Mark Wood of England appeals successfully for the wicket of Ross Taylor of New Zealand during the Final. Photo / Getty Images
ANY GIVEN MONDAY
Remember the Super Bowl where the New England Patriots beat the Atlanta Falcons because they had more passing yards? Or the epic 1984 NBA finals between the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers that was eventually decided in Boston's favour after a drawn game seven because they hit more three-pointers?
No, neither.
Yet the showpiece game of cricket, a final for the ages played against the backdrop of the most magnificent piece of real estate in all of sport, a match played in front of a television and digital audience measured in billions, was decided by one line of small print.
England might have deserved to win the World Cup, but not like that.
Yet, in a strange way, in this bitter soup of emotions coursing through my brain, it's the most apt way for a cricket final to be decided. After all, over the previous 102 overs, the sport's arcane laws were tripping over themselves to get in the way of the final.
It started early, too early, with the opening partnership of Henry Nicholls and Martin Guptill using the review rules brilliantly and catastrophically in the space of a few overs.
Nicholls correctly assessed the delivery from Chris Woakes he was adjudged leg before to was going over the top. He then misjudged badly that a ball from the same bowler was going to clear Martin Guptill's stumps, costing the side a review Ross Taylor could have used when he received an uncharacteristically poor decision from Marais Erasmus.
To compound matters, Jason Roy looked plumb lbw to the first ball of England's innings but Erasmus didn't lift his finger and although the ball was tracked as crashing into leg stump, it wasn't hitting flush, so he was "saved" by umpire's call.
Digest that for a second and then try to explain it all to a 7-year-old: Nicholls was given out but was not out and not out; Guptill was given out and was out; Taylor was given out but was not out and was out; Roy was given not out but was out but was not out.
There is a school of thought that says using your reviews is a tangible skill, but it is a wafer-thin argument.
The leg before wicket rule remains the same. In fact it hasn't changed since 1972 when in an effort to reduce "pad play" it became possible to give batsmen out if hit outside the line of off stump when not offering a shot.
We now have wonderful ball-tracking technology to reduce mistakes and improve leg before decision accuracy (it was always the most subjective and troubling area for umpires), but the ridiculous rules machinery around the technology has only served to confuse the sport and its spectators more.
Then there's the rule that effectively cost New Zealand the final. Even now there is debate as to whether it was applied properly and the reason for it is that it's a batshit crazy rule that should have been sorted out long ago.
To recap, England attempted to run two in the final over. Guptill - boy, did trouble follow him around this tournament - attempted to run Ben Stokes out at the striker's end. The ball ricocheted off Stokes' bat and deflected into the outfield. Here things get messy.
If the ball had trickled slowly into space, cricketing convention (not a rule) states that the batsmen do not attempt to take extra runs. If Stokes has been judged to have changed his line or deliberately tried to deflect the ball, he can be given out for obstructing the field. Both the convention and the rule are specifically designed to protect the fielding team, who have the right to get the ball to the stumps without fear of penalty unless they themselves make a mistake.
Instead what happened is the ball deflected all the way to the boundary and suddenly all those rights are lost and the umpire has no choice but to award the overthrows.
Again, try explaining that to a 7-year-old. Explain, too, that New Zealand would have been better served NOT trying to execute one of cricket's fundamental modes of dismissal.
Rules were everywhere in this tournament, poking their noses into corners they had no place being.
New Zealand benefited, hell yes they did.
What can be more dubious than qualifying for the knockouts by net run rate, particularly when the team you qualify at the expense of soundly beats you in round-robin play?
They also had fun by stretching the substitute fielding rules to the nth degree as the bucket-handed, cool-headed Tim Southee seemed to find himself in the field an awful lot in the knockout matches.
They benefited from technology's quirks as well, probably only beating South Africa because they decided not to review a caught behind off the indomitable Kane Williamson.
The rules have worked in New Zealand's favour at times, no doubt.
But the final, cruel rule that bullied their one hand off the trophy, the one that stated that England won the World Cup because they hit more boundaries, wasn't so much a stake through New Zealand's heart but a crime against cricket.
It was a ludicrous end to a sublime day that could have easily accommodated another 15 minutes of super-over mayhem.
It will never happen again ... but that's already too late for those 22 players who deserved much better.