You are on page 1of 8

Evaluation & extension to the Duckworth Lewis method: A dual application of data

mining techniques
Viraj Phanse
Department of Computer Science
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Los Angeles, USA
e-mail: vrphanse85@cs.ucla.edu
Sourabh Deorah
Department of Computer Science
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Los Angeles, USA
e-mail: saurabh@cs.ucla.edu


AbstractThis paper deals with the evaluation of the
Duckworth Lewis method, identifying its limitation, and
devising a modification to address these limitations. The
Duckworth Lewis method, or D/L method, was created by
Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis. The International Cricket
Council (ICC) adopted D/L method in 1999 to address the
issue of delayed one-day cricket matches due to interruptions
such as inclement weather conditions, poor light and floodlight
failures, and crowd problems. We have attempted to identify
the shortcomings in the existing Duckworth Lewis method
using data mining algorithms such as Random Forests and
C4.5.
We have also shown that the p-values and other data mining
techniques serve a dual purpose of not only evaluating whether
systems such as D/L method have been exploited by taking
advantage of their properties such as simplicity, but also
devising alternate and robust approaches (or models).
In the first part of this project, we have analyzed fifty one-day
international (ODI) cricket matches, in which the Duckworth
Lewis method has been applied, using tools such as WEKA and
Microsoft Excel. We have observed that the Duckworth Lewis
method has some limitations. As a result, using data mining
methods we have shown that the Duckworth Lewis system has
proven over time to be biased towards the team batting first
and the team winning the toss--a toss refers to the coin-flip at
the beginning of the match used to decide who bats or fields.
Bias in the context of the report is defined as taking advantage
of the properties of systems such as the Duckworth Lewis
method. We also seek to show that such an exploitation of
the system permits prediction of the match winner with
outcomes that are better than just chance. Using the analyses
described above, we propose a modification to the existing
Duckworth Lewis method to reduce this bias by considering
the venue of the game as an additional resource along with
the two existing resources- overs and wickets - to predict the
target score. We have done a basic evaluation of the reduction
in bias due to the proposed changes. The modification has
helped not only to reduce the bias but also to alleviate the
impact of factors such as toss and team batting first in
predicting the target scores in limited-overs cricket matches.
General Terms- Data mining, Cricket, Statistics, Heuristics
Keywords- Duckworth Lewis, Random Forests, C4.5, P-values,
Rain rules
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The game of cricket
As mentioned in [1], cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport that
originated in England and is one of the most popular games
in the world. It is contested between two teams of eleven
players each. One team bats with the objective of scoring as
many runs as possible while the other team bowls and fields
with an objective to dismiss the batsmen and thus limit the
runs scored by the batting team. The team winning the toss
decides which team bats first. A toss refers to the coin-flip at
the beginning of the match used to decide who bats or fields.
A batsman scores a run by hitting the ball with his bat,
running to the opposite end of the pitch and touching the
crease without being dismissed. The teams swap between
batting and fielding during an innings.

In professional cricket the game varies from a limit of twenty
overs per side (Twenty20), fifty overs per side (one day
match), to a game played over five days (Test match).

B. Duckworth Lewis Method
The Duckworth Lewis method or D/L method, created by
Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, was adopted by the
International Cricket Council (ICC) in 1999 to address the
issue of delayed one-day cricket matches due to bad weather
(rain, sandstorms and snowstorms), poor light and floodlight
failures, and crowd problems[2]. The Duckworth Lewis
Method, a system based on a mathematical model
considering only two resources -- wickets left and overs
remaining -- has been applied successfully in the one day
cricket matches to address the issue of interruptions such as
those due to bad weather conditions. The earlier rain rules
-- methods to handle interruptions in cricket matches --
suffered from certain disadvantages like favoring the team
batting second. The Duckworth Lewis method eliminates
such problems and is known for its comprehensibility,
simplicity and ease to calculate the target runs.

However, certain factors such as the toss may play a crucial
role in deciding the winner of the match since it involves a
lot of thought and research while taking a decision after
winning the toss. As an illustration, the analysis of pitch
conditions, previous history of games played in the ground,
and weather are some of the factors that determine the
decision -- bat or field -- after winning the toss. Certain other
factors such as batting first play an important role especially
in rain affected cricket matches. After rain, the pitch
becomes soft and the ball bounces more erratically, making it
difficult for the batsman to bat and as mentioned in [3], in
matches where the teams batting first have their innings
curtailed, the D/L method tends to prop up their totals, thus
adding extra runs that the team batting first did not even
make. Thus, batting first may be more favorable in rain
affected games.

C. Duckworth Lewis Model [5]
The mathematical model is a two factor exponential
relationship (an exponential decay function):

Z(u, w) = Z
0
F(w)|1 - exp _
bu
F(w)
_]
where Z(u, w) is the average further number of runs
expected to be made when there are u overs remaining and w
wickets down. Z
0
F(w) is the asymptotic value of further
runs expected with w wickets down as u tends to infinity,
F(u) being set to unity. The parameters, b, Z
0
and the nine
values of F(w) were estimated from an analysis of a one-day
match database.

The ratio Z(u, w)Z(Su,u) --a 50 over model--was
calculated for all combinations of 300 values of balls
remaining (six balls per over) and ten values of wickets
down. These were multiplied by 100 and rounded to one
decimal place. This is how a Ready Reckoner of resource
percentages was created and from this reckoner, all target
revisions could be calculated.

Pattern 6, as shown in section III.A, indicates that the run
rates for the two teams differ on average by less than one
run. This is perhaps the basis of the entire D/L approach, as it
suggests a simple statistical model that can be used to
calculate the target score. Please note that the expected run
rate is the essence of the model, and that this also seems to
the basis of fairness or lack of bias in the D/L method
approach.

D. Controversial D/L method decided matches [3]
Mentioned below are some interesting scenarios from actual
ODIs that highlight the shortcomings in D/L method:

(Please note that in the scenarios below, we have used the
term x for y in z overs which means that the team made x
runs at a loss of y wickets in z overs)

1) South Africa v New Zealand, Durban, November
2000
New Zealand batted first, and were 81 for 5 in 27.2
overs when rain reduced the game to 49 overs per
side. Then, with New Zealand on 114 for 5 in 32.4,
their innings was called off, and the second innings
was truncated to 32 overs. South Africa's target,
according to the D/L charts at the time, was 153, but
according to their latest version, the target would
have been 156.At the time of the interruption, New
Zealand's run rate was 3.48 runs per over, with five
wickets down and 17.2 overs to spare. According to
D/L's latest calculations, South Africa's required run
rate would be 4.87.
2) West Indies v New Zealand, Port-of-Spain, 2002
New Zealand made 212 for 5 in 44.2 overs when
their innings was curtailed, and West Indies'
response was truncated to 33 overs. D/L calculated
their revised target at the time as 212. Again, a
comparison of run rates raises a few questions. New
Zealand's run rate at the end of their innings was
4.78; West Indies' required rate in 33 overs
according to D/L is 6.36, an increase of 33%.

3) South Africa v New Zealand, Johannesburg, World
Cup 2003
Replying to South Africa's imposing 306 for 6 in 50
overs, New Zealand, riding on Stephen Fleming's
outstanding century, were 182 for 1 in 30.2 when
rain reduced the chase to 39 overs. According to the
new D/L calculations, the revised target would have
been 229 (it was 226 at the time). The point of
contention is this: at the time of the interruption,
New Zealand's required rate was 6.35 runs per over,
stretching over a period of almost 20 overs. Going
by the current D/L calculations, the required run rate
on resumption is 5.42, over a period of just 8.4 overs
- obviously, the rain has simplified New Zealand's
task enormously (though the D/L contention is that
New Zealand are reaping the rewards of being well
ahead of the par score at the point of interruption).

E. The VJD Method and other alternative `Rain Rule
Methods to D/L
As mentioned in the earlier sections, the D/L method treats
the overs to be played and the wickets in hand as resources,
and uses an exponential type of function to describe how the
remaining resources are depleted as the overs get used up
and/or the wickets fall during the progress of the innings [7].
This is a very limited model of the state of a game, assuming
a progressive acceleration in the rate of scoring, resting on
historical results. The anecdotal scenarios above illustrate
how its limitations have resulted in surprising results and
disappointment with the method. As a result, a number of
other Rain Rule Methods have been proposed [8]. For
example, the VJD method by V Jayadevan, uses a
regression-based approach. This method is based on data
selected from a set of closely fought matches and can handle
any number of interruptions during any stage of the game.
Although the VJD method and others are still under
consideration, D/L remains the standard method in use.

F. Project goals
The primary goal of the project is to evaluate the Duckworth
Lewis method and identify its limitations. As an addition, we
have proposed an interesting extension which addresses
these limitations. We do not intend to propose an entirely
new model. On the contrary, we try to identify the
shortcomings in the existing D/L using data mining
algorithms such as Random Forests and C4.5, and a heuristic
model, and propose an extension to D/L method to address
the shortcomings. We would also like to show that p-values
and other data mining techniques can be used as effective
tools to evaluate systems such as the D/L method and also
devise alternative models.

II. EVALUATION OF THE DUCKWORTH LEWIS METHOD
AND IDENTIFICATION OF ITS LIMITATIONS
A. Description of Dataset
The dataset we compiled consists of information pertaining
to fifty cricket matches in which the Duckworth Lewis rule
was applied over a period of ten years for India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, England, West Indies, South Africa, Australia,
Sri Lanka and New Zealand. It consists of thirty two
features.

B. Description of Schema

TABLE I. DESCRIPTION OF SCHEMA
Column Name Description
Team 1 Represents the first team
Team 2 Represents the second team
Winner Represents winner of the game
Loser Represents loser of the game
Home/Away
Represents whether the team is at
home or away
Target Score-Duckworth Lewis
Represents the score set by
Duckworth Lewis rule
Over Limit for Duckworth Lewis
Represents the over limit in which
the score needs to be achieved
Actual Score of Winner
Represents the number of runs scored
by the winner of the game
Actual Score of Loser
Represents the number of runs scored
by the winner of the game
Overs played by Winner
Represents the number of overs
played by the winner of the game
Overs played by Loser
Represents the number of overs
played by the loser of the game
Date
Represents the date on which the
match was played
Venue Represents the venue of the match
Venue Country
Represents the country in which the
venue is located
Winners wickets
Represents the total number of
wickets lost by the match winner
Losers wickets
Represents the total number of
wickets lost by the match loser
Win by wickets
Represents the number of wickets by
which the winning team
outperformed the losing team.
Win by runs
Represents the number of runs by
which the winning team
outperformed the losing team.
Toss won by Represents the team that won the toss
Decision after winning the toss
Represents the decision that the team
takes after winning the toss: bat or
field
Month
Represents the month in which the
match was played
Winners wickets-Losers
wickets
Represents the difference between
the wickets lost by the winner and
wickets lost by the loser
Winners Runrate
Represents the runrate of the winner
calculated as follows:
Runrate=Total runs/Overs played
Losers Runrate
Represents the runrate of the loser
calculated as follows:
Runrate=Total runs/Overs played
Winners runrate-Losers runrate
Represents the difference between
the wickets lost by winner and
wickets lost by loser
Runs per Wicket of the winner
Represents the ratio of number of
runs scored and the number of
wickets lost by the winner
Runs per Wicket of the loser
Represents the ratio of number of
runs scored and the number of
wickets lost by the loser
Winners remaining wickets
Represents the difference between 10
and the number of wickets lost by the
winner
Losers remaining wickets
Represents the difference between 10
and the number of wickets lost by the
loser
Weight of Home or Away
Represents the weight for home or
away (0.0<weight<1.0)
Runs added by DL ratio
Represents the ratio of (modulus of
runs added or subtracted due to
application of Duckworth Lewis rule)
and (1 + the number of wickets
remaining for team 1). Here we are
adding one to the number of wickets
for team 1 because sometimes, no
wickets are lost by the team.
New Target
Represents the target score for the
team batting second based on the
proposed model

C. Data Extraction
The required information--team performances on various
grounds, performances when D/L was applicable, over all
performances of teams etc. over a period of ten years -- is
available on websites [4]. The list covers all the matches in
which D/L was applied. However, the data can also be
found in scorecards, news extracts and match reports.
Therefore, instead of using web scrapers/crawlers, we
extracted the data manually. As a result, it was not
necessary to cleanse the data.



III. EXPLORATION OF THE DATASET AND RESULTS
In this part of the project tools such as WEKA were used to
identify some interesting patterns in the data. These patterns
laid the foundation of part 2 of the project in which we
present an alternative approach.

A. Patterns observed based on existing Duckworth
Lewis Method
We observed the following patterns in the data collected:

1) Pattern 1: Team winning the toss wins the matches
in 66% cases (Figure 1)
Teams winning the toss have won 33 out of 50 matches for
which Duckworth Lewis Method was applied.


Figure 1: Team winning the toss

2) Pattern 2: Team batting first wins the match in 64%
cases (Figure 2)
Teams batting first have won 32 out of 50 matches for
which Duckworth Lewis Method was applied.



Figure 2: Team batting first

3) Pattern 3: 54% of teams winning the toss decides to
field first in rain affected matches (Figure 3)
Teams winning the toss decide to field first in 27 of the 50
matches for which the Duckworth Lewis method was
applied.


Figure 3: Team decides to field first
4) Pattern 4: 82% matches are interrupted due to rain
(Figure 5)
41 out of 50 matches for which the Duckworth Lewis
Method was applied were affected by rain. From the graphs
below it can be seen that New Zealand and Sri Lanka are
more prone to rain. Also, Pakistan is the only country in
which the Duckworth Lewis was applied twice due to power
failure.




Figure 4: Interruption types
5) Pattern 5: In certain months during the year, rain is
more frequent (Figure 5)
February, March and November contain a significant
number of matches affected by rain



Figure 5: Rain interruptions in months
6) Pattern 6: Average of difference in run rate between
winning team and losing team scores is not significant
(Figure 6)
The average of difference in the run rates of the winning and
the losing team is 0.687


Figure 6: Difference between Runrates of Winner and Loser
7) Pattern 7: Difference in runs per wicket between
winning team and losing team is significant (Figure 7)
The average difference in runs per wicket between the
winning team and the losing team is 27.192(which is much
more significant than difference in run rate).


Figure 7: Difference between Runs per Wickets for Winner and Loser
8) Pattern 8: More stress on wickets (Figure 8)
Losing teams have lost an average of 8 wickets in matches
in which the Duckworth Lewis Method was applied.


Figure 8: Wickets of losing teams
B. p-value for the first two patterns
Assuming an unbiased binomial distribution, pattern 1 and
pattern 2 have a p-value of 0.9923267 and 0.9835804
respectively. That is, in the absence of bias, the probability
of the team the team that won the toss, or the team that bat
first, would obtain fewer victories in D/L matches is almost
1.

C. Inferences from above patterns
From the above 8 patterns and the p-values mentioned in
sections III.A and III.B respectively, we can infer the
following:
1. Historically, Duckworth Lewis has been biased
towards the team batting first.
2. Historically, Duckworth Lewis has been biased
towards the team winning the toss.
3. Duckworth Lewis stresses wickets more than runs
and run rate.
4. As far as possible, in order to avoid D/L bias, either
matches should be avoided in rain-prone months of
the year, or indoor stadiums similar to those
constructed in Australia should be used.
5. There is a general perception in cricket that in
interrupted matches, the team batting second has an
advantage over team batting first. This is reflected in
pattern 3. However, pattern 2 signifies that in most
of the matches, teams batting first have won. Thus
the perception appears wrong.
D. Heuristic model in predicting the winner in
Duckworth Lewis decided matches
Historically, in matches decided by Duckworth-Lewis:
I. The team batting first won on 64% of the occasions
involving two of the top nine teams
II. In 66% of the occasions, the team winning the toss
has won
III. In 54% of the occasions, the team winning the toss
decides to field
IV. In 82% of the occasions, matches were affected by
rain
Also, it rains more in certain months of the year.

Based on the above observations, we developed a heuristic
model to predict the winner in a match decided by D/L
method. In this model, we calculate a weighted score for
each of the two teams using the following formula:

wcigbtcJ Scorc
= (o:croll probobility o winning)
| o(toss winncr or toss loscr) +
[(botting or iclJing) +
y(roiny scoson or no roiny scoson)
(bomc or owoy or ncutrol)]

1) Description of various terms involved in the
weighted score
Overall (prior) probability of winning: This is obtained from
[3] and is calculated as:

0:croll probobility o tcom A winning ogoinst tcom B
=
motcbcs won by tcom A ogoinst tcom B
totol numbcr o motcbcs ploycJ

o = u.66
o From II.
Toss Winner/Toss Winner: the team that has won the toss is
given one point while the team losing the toss is given zero
points.
[ = u.64
o From I.
Batting/Fielding: the team that is batting first is given one
point while the team fielding first is given zero points.
y = u.82 u.S4 u.S6
o From IV, III: 0.36 is obtained by
subtracting 0.64 from 1 in order to
account for the probability of winning the
game fielding first.
Rainy season or No rainy season
o If it is a rainy season at the venue of the
match, one point is assigned. Otherwise,
zero points are assigned.

Home or Away or Neutral
o Teams playing at home have an advantage
over the away teams. In order to nullify
this effect, the team playing at home is
given zero points; the away team is given
one point and if the venue is neutral, then
each team is assigned 0.5 points
respectively.

2) Predicting the winner
We claim that the D/L method is biased, in the sense that the
properties of D/L method are taken advantage of and that
this exploitation of the D/L system permits prediction of the
match winner with outcomes that are better than chance. We
show this in the forthcoming sections: using data mining
methods a winning score can be calculated for each of the
two teams playing a match, and the team with a higher
weighted score then be predicted as the winner. By training
this kind of method on historical data, tests of prediction
accuracy have yielded results that are extremely good, much
higher than what would be expected by chance.

As an illustration, let us consider the match between New
Zealand and Bangladesh. This match was played at
Bangladesh in which Bangladesh won the toss and elected
to bat first. The season was rainy.

Using the weighted score formula, New Zealand obtained 0
points while Bangladesh obtained 0.32 points and was thus
predicted the winner.

3) Accuracy of the model and further optimization
Using Microsoft Excel, it can be seen that the model has an
accuracy of 64% in predicting the winner. As mentioned in
table below, we further optimized the weighted score
formula and obtained an accuracy of 72%.
TABLE II. OPTIMIZATION OF HEURISTIC MODEL
Accuracy of prediction
0.66 0.64 0.82*0.54*0.36 64%
1 0.6 0.2 68%
0.6 0.2 0.3 70%
0.8 0.4 0.2 72%
E. Using C4.5 and Random Forests classifiers to
show the bias
We applied C4.5 and random forests classifiers (10 folds)
on the dataset to predict the winner.

C4.5 is an algorithm developed by Ross Quinlan and is used
to generate a decision tree. Random Forests is a classifier
developed by Leo Breiman. It consists of many decision
trees and outputs the class that is the mode of the output by
individual trees for the given class.
Using standard supervised learning methods in the Weka
Explorer data mining platform, C4.5 and Random Forests
with 10-fold cross-validation gave accuracies of 72% and
80% respectively. In other words, standard classification
models from machine learning were able to correctly predict
the outcome of 70 to 80 percent of the D/L matches. This
indeed suggests that the D/L method is biased.

F. Inferences and observations from the heuristic
model, C4.5 and Random Forests
We can infer from the above model and from the results
obtained by using C4.5 and Random Forests that it is
possible to predict a winner in D/L decided matches with a
fairly high accuracy, using our dataset of D/L matches
obtained from various sites on the web. Also, we can see
that the winner is predicted based on features such as toss
and venue features that are not used by the D/L method to
set the target score.

IV. EXTENSION TO THE DUCKWORTH LEWIS METHOD
In part 1 of the project, using data mining methods we have
shown that the D/L method has proven over time to be
biased towards the team batting first and the team winning
the toss. Bias in the context of the report is defined as taking
advantage of the properties of systems such as D/L method.
We hold that this exploitation of the system permits
prediction of the match winner with outcomes that are
better than just chance.
A. Motivation
I. The dependency between different features was
analyzed using covariance and correlation matrix.
Some interesting results that were observed are as
follows:
a. As per the analysis above, the winner is
dependent mostly on target_dl, i.e., the
target set by Duckworth Lewis.
b. The venue country is most correlated with
the target score set according to
Duckworth Lewis.
II. Second, from part 1, it is observed that Duckworth
Lewis is biased towards the team batting first and
the toss winner (evident from the p-value which is
almost 0.99 for the two patterns).
III. Third, the existing Duckworth Lewis Method is
based on only two resources--wickets and overs.
Intuitively, we can observe that (II) points out that in order
to reduce the bias, the p-values for the patterns in (II) need
to be reduced. (III) indicates the simplicity of the D/L
method, and (I) suggests that in the extension, venue can be
considered as an additional feature along with the wickets
and overs remaining, to set the target score.
B. Terminology used in calculating D/L score for a
team batting second [2]
Let S be team 1s score, R1 be the resource percentage
available to team 1, R2 be the resource percentage available
to team 2, and T be the target score for team 2.

Then, as mentioned in [2],

i R1 < R2, I = S _
R1
R2
] + 1 onJ i R2 > R1,

I = S +
0Su(R2 - R1)
1uu
+ 1 (I)

When Team 1s innings have been interrupted, it often
happens that Team 2 has more resources at their disposal
than had Team 1 and it is necessary to adjust Team 2s
target upwards. In this case the adjustment is based on the
runs that would be expected to be scored on average from
the extra resources at their disposal. The number of these
extra runs required is calculated by applying the excess
resource percentage to the average total score in a 50-over
innings, referred to as G50. For matches involving ICC full
member nations, the value of G50 to be used at present is
235.

C. How to reduce the bias
The extension to D/L proposed below is just one of the
many ways to reduce the bias in the D/L method. The new
method brings to forth that it is possible to strengthen the
existing D/L method by introducing additional features and
that the p-value and other statistical or data mining methods
can be employed to verify the accuracy of these methods.

Based on the motivations in section IV.A, we have come up
with a model that reduces the target for the team batting
second in a D/L match and results in reducing the bias. This
approach takes into consideration an additional resource--
venue -- along with the existing resources (wickets and
overs).

The new target score T is calculated by subtracting the
product of the value of impact for home venue or away
venue, and the absolute value of the runs added or
subtracted by D/L from the target calculated by the existing
D/L method.

Thus we have the following:

I = S _
R1
R2
] + 1 - x _S _1 -
R1
R2
] + 1 _





Or

I
i
= S +
0Su(R2 -R1)
1uu
+ 1 -

x _S - _S +
0Su(R2 - R1)
1uu
+ 1__ . (II)|rom (I)]
where x is the weight representing the value of impact for
home or away and u.u < x < 1.u Please note that value of
impact for home should be greater than the value of impact
for away.

This formula has reduced the percentage in pattern 1 from
66% to 58% and in pattern 2 from 64% to 56%. The
corresponding p-values are 0.8986806 and 0.8388818
respectively.

Thus the model suggested above mitigates the effect of
winning the toss and batting first on predicting the winner of
the match, and results in setting a fairer and more optimized
target score.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This paper presents a detailed evaluation of the Duckworth
Lewis method used to predict the target scores in cricket
matches when one or both the teams have had their innings
shortened due to interruptions such as inclement weather
conditions or poor visibility after the match has begun.
Using sophisticated data mining techniques such as C4.5
and Random Forests, and the p-value we discover a bias
in the D/L method. The bias is observed to be favoring the
team batting first and the team winning the toss. The
modification that we devised considered additional features
such as venue that helped reduce the bias and alleviate the
impact of factors mentioned above in predicting the target
scores in limited-overs cricket matches. This modification
has been evaluated using the p-values.

In conclusion, data mining techniques serve a dual purpose.
They aid in testing whether systems such as D/L method
have been exploited by taking advantage of their properties
such as simplicity, and they can also help in devising
alternate and robust approaches.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our thanks to Prof. Stott Parker, Prof. Duckworth, Prof.
Lewis, Shivani, Raghu, Shashwat, Bhadkya, Juilee, Smiti,
Ameya and Karan.




REFERENCES
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket
[2] http://www.duckworth-lewis.com/mags/dlmethod/
[3] http://www.espncricinfo.com/
[4] http://www.bbc.com/
[5] Frank Duckworth, The Duckworth/Lewis method: an
exercise in Maths, Stats, OR and communications in
MSOR Connections Vol 8 No 3 August October 2008






































[6] http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/1408
59.html
[7] A new method for the computation of target scores in
interrupted, limited-over cricket matches in Current
Science, Vol. 83, No. 5, 10 September 2002.
[8] Rain Rule Methods:
http://www.cricketarchive.com/Miscellaneous/Rain_Rule_
Methods.html