining, 4 wickets lost) = 10.2%. Queensland's resources = 100 - 10.2 = 89.8%. Resources (47 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 97.1%. Resources (26.2 overs remaining, 6 wickets lost) = 32.9%. Australian Capital Territory's resources = 97.1 - 32.9 = 64.2%. Par score = 270 x 64.2 / 89.8 = 193 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Queensland scored 5.74 runs per over. 26.2 were lost, so 13.1666666667% is added. The adjusted run rate is 5.74 \* 113.1666666667 / 100 = 6.495766667. Then 6.495766667 \* (20 + 4/6) = 134.2458444466 (135 is a win, 134 is a loss).

**ICC method (modified)**: 20.4 overs = 57.22%; 47 overs = 97.70%. Par score = 270 x 57.22 / 97.70 = 158.13101330603 = 158 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Queensland scored 5.74 runs per over. 75% of this equals 4.305. Australian Capital Territory lost 26.2 overs. (26 + 2/6) x 4.305 = 113.365. Target = 270 - 113.365 = 156.635 = 156 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Queensland scored 270 from 47 overs of which 1 was a maiden (5.87 per over). Australian Capital Territory scored 106 from 20.4 overs of which there were no maidens (5.13 per over).

**Run rate**: Queensland scored 270 from 47 overs (5.74 per over). Australian Capital Territory scored 106 from 20.4 overs (5.13 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: Queensland scored 5.7446808510638 runs per over. Target for Australian Capital Territory is 5.7446808510638 x (20 + 4/6) + (26 + 2/6) = 145 (rounded down).

### Example 24

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/national-westminster-bank-trophy-2000-360289/gloucestershire-vs-warwickshire-final-85561/full-scorecard

Warwickshire scored 205/7 from 50 overs. Gloucestershire were 122/3 from 29.4 overs when innings was terminated because of rain.

Actual result: Par score was 100. Gloucestershire won by 22 runs (D/L method).

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: Warwickshire's highest-scoring 29 overs totalled 176. 21 overs were lost, so 11.5% is deducted. Par score = 176 x 88.5 / 100 = 155 (rounded down). Gloucestershire were 117/2 after 29 overs.

**Birmingham League method**: Warwickshire scored 4.10 runs per over. Gloucestershire's required runs per over is (100 + (20 + 2/6) x 1.2}) x 4.10 ÷ 100 = 120.3333333 x 4.10 / 100 = 4.9336666667. Par score = 4.9336666667 x (29 + 4/6) = 146.3654444 = 146 (rounded down).

**Consecutive overs or run rate**: In the final 29 overs, Warwickshire scored 121 runs (4.17 per over). Warwickshire's overall run rate was 4.10 runs per over. Gloucestershire's target is 122 (par score of 121). Gloucestershire were 117/2 after 29 overs.

**Countback to score at equivalent last completed over of team1**: After 29 overs: Warwickshire 114/3; Gloucestershire 117/2.

**Factored run rate**: Warwickshire scored 4.10 runs per over. 21.2 overs were lost, therefore 10.66666667% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.10 \* 110.66666667 / 100 = 4.537333333. Then 4.537333333 \* (29 + 4/6) = 134.6075556 (135 is a win, 134 is a loss).

**Highest scoring consecutive overs**: Warwickshire's highest-scoring 29 consecutive overs is 121. Gloucestershire were 117/2 after 29 overs.

**Highest scoring overs**: Warwickshire's highest-scoring 29 overs totalled 176. Gloucestershire were 117/2 after 29 overs.

**ICC rain rule**: Par score = 205 x 75.4 / 100 = 154.57 = 154 (rounded down).

**ICC rain rule (modified)**: Par score = 205 x 75.14 / 100 = 154.037 = 154 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Warwickshire scored 205 from 50 overs of which 5 were maidens (4.56 per over). Gloucestershire scored 122 from 29.4 overs of which 2 were maidens (4.41 per over).

**Run rate**: Warwickshire scored 205 from 50 overs (4.10 per over). Gloucestershire scored 122 from 29.4 overs (4.11 per over).

**Runs per wicket on countback to score at equivalent point**: After 29 overs: Warwickshire 114/3 (38 runs per wicket); Gloucestershire 117/2 (58.5 runs per wicket).

**Unnamed method #1**: Warwickshire scored 4.10 runs per over. Gloucestershire's target = 4.10 x (29 + 4/6) + (21 + 2/6) = 142 (rounded down).

### Example 25

http://ntca.tas.cricket.com.au/common/pages/public/rv/match.aspx?matchID=434105&entityID=3190

Launceston were bowled out for 133 (50 overs scheduled). South Launceston were 99/5 from 34 overs when rain washed out the match.

Actual result: South Launceston won.

**Birmingham League method**: Launceston's run rate is 2.66 per over. 16 overs are lost. South Launceston's required run rate is (100 + (16 x 1.2)) x 2.66 ÷ 100 = 119.2 x 2.66 ÷ 100 = 3.17072. The par score is 3.17072 x 34 = 107 (rounded down).

**D/L method**: Launceston's resources = 100%. Resources (16 overs remaining, 5 wickets lost) = 34.7%. South Launceston's resources = 100 - 34.7 = 65.3%. Par score = 133 x 65.3 / 100 = 86 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Launceston's run rate was 2.66 per over. 16 overs were lost, so 8.0% is added. 2.66 \* 108 / 100 = 2.8728. Then 2.8728 \* 34 = 97.6752 (98 is a win, 97 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 50 overs = 100%; 34 overs = 82.2%. Par score is 133 \* 82.2 / 100 = 109 (rounded down).

**ICC method (modified)**: Par score = 133 \* 82.26 / 100 = 109 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Launceston's run rate was 2.33 per over. 75% of this is 1.7475. 16 overs were lost; 1.7475 \* 16 = 27.96. Latrobe's par score is 133 - 27.96 = 105 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Launceston scored 133 from 50 overs of which 8 were maidens (3.17 runs per over). South Launceston scored 99 from 34 overs of which 4 were maidens (3.30 runs per over).

**Run rate**: Launceston scored 133 from 50 overs (2.66 runs per over). South Launceston scored 99 from 34 overs (2.91 runs per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: Launceston scored 2.66 runs per over. Target for South Launceston is 2.66 x 34 + 16 = 106 (rounded down).

### Example 26

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/mercantile-mutual-cup-2000-01-367448/queensland-vs-tasmania-98762/full-scorecard
Rain delayed the commencement of play, the match was reduced to 48 overs a side.
Tasmania were 58/4 after 18.3 overs when rain interrupted play, the match was reduced to 42 overs a side.
Tasmania were 120/7 after 36.3 overs overs when rain interrupted play, the match was reduced to 39 overs a side.
Tasmania scored 134/8 from 39 overs.
Queensland were 1 run for 2 wickets after 4.4 overs chasing 147 from 39 overs, their target was reduced to 119 from 28 overs.
Actual calculation: Queensland's target under the Duckworth/Lewis method was 119 from 28 overs.
Actual result: Queensland scored 122/7 from 26.2 overs. Queensland won by 3 wickets (10 balls left).

**Birmingham League method**: Tasmania's run rate is 3.4358974358974 per over. 11 overs are lost. Queensland's required run rate is (100 + (11 x 1.2)) x 3.4358974358974 ÷ 100 = 113.2 x 3.4358974358974 ÷ 100 = 3.8894358974358. The target is 3.8894358974358 x 28 = 109 (rounded up).

**D/L method**: Resources (31.3 overs remaining, 4 wickets lost) = 55.1%. Resources (23.3 overs remaining, 4 wickets lost) = 48.5%. Resources lost = 5.1 - 48.5 = 6.6%. Resources (5.3 overs remaining, 7 wickets lost) = 13.2%. Resources (2.3 overs remaining, 7 wickets lost) = 7.5%. Resources lost = 13.2 - 7.5 = 5.7%. Total resources lost = 6.6 + 5.7 = 12.3%. Tasmania's resources = 100 - 12.3 = 87.7%. Resources (39 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 88.0%. Resources (34.2 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 72.3%. Resources (23.2 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 58.9%. Resources lost = 14.3%. Queensland's resources = 88.0 - 14.3 = 73.7%. Target = 134 \* 73.7 / 87.7 = 113 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Tasmania's run rate was 3.4358974358974 per over. 11 overs were lost, so 5.5% is added. 3.4358974358974 \* 105.5 / 100 = 3.6248717948717. Then 3.6248717948717 \* 28 = 101.49641025641 (102 is a win, 101 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: 39 overs = 89.3%; 28 overs = 72.4%. Target = 134 \* 72.4 / 89.3 = 109 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: Target = 134 \* 72.14 / 89.24 = 109 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Tasmania's run rate was 3.44 per over. 75% of this is 2.58. 11 overs were lost; 2.58 \* 11 = 28.38. Target = 134 + 1 - 28.38 = 106 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Tasmania scored 134 from 39 overs of which 5 were maidens (3.94 runs per over). Queensland scored 122 from 26.2 overs of which 4 were maidens (5.46 runs per over).

**Run rate**: Tasmania scored 134 from 39 overs (3.44 runs per over). Queensland scored 122 from 26.2 overs (4.63 runs per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: Tasmania scored 3.4358974358974 runs per over. Target for Queensland is 3.4358974358974 x 28 + 11 = 107 (rounded down).

### Example 27

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1998/ENG\_LOCAL/SUNLG/R01/KENT\_MIDDX\_SUNLG\_19APR1998.html

Middlesex scored 206/7 in their 40 overs. Kent were 115/3 from 26 overs when rain washed out the match.

Actual result: Kent won by 1 run (D/L method).

**Birmingham League method**: Middlesex's run rate is 5.15 per over. 14 overs are lost. Kent's required run rate is (100 + (14 x 1.2)) x 5.15 ÷ 100 = 116.8 x 5.15 ÷ 100 = 6.0152. The par score is 6.0152 x 26 = 156 (rounded down).

**D/L method** (uypdated table values): Resources (40 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 89.3%. Middlesex's resources = 89.3%. Resources (14 overs remaining, 3 wickets lost) = 38.5%. Kent's resources = 89.3 - 38.5 = 50.8%. Par score = 206 x 50.8 / 89.3 = 117 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Middlesex's run rate is 5.15 per over. 14 overs were lost, so 7.0% is added. 5.15 \* 107 / 100 = 5.5105. Then 5.5105 \* 26 = 143.273 (144 is a win, 143 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: Par score is 206 \* 68.4 / 90.7 = 155 (rounded down).

**ICC method (modified)**: Par score = 206 \* 68.35 / 90.48 = 155 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Middlesex's run rate is 5.15 per over. 75% of this is 3.8625. 14 overs were lost; 3.8625 \* 14 = 54.075. Par score is 206 - 54.075 = 151 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Middlesex scored 206 from 40 overs of which there were no maidens (5.15 runs per over). Kent scored 115 from 26 overs of which 2 were maidens (4.79 runs per over).

**Run rate**: Middlesex scored 206 from 40 overs (5.15 runs per over). Kent scored 115 from 26 overs (2.91 runs per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: Middlesex's run rate is 5.15 per over. Target for Kent is 5.15 x 26 + 14 = 147 (rounded down).

### Example 28

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/reliance-world-cup-1987-88-60876/england-vs-sri-lanka-10th-match-65100/full-scorecard

England scored 296/4 from 50 overs. Rain interrupted Sri Lankan innings. Sri Lanka's target was reduced to 267 in 45 overs (run rate).

Result: Sri Lanka scored 158/8 from 45 overs. England won by 108 overs.

**Birmingham League method**: England's run rate is 5.92 per over. Five overs were lost. Sri Lanka's required run rate is (100 + (5 x 1.2)) x 5.96 ÷ 100 = 106 x 5.92 ÷ 100 = 6.2752. The target is 6.2752 x 45 = 283 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: England's run rate is 5.92 per over. Five overs were lost, so 2.5% is added. 5.92 x 102.5 / 100 = 6.068. Then 6.068 x 45 = 273.06 (274 is a win, 273 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: Target = 296 x 96.0 / 100 = 285 (rounded up).

**ICC method (modified)**: Target = 296 x 95.90 / 100 = 284 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: England's run rate is 5.92 per over. 75% of this is 4.44. Five overs were lost; 4.44 x 5 = 22.2. Target = 296 + 1 - 22.2 = 274 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: England scored 296 from 50 overs of which there were no maidens (5.92 runs per over). Sri Lanka scored 158 from 45 overs of which there were 4 maidens (3.85 runs per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: England's run rate is 5.92 per over. Target for India is 5.92 x 45 + 5 = 271 (rounded down).

### Example 29

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-cup-1991-92-60924/australia-vs-india-12th-match-65129/full-scorecard

Australia scored 237/9 from 50 overs. India were 45/1 after 16.2 overs when rain interrupted play. India's target recalculated to 236 off 47 overs (most productive overs).

Result: India all out for 234 from 47 overs. Australia won by 1 run.

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: Australia's highest-scoring 47 overs totalled 235. Three overs were lost, so 1.5% is deducted. Target = 235 x 98.5 / 100 = 232 (rounded up).

**Birmingham League method**: Australia's run rate is 4.74 per over. 3 overs are lost. India's required run rate is (100 + (3 x 1.2)) x 4.74 ÷ 100 = 103.6 x 4.74 ÷ 100 = 4.91064. Then 4.91064 x 47 = 231 (rounded up).

**D/L method**: Australia's resources = 100%. Resources (43.4 overs remaining, 1 wicket lost) = 87.9%. Resources (40.4 overs remaining, 1 wicket lost) = 84.9%. Resources lost = 87.9 - 84.9 = 3.0%. India's resources = 100.0 - 3.0 = 97.0%. Target = 237 x 97.0 / 100 = 230 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Australia scored 4.74 runs per over. 3 overs were lost, so 1.5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.74 x 101.5 / 100 = 4.8111. Then 4.8111 x 47 = 226.1217 (227 is a win, 226 is a loss).

**ICC run rule**: Target = 237 x 97.8 / 100 = 232 (rounded up).

**ICC run rule (modified)**: Target = 237 x 97.70 / 100 = 232 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Australia scored 4.74 runs per over. 75% of this equals 3.555. India lost 3 overs. 3.555 x 3 = 10.665. Target = 237 + 1 - 10.665 = 227 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Australia scored 237 from 50 overs of which 2 were maidens (4.94 per over). India scored 234 from 47 overs of which 4 were maidens (5.44 per over).

**Run rate**: Australia scored 237 from 50 overs (4.74 per over). India scored 234 from 47 overs (4.98 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: Australia scored 4.74 runs per over. Target = 4.74 x 47 + 3 = 225 (rounded down).

### Example 30

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-cup-1991-92-60924/new-zealand-vs-zimbabwe-15th-match-65132/full-scorecard

New Zealand innings interrupted at 9/1 after 2.1 overs. Match reduced to 35 overs per side. Further interruption at 52/2 after 11.2 overs. Match reduced to 24 overs per side. Innings ended by a third interruption at 162/3 after 20.5 overs. Zimbabwe set a target of 154 from 18 overs (most productive overs).

Result: Zimbabwe scored 105/7 from 18 overs. New Zealand won by 48 runs.

**Birmingham League method**: New Zealand's run rate is 7.776 per over. 2.2 overs are lost. Zimbabwe's required run rate is (100 + ((2 + 2/6) x 1.2)) x 7.776 ÷ 100 = 102.8 x 7.776 ÷ 100 = 7.993728. Then 7.993728 x 18 = 144 (rounded up).

**D/L method (standard edition, G50 = 245)**: Resources (47.5 overs remaining, 1 wicket lost) = 91.6%. Resources (32.5 overs remaining, 1 wicket lost) = 75.7%. Resources lost = 15.9%. Resources (23.4 overs remaining, 2 wicket lost) = 58.5%. Resources (12.4 overs remaining, 2 wicket lost) = 37.4%. Resources lost = 21.1%. Resources (3.1 overs remaining, 3 wicket lost) = 10.9%. Total resources lost = 15.9 + 21.1 + 10.9 = 47.9%. New Zealand's resources = 100 - 47.9 = 52.1%. Zimbabwe's resources (18 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 52.2%. Target = 162 + 245 x (52.2 – 52.1)/100 + 1 = 162 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: New Zealand's run rate is 7.776 per over. 2.5 overs were lost, so 1.416667% is added. The adjusted run rate is 7.776 x 101.416667 / 100 = 7.88616. Then 7.88616 x 18 = 141.95088 (142 is a win, 141 is a loss).

**ICC run rule (modified)**: Target = 162 x 51.10 / 57.59 = 144 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: New Zealand's run rate is 7.78 per over. 75% of this equals 5.835. Zimbabwe lost 2.5 overs. 5.835 x (2 + 5/6) = 16.5325. Target = 162 + 1 - 16.5325 = 146 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: New Zealand scored 162 from 20.5 overs of which there was 1 maiden (8.17 per over). Zimbabwe scored 105 from 18 overs of which there were no maidens (5.83 per over).

**Run rate**: New Zealand scored 162 from 20.5 overs (7.78 per over). Zimbabwe scored 105 from 18 overs (5.83 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: New Zealand's run rate is 7.776 per over. Target = 7.776 x 18 + (2 + 5/6) = 142 (rounded down).

### Example 31

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-cup-1991-92-60924/india-vs-zimbabwe-19th-match-65136/full-scorecard

Rain before the game reduced the match to 32 overs per side. India scored 203/7 from 32 overs. Zimbabwe were 104/1 after 19.1 overs when match ended due to rain. The target was recalculated to 159 runs in 19 overs (most productive overs).

Result: After 19 overs, Zimbabwe were 104/1. India won by 55 runs.

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: India's highest-scoring 19 overs totalled 159. 13 overs were lost, so 6.5% is deducted. Target = 159 x 93.5 / 100 = 149 (rounded up).

**Birmingham League method**: India's run rate is 6.34375 per over. 12.5 overs were lost. Zimbabwe's required run rate is (100 + ((12 + 5/6) x 1.2)) x 6.34375 ÷ 100 = 115.4 x 6.34375 ÷ 100 = 7.3206875. Then 7.3206875 x (19 + 1/6) = 141 (rounded up).

**D/L method**: Resources (32 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 78.3%. India's resources = 78.3%. Resources (12.5 overs remaining, 1 wicket lost) = 38.9%. Zimbabwe's resources = 78.3 - 38.9 = 39.4%. Target = 201 x 39.4 / 78.3 = 102 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: India's run rate is 6.34375 per over. 12.5 overs were lost, so 6.41667% is added. The adjusted run rate is 6.34375 x 106.41667 / 100 = 6.750807292. Then 6.750807292 x (19 + 1/6) = 129.3904731 (130 is a win, 129 is a loss).

**ICC run rule (modified)**: Target = 203 x 53.82 / 79.10 = 139 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: India's run rate is 6.34 per over. 75% of this equals 4.755. Zimbabwe lost 12.5 overs. 4.755 x (12 + 5/6) = 61.0225. Target = 203 + 1 - 61.0225 = 142 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: India scored 203 from 32 overs of which 1 was a maiden (6.55 per over). Zimbabwe scored 104 from 19.1 overs of which there were no maidens (5.43 per over).

**Run rate**: India scored 203 from 32 overs (6.34 per over). Zimbabwe scored 104 from 19.1 overs (5.43 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: India's run rate is 6.34375 per over. Target = 6.34375 x (19 + 1/6) + (12 + 5/6) = 134 (rounded down).

### Example 32

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-cup-1991-92-60924/india-vs-west-indies-24th-match-65141/full-scorecard

South Africa scored 236/4 from 50 overs. England were 62/0 after 12 overs when rain disrupted play. The target was revised to 226 in 41 overs (most productive overs).

Result: England 226/7 from 40.5 overs. England won by 3 wickets.

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: India's highest-scoring 41 overs totalled 225. 9 overs were lost, so 4.5% is deducted. Target = 225 x 95.5 / 100 = 215 (rounded up).

**Birmingham League method**: South Africa's run rate is 4.72 per over. 9 overs were lost. England's required run rate is (100 + (9 x 1.2)) x 4.72 ÷ 100 = 110.8 x 4.72 ÷ 100 = 5.22976. Then 5.22976 x 41 = 215 (rounded up).

**D/L method**: South Africa's resources = 100%. Resources (38 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 86.7%. Resources (29 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 73.5%. Resources lost = 13.2%. England's resources = 100 - 13.2 = 86.8%. Target = 236 x 86.8 / 100 = 205 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: South Africa's run rate is 4.72 per over. 9 overs lost, so 4.5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.72 x 104.5 / 100 = 4.9324. Then 4.9324 x 41 = 202.2284 (203 is a win, 202 is a loss).

**ICC run rule**: Target = 236 x 92.0 / 100 = 218 (rounded up).

**ICC run rule (modified)**: Target = 236 x 91.67 / 100 = 217 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: South Africa's run rate is 4.72 per over. 75% of this equals 3.54. England lost 9 overs. 3.54 x 9 = 31.86. Target = 236 + 1 - 31.86 = 205 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: South Africa scored 236 from 50 overs of which 3 were maidens (5.02 per over). England scored 226 from 40.5 overs of which 2 were maidens (5.82 per over).

**Run rate**: South Africa scored 236 from 50 overs (4.72 per over). England scored 226 from 40.5 overs (5.53 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: South Africa's run rate is 4.72 per over. Target = 4.72 x 41 + 9 = 202 (rounded down).

### Example 33

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-cup-1991-92-60924/india-vs-west-indies-24th-match-65141/full-scorecard

Australia were 72/1 after 15 overs when rain stopped play. Match reduced to 46 overs per side. Australia would score 265/6 from 46 overs.

Result: Zimbabwe's target was 266 from 46 overs. Zimbabwe were bowled out for 137. Australia won by 128 runs.

**D/L method (standard edition, G50 = 245)**: Resources (35 overs remaining, 1 wicket lost) = 78.5%. Resources (31 overs remaining, 1 wicket lost) = 73.2%. Resources lost = 5.3%. Australia's resources = 100 - 5.3 = 94.7%. Resources (46 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 96.1%. Target = 265 + 245 x (96.1 – 94.7)/100 + 1 = 268 (rounded down).

### Example 34

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/rules\_and\_equipment/4184006.stm

Team 1 scores 250 from 50 overs. Team 2 have lost five wickets after receiving 25 of their 50 overs when rain stops play. Their innings is reduced to 35 overs.

**Birmingham League method**: Team 1's run rate is 5.00 per over. 15 overs were lost. England's required run rate is (100 + 15 x 1.2)) x 5.00 ÷ 100 = 118 x 5.00 ÷ 100 = 5.9. Then 5.9 x 26 = 207 (rounded up).

**D/L method**: Team 1's resources = 100%. Resources (25 overs remaining, 5 wickets lost) = 42.2%. Resources (10 overs remaining, 5 wickets lost) = 26.1%. Resources lost = 16.1%. Team 2's resources = 100 - 16.1 = 83.9%. Target = 250 x 83.9 / 100 = 210 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Team 1's run rate is 5.00 per over. 15 overs were lost, so 7.5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 5 x 107.5 / 100 = 5.375. Then 5.375 x 35 = 188.125 (189 is a win, 188 is a loss).

**ICC run rule**: Target = 250 x 84.0 / 100 = 211 (rounded up).

**ICC run rule (modified)**: Target = 250 x 83.76 / 100 = 210 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Team 1's run rate is 5.00 per over. 75% of this equals 3.75. 15 overs were lost; 3.75 x 15 = 56.25. Target = 250 + 1 - 56.25 = 194 (rounded down).

**Run rate**: The target for Team 2 is 176.

**Unnamed method #1**: Team 1's run rate is 5.00 per over. Target = 5 x 35 + 15 = 190 (rounded down).

### Example 35

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1997-98/AUS\_LOCAL/MMC/CANB\_NSW\_MMC\_14DEC1997.html

Canberra were bowled out for 192 (50 overs allocated). New South Wales's innings was reduced to 48 overs following a rain delay.

Actual result: The target was 191 (*adjusted highest scoring overs*). New South Wales scored 192/5 from 43.5 overs. New South Wales won by 5 wickets (with 25 balls left).

**Birmingham League method**: Canberra's run rate is 3.84 per over. 2 overs were lost. New South Wales's required run rate is (100 + 2 x 1.2)) x 3.84 ÷ 100 = 102.4 x 3.84 ÷ 100 = 3.93216. Then 3.93216 x 48 = 189 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Canberra's run rate is 3.84 per over. 2 overs were lost, so 1% is added. The adjusted run rate is 3.84 x 101 / 100 = 3.8784. Then 3.8784 x 48 = 184.1632 (187 is a win, 186 is a loss).

**ICC run rule**: Target = 192 x 98.7 / 100 = 190 (rounded up).

**ICC run rule (modified)**: Target = 192 x 98.52 / 100 = 190 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Canberra's run rate is 3.84 per over. 75% of this equals 2.88. 2 overs were lost; 2.88 x 2 = 5.76. Target = 192 + 1 - 5.76 = 187 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Canberra scored 192 from 50 overs of which 4 were maidens (4.17 per over). New South Wales scored 192 from 43.5 overs of which 2 were maidens (4.59 per over).

**Run rate**: The target for New South Wales is 185.

**Unnamed method #1**: Canberra's run rate is 3.84 per over. Target = 3.84 x 48 + 2 = 186 (rounded down).

### Example 36

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1997-98/AUS\_LOCAL/MMC/VIC\_WA\_MMC\_07FEB1998.html

Victora scored 223/5 from 50 overs. Western Australia were 188/1 from 43.2 overs when rain their innings ended because of rain.

Actual result: The target was 213. Victoria won by 25 runs.

**Birmingham League method**: Victoria's run rate is 4.46 per over. 6.4 overs were lost. New South Wales's required run rate is (100 + (6 + 4/6) x 1.2)) x 4.46 ÷ 100 = 108 x 4.46 ÷ 100 = 4.8168. Then 4.8168 x (43 + 2/6) = 209 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Victoria's run rate is 4.46 per over. 6.4 overs were lost, so 3.33333% is added. The adjusted run rate is 4.46 x 103.33333 / 100 = 4.6086666667. Then 4.6086666667 x (46 + 2/6) = 213.53488 (214 is a win, 213 is a loss).

**ICC run rule**: Target = 223 x 94.5 / 100 = 211 (rounded up).

**ICC run rule (modified)**: Target = 223 x 94.24 / 100 = 211 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Victoria's run rate is 4.46 per over. 75% of this equals 3.345. 6.2 overs were lost; 3.345 x (6 + 2/6) = 21.185. Target = 223 + 1 - 21.185 = 202 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Victoria scored 223 from 50 overs of which 3 were maidens (4.74 per over). Western Australia scored 188 from 43.2 overs of which 3 were maidens (4.66 per over).

**Run rate**: The target for Western Australia is 193.

**Unnamed method #1**: Victoria's run rate is 4.46 per over. Target = 4.46 x (43 + 2/6) + (6 + 4/6) = 199 (rounded down).

### Example 37

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ing-cup-2001-02-367449/new-south-wales-vs-tasmania-109009/full-scorecard and http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/AUS\_LOCAL/ING/SCORECARDS/NSW\_TAS\_ING\_14OCT2001\_RR-COMPARISON.html

New South Wales scored 397/4 from 50 overs. Tasmania were 300/6 after 45.2 overs when rain halted play, their target was reduced to 363 from 47 overs (Duckworth/Lewis method).

Actual result: Tasmania scored 327/7 from 47 overs. New South Wales won by 35 runs (D/L method).

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: New South Wales's highest-scoring 47 overs totalled 394. 3 overs were lost, so 1.5% is deducted. Target = 394 x 98.5 / 100 = 389 (rounded up).

**Birmingham League method**: New South Wales's run rate is 7.94 per over. 3 overs were lost. Tasmania's required run rate is (100 + 3 x 1.2)) x 7.94 ÷ 100 = 103.6 x 7.94 ÷ 100 = 8.22584. Then 8.22584 x 47 = 387 (rounded up).

**Consecutive overs or run rate**: New South Wales's last 47 overs totalled 390 (8.30 per over); their overall run rate is 7.94 per over. The target is 391.

**Countback to score at equivalent point of team1** and **Countback to score at equivalent last completed over of team1**: After 47 overs, New South Wales were 351/4; Tasmania were 327/7.

**Duckworth/Lewis method (updated values)**: New South Wales's resources = 100%. Resources (4.4 overs remaining, 6 wickets lost) = 13.6%. Resources (1.4 overs remaining, 6 wickets lost) = 5.6%. Resources lost = 13.6 - 5.6 = 8.0%. Tasmania's resources = 100 - 8.0 = 92.0%. Target = 397 x 92.0 / 100 = 366 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: New South Wales's run rate is 7.94 per over. 3 overs were lost, so 1.5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 7.94 x 101.5 / 100 = 8.0591. Then 8.0591 x 47 = 378.7777 (379 is a win, 378 is a loss).

**Highest scoring consecutive overs**: New South Wales's highest-scoring 47 consecutive overs totalled 390. The target is 391.

**Highest scoring overs**: New South Wales's highest-scoring 47 overs totalled 394. The target is 395.

**ICC rain rule**: Target = 397 x 97.8 / 100 = 389 (rounded up).

**ICC rain rule (modified)**: Target = 397 x 97.70 / 100 = 388 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: New South Wales's run rate is 7.94 per over. 75% of this equals 5.955. 3 overs were lost; 5.955 x 3 = 17.865. Target = 397 + 1 - 17.865 = 380 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: New South Wales scored 397 from 50 overs with no maidens (7.94 per over). Tasmania scored 327 from 47 overs of which 1 was a maiden (7.11 per over).

**Run rate**: The target for Tasmania is 374.

**Unnamed method #1**: New South Wales's run rate is 7.94 per over. Target = 7.94 x 47 + 3 = 376 (rounded down).

### Example 38

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ing-cup-2001-02-367449/new-south-wales-vs-queensland-108063/full-scorecard and http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/AUS\_LOCAL/ING/SCORECARDS/NSW\_QLD\_ING\_18NOV2001\_RR-COMPARISON.html

Queensland scored 274/7 from 50 overs. New South Wales were 124/3 after 27 overs when rain halted play, their target was reduced to 250 from 44 overs (Duckworth/Lewis method).

Actual result: New South Wales scored 252/5 from 43.3 overs. New South Wales won by 5 wickets (D/L method).

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: Queensland's highest-scoring 44 overs totalled 269. 6 overs were lost, so 3% is deducted. Target = 269 x 97 / 100 = 261 (rounded up).

**Birmingham League method**: Queensland's run rate is 5.48 per over. 6 overs were lost. New South Wales's required run rate is (100 + 6 x 1.2)) x 5.48 ÷ 100 = 107.2 x 5.48 ÷ 100 = 5.87456. Then 5.87456 x 44 = 259 (rounded up).

**Consecutive overs or run rate**: Queensland's last 44 overs totalled 250 (5.68 per over); their overall run rate is 5.48 per over. The target is 251.

**Countback to score at equivalent last completed over of team1**: After 44 overs, Queensland were 220/6; the target is 221.

**Duckworth/Lewis method (updated values)**: Queensland's resources = 100%. Resources (23 overs remaining, 3 wickets lost) = 53.4%. Resources (17 overs remaining, 3 wickets lost) = 44.1%. Resources lost = 53.4 - 44.1 = 9.3%. New South Wales's resources = 100 - 9.3 = 90.7%. Target = 274 x 90.7 / 100 = 249 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Queensland's run rate is 5.48 per over. 6 overs were lost, so 3% is added. The adjusted run rate is 5.48 x 103 / 100 = 5.6444. Then 5.6444 x 44 = 248.3536 (249 is a win, 248 is a loss).

**Highest scoring consecutive overs**: Queensland's highest-scoring 47 consecutive overs totalled 250. The target is 251.

**Highest scoring overs**: Queensland's highest-scoring 44 overs totalled 269. The target is 270.

**ICC rain rule**: Target = 274 x 95.1 / 100 = 261 (rounded up).

**ICC rain rule (modified)**: Target = 274 x 94.92 / 100 = 261 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Queensland's run rate is 5.48 per over. 75% of this equals 4.11. 6 overs were lost; 4.11 x 6 = 24.66. Target = 274 + 1 - 24.66 = 250 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Queensland scored 274 from 50 overs with 3 maidens (5.83 per over). New South Wales scored 252 from 43.3 overs with 2 maidens (6.07 per over).

**Run rate**: The target for New South Wales is 242.

**Unnamed method #1**: Queensland's run rate is 5.48 per over. Target = 5.48 x 44 + 6 = 247 (rounded down).

### Example 39

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/benson-hedges-world-series-1988-89-60890/australia-vs-west-indies-3rd-final-65450/full-scorecard

Australia were 83/2 after 23.1 overs when rain halted play; the match was reduced to 38 overs per side. Australia scored 226/4 from 38 overs. West Indies were 47/2 6/4 overs when rain halted play, their target was reduced to 108 from 18 overs (run rate).

Actual result: West Indies scored 111/2 from 13.2 overs. West Indies won by 8 wickets (28 balls left).

**Birmingham League method**: Australia's run rate is 5.947368421 per over. 20 overs were lost. West Indies' required run rate is (100 + 20 x 1.2)) x 5.947368421 ÷ 100 = 124 x 5.947368421 ÷ 100 = 7.374736842. Then 7.374736842 x 18 = 133 (rounded up).

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: Resources (26.5 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 63.2%. Resources (14.5 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 42.2%. Resources lost = 63.2 - 42.2 = 21.0%. Australia's resources = 100 - 21.0 = 79.0%. Resources (38 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 86.7%. Resources (31.2 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 69.0%. Resources (11.2 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 34.2%. Resources lost = 69.0 - 34.2 = 34.8%. West Indies' resources = 86.7 - 34.8 = 51.9%. Target = 226 x 51.9 / 79.0 = 149 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Australia's run rate is 5.947368421 per over. 20 overs were lost, so 10% is added. The adjusted run rate is 5.947368421 x 110 / 100 = 6.542105263. Then 6.542105263 x 18 = 117.7578947 (118 is a win, 117 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule (modified)**: Target = 226 x 51.10 / 87.95 = 132 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Australia's run rate is 5.95 per over. 75% of this equals 4.4625. 20 overs were lost; 4.4625 x 20 = 89.25. Target = 226 + 1 - 89.25 = 137 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Australia scored 226 from 38 overs with 1 maiden (6.11 per over). West Indies scored 111 from 13.2 overs with no maidens (8.33 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: Australia's run rate is 5.947368421 per over. Target = 5.947368421 x 18 + 20 = 127 (rounded down).

### Example 40

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ing-cup-2002-03-367450/queensland-vs-tasmania-122406/full-scorecard and http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/AUS\_LOCAL/ING/SCORECARDS/QLD\_TAS\_ING\_27OCT2002\_RR-COMPARISON.html

Tasmania were bowled out for 174 (50 overs allocated). Queensland were 26/1 after 7 overs when rain halted play, their innings was reduced to 40 overs. They were 106/2 after 24.5 overs when rain halted play, their innings was reduced to 31 overs. They were 107/3 from 26.5 overs when rain ended their innings.

Actual result: The par score was 104. Queensland won by 13 runs (D/L method).

**Adjusted highest scoring overs**: Tasmania's highest-scoring 26 overs totalled 151. 24 overs were lost, so 12% is deducted. Par score = 151 x 88 / 100 = 132 (rounded down). After 26 overs, Queensland were 112/2.

**Birmingham League method**: Tasmania's run rate is 3.48 per over. 23.1 overs were lost. Queensland's required run rate is (100 + (23 + 1/6) x 1.2)) x 3.48 ÷ 100 = 127.8 x 3.48 ÷ 100 = 4.44744. Par score = 4.44744 x (26 + 5/6) = 119 (rounded down).

**Consecutive overs or run rate**: Tasmania's last 26 overs totalled 87 (3.35 per over); their overall run rate is 3.48 per over. The par score is 93.

**Countback to score at equivalent last completed over of team1**: After 26 overs, Tasmania were 94/5; Queensland were 112/2.

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: Tasmania's resources = 100%. Resources (43 overs remaining, 1 wicket lost) = 87.3%. Resources (33 overs remaining, 1 wicket lost) = 75.9%. Resources lost = 87.3 - 75.9 = 11.4%. Resources (15.1 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 42.9%. Resources (6.1 overs remaining, 2 wickets lost) = 20.3%. Resources lost = 42.9 - 20.3 = 20.6%. Resources (4.1 overs remaining, 3 wickets lost) = 14.0%. Total resources lost = 11.4 + 20.6 + 14.0 = 46.0%. Queensland's resources = 100 - 46.0 = 54.0%. Par score = 174 x 54.0 / 100 = 93 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Tasmania's run rate is 3.48 per over. 23.1 overs were lost, so 11.58333% is added. The adjusted run rate is 3.48 x 111.58333 / 100 = 3.8831. Then 3.8831 x (26 + 5/6) = 104.1965167 (105 is a win, 104 is a loss).

**Highest scoring consecutive overs**: Tasmania's highest-scoring 26 consecutive overs totalled 113. After 26 overs, Queensland were 112/2.

**Highest scoring overs**: Tasmania's highest-scoring 26 overs totalled 151. After 26 overs, Queensland were 112/2.

**ICC rain rule**: Par score = 174 x 69.9 / 100 = 121 (rounded down).

**ICC rain rule (modified)**: Par score = 174 x 69.96 / 100 = 121 (rounded down).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Tasmania's run rate is 3.48 per over. 75% of this equals 2.61. 23.1 overs were lost; 2.61 x (23 + 1/6) = 60.465. Par score = 174 - 60.465 = 113 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Tasmania scored 174 from 50 overs with 7 maidens (4.05 per over). Queensland scored 117 from 26.5 overs with 2 maidens (4.71 per over).

**Run rate**: The par score is 93.

**Unnamed method #1**: Tasmania's run rate is 3.48 per over. Target = 3.48 x (26 + 5/6) + (23 + 1/6) = 116 (rounded down).

### Example 41

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/AUS\_LOCAL/ING/SCORECARDS/QLD\_WA\_ING\_29NOV2002.html and http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/AUS\_LOCAL/ING/SCORECARDS/QLD\_WA\_ING\_29NOV2002\_RR-COMPARISON.html

Queensland were bowled out for 190 (50 overs allocated). Rain fell during the break, and Western Australia's innings was reduced to 34 overs. Western Australia were 10/0 from 3 overs when rain fell, the innings was reduced to 25 overs.

Actual result: The target was 127. Western Australia scored 127/4 from 24.5 overs. Western Australia won by 6 wickets (D/L method).

### Example 42

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/AUS\_LOCAL/ING/SCORECARDS/NSW\_SOA\_ING\_16FEB2003.html and http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/AUS\_LOCAL/ING/SCORECARDS/NSW\_SOA\_ING\_16FEB2003\_RR-COMPARISON.html

New South Wales were bowled out for 273 (50 overs allocated). South Australia were 70/2 after 19 overs when rain fell, the innings was reduced to 36 overs.

Actual result: The target was 214. South Australia were bowled out for 174. New South Wales won by 39 runs (D/L method).

### Example 43

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ing-cup-2003-04-133108/new-south-wales-vs-western-australia-132302/full-scorecard

Western Australia scored 280/5 from 50 overs. New South Wales were 99/2 after 18 overs when rain fell, the innings was reduced to 41 overs.

Actual result: The target was 246. New South Wales scored 249/6 from 38.3 overs. New South Wales won by 4 wickets (D/L method).

**Birmingham League method**: Western Australia's run rate is 5.60 per over. 9 overs were lost. New South Wales's required run rate is (100 + 9 x 1.2)) x 5.60 ÷ 100 = 110.8 x 5.60 ÷ 100 = 6.2048. Target = 6.2048 x 41 = 255 (rounded up).

**Factored run rate**: Western Australia's run rate is 5.60 per over. 9 overs were lost, so 4.5% is added. The adjusted run rate is 5.60 x 104.5 / 100 = 5.852. Then 5.852 x 41 = 239.932 (240 is a win, 239 is a loss).

**ICC rain rule**: Target = 280 x 92.0 / 100 = 258 (rounded up).

**ICC rain rule (modified)**: Target = 280 x 91.67 / 100 = 257 (rounded up).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Western Australia's run rate is 5.60 per over. 75% of this equals 4.20. 9 overs were lost; 4.20 x 9 = 37.8. Target = 280 + 1 - 37.8 = 243 (rounded down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Western Australia scored 280 from 50 overs with 2 maidens (5.83 per over). New South Wales scored 249 from 38.3 overs with 1 maiden (6.64 per over).

**Run rate**: The target is 230.

**Unnamed method #1**: Western Australia's run rate is 5.60 per over. Target = 5.60 x 41 + 9 = 238 (rounded down).

### Example 44

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ing-cup-2004-05-135649/victoria-vs-western-australia-141652/full-scorecard

Rain fell before the start of the match; the match was reduced to 24 overs per side.

Western Australia scored 128/7 from 24 overs.

Victoria were 37/1 after 7.2 overs when rain fell; the innings was reduced to 19 overs.

Actual result: The target calculated was 108. (The actual target should have been 105 runs, based on an error found after the match was completed.) Victoria scored 103/3 from 19 overs. Western Australia won by 7 runs (D/L method).

### Example 45

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ing-cup-2005-06-222037/south-australia-vs-tasmania-232970/full-scorecard

South Australia were 83/3 after 21 overs when rain fell; the match was reduced to 35 overs per side. They scored 160/5 from 35 overs. The target for Tasmania is 172.

Actual result: Tasmania scored 171/8 from 35 overs. Match tied (D/L method).

### Example 46

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ford-ranger-one-day-cup-2006-07-251596/new-south-wales-vs-south-australia-251631/full-scorecard

New South Wales scored 291/5 from 50 overs. Rain between innings meant that South Australia had a target of 267 from 43 overs.

Actual result: South Australia scored 269/5 from 42.4 overs. South Australia won by 5 wickets (D/L method).

### Example 47

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/ford-ranger-one-day-cup-2006-07-251596/queensland-vs-western-australia-251652/full-scorecard

Queensland were 8/0 after 2.2 overs when rain stopped play. The match was reduced to 46 overs per side.

They were 153/3 after 32 overs when rain stopped play. The match was reduced to 37 overs per side.

They were 158/3 after 32.3 overs when rain ended the innings. With no further play possible in the innings, a target of 193 runs from 30 overs was set for Western Australia.

Actual result: Western Australia scored 190/8 from 30 overs. Queensland won by 2 runs (D/L method).

### Example 48

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/women-s-ashes-2023-1336063/england-women-vs-australia-women-3rd-t20i-1336076/full-scorecard

Australia scored 155/7 from 20 overs. Rain between innings meant that England would need 119 runs from 14 overs.

Actual result: England scored 121/5 from 13.2 overs. England won by 5 wickets (DLS method).

### Example 49

https://www.playhq.com/cricket-australia/org/tasmanian-cricket-league/tasmanian-cricket-league-summer-202223/tcl-premier-league/game-centre/cb943558

In a 40-over match, Hadspen were bowled out for 140. Longford were 112/0 after 20 overs when rain terminated the match.

Actual result: Longford won (DLS method).

**Birmingham League method**: Hadspen's run rate is 3.50 per over. 20 overs are lost. Longford's required run rate is (100 + (20 x 1.2)) x 3.50 ÷ 100 = 124 x 3.50 ÷ 100 = 4.34. Then 4.34 x 20 = 86 (rounded down).

**Duckworth/Lewis method**: Resources (40 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 89.3%. Hadspen were bowled out without losing any overs, therefore their resources = 89.3%. Resources (20 overs remaining, 0 wickets lost) = 56.6%. This was lost by Longford, therefore their resources = 89.3 - 56.6 = 32.7%. Par score = 51 (rounded down).

**Factored run rate**: Hadspen's run rate is 3.50 runs per over. 20 overs were lost, so 10% is added. The adjusted run rate is 3.50 \* 110 / 100 = 3.85. Then 3.85 \* 20 = 77 (exactly) (78 is a win, 77 is a tie, 76 is a loss).

**Lancashire League adjusted target**: Hadspen's run rate is 3.50 runs per over. 75% of this equals 2.625. Trevallyn lost 20 overs; 2.625 \* 20 = 52.5. Par score = 140 - 52.5 = 87 (round down).

**Maidens ignored run rate**: Hadspen scored 140 off 40 overs of which 5 were maidens (4.00 runs per over). Trevallyn scored 112 in 20 overs of which 3 were maidens (6.58 per over).

**Run rate**: Hadspen scored 140 off 40 overs (3.50 runs per over). Trevallyn scored 112 in 20 overs (5.60 per over).

**Unnamed method #1**: Hadspen's run rate is 3.50 runs per over. Target = 3.50 x 20 + 20 = 90 (rounded down).