• The Black Caps and England sharing the ICC World Cup spoils would have been tantamount to kissing one's sister — just ask the All Blacks and the British and Irish Lions.
• If ever anyone needed evidence the marquee ODI tournament was mutating into a Twenty20 affair the rules pertaining to winning the final on more boundaries or, for that matter, wickets is the proof.
Have you ever bought white goods or household appliances but made a point of reading all the fine print in detail on the warranty forms before signing them?
For that matter, have you ever perused every clause and sub clause of your individual or collective contract before pledging allegiance to employers?
Okay call me daft but I certainly haven't ... until, of course, when the proverbial hits the fan and the other party whips out documents pertaining to points of grievance to inform you, in a very measured tone, why you don't have a foot to stand on.
Ignorance on my part, a sense of misplaced trust, naivety — take your pick but it still doesn't deflect from the reality of feeling that you have been short changed.
Oh yes, you mentally flog yourself for myopia but, eventually, shrug your shoulders in resignation to accept "it is what it is" and convince yourself it's time to move on.
That, my friends, is how New Zealand coach Gary Stead and his gallant Black Caps will be feeling for a very long time after THAT throw from Martin Guptill which cost the team six runs and a maiden ICC World Cup.
Guptill's throw ricocheted off Stokes' willow as the batsman dived for a second run to retain strike but the ball went over the rope for four overthrows. England were awarded six runs.
The word is, ironically, some hawk-eyed India fans had analysed the passage of play before releasing it on social media — just as they had done when pointing out in India's 18-run semifinal loss to the Kiwis that six fielders were outside the 30m circle when Guptill had run out linchpin MS Dhoni.
In Stokes' case, according to Law 19.8, pertaining to an "overthrow or wilful act of fielder", the Kiwi-born cricketer should only have been credited five runs.
"If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act," the law states.
Damningly replays show Stokes and non-striker Adil Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw.
Stead admittedly didn't know the rules. Captain Kane Williamson was lost for words at the post-match media scrum. I doubt if the rest of the lads or the coaching stable did or, for that matter, the members of the esteemed press. I'll stick my neck out to say neither did the umpires or the officials manning the electronic gadgets for replays.
I certainly didn't. Besides I'm allergic to facts and figures because for me the very essence of sport is the myriad emotions it evokes that make it more palatable reading then shoving statistical sandwiches down readers' throats.
However, on occasions, akin to facts, numbers do get in the way of bloody good stories and this was one of those.
A mathematical dunce, I have got my head around the whole kerfuffle on how two teams can score the same number of runs after 100 overs only to find nothing separates them after an eliminator over each but England go on to rejoice as ODI world champions.
"Both teams did really well and, at the end of the day, none got the winning run," former Sri Lanka world-class spinner Muttiah Muralitharan so aptly put it on TV after the hosts were declared winners on a countback of 27-17 boundaries.
Irony emerges here, too. Cast your mind back to December 2006 in a test match in Christchurch when Guptill rifled a ball into the gloves of wicketkeeper Brendon McCullum who had whipped off the bails to dismiss Muralitharan who, in turn, had left his crease, after cutting the chalk, to congratulate Kumar Sangakkara on scoring a century. The then Kiwi skipper, Stephen Fleming, had the power to call back Muralitharan but didn't, sparking an international debate on playing in the spirit of the game although, technically, the Sri Lankan was out. McCullum three years later apologised at a lecture at Lord's for his role in a test the Kiwis had won.
Which all takes us back to not just the final on Monday but for the need to address some of the laws during the world cup.
Let's face it. The law makers would never have, in their wildest dreams, envisaged such a finish. The rules of engagement have been, reportedly, in existence since 2011.
To use boundaries to decide the winners is simply biased. To award it on that criteria is to suggest the heave-ho team are better. I disagree. New Zealand got the same totals playing fewer fours and sixes. Consequently, they played better cricket even though the great unwashed consider the stronger denomination a yardstick of adroitness.
Playing sudden-death overs until one side prevails is an option but I suggest using the reserve day to return to reload for a 25-over affair, if not 50.
I purposely steered clear of 20 overs because the boundary rules smack of hit-and-giggle cricket, something I had alluded to pre-tourney in curators bringing in ropes to entice teams to free their arms under duress.
I can visualise a grinning Pakistan coach Mickey Arthur nodding his head in approval at the suggestion of when there's a tie in points to progress after round-robin play, the team who beats another in pool play should prevail.
Arthur had bitterly called for a rules change after the Black Caps went into the playoffs as fourth qualifiers on account of a superior run rate when Pakistan had beaten them.
In a game where weather plays a big hand, especially in Britain, how prudent is run rate to declare winners when a team may play a weaker opponent but another in contention have their match abandoned due to the elements.
Don't even get me started on a dodgy Duckworth-Lewis Method that heavily favours sides batting first and forcing the run chasers to resort to a smash-and-grab Twenty20 mind set.
If in the final 10 overs (41-50) a team breaches the maximum five fielders required outside the 30m circle, is it fair the opposition batsman be dismissed on a run out? Should the umpires deem it a dead ball to ensure the opposition doesn't blatantly flout the laws to gain unfair advantage? What's the punishment for the fielding oversight?
Mind you, in some cases, it'll be akin to trying to ascertain how video technology shows a ball bouncing above the knee roll goes on to clip the top of the bails but clearing it in other instances.
For now, "Who me?" Williamson, the player of the tourney, has been the ultimate diplomat in taking it on the chin, just as India captain Virat Kohli did despite controversy in their semifinal.
Knowing the rules will go a long way to map a plan of action but it will never guarantee victory.
I must confess, sharing the spoils will be like kissing one's sister — just ask the All Blacks and British and Irish Lions.