Editing Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method (section)

====Increased target: Multiple interruptions in Team 1's innings (resources lost in middle of innings); Team 2's innings completed====
On 20 February 2003, Australia played Netherlands in the [[2003 cricket world cup#Pool A|2003 Cricket World Cup Pool A]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65253.html|title=Full Scorecard of Australia vs Netherlands, World Cup - 20th Match|date=20 February 2003|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref name="AusNedReport">{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/126848.html|title=Potchefstroom ground staff help Australia to four points|author=Keith Lane|date=20 February 2003|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/155844.html|title=Australia v Holland|date=20 February 2003|work=Wisden|via=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/hi/newsid_2780000/newsid_2781400/2781435.stm|title=Australia v Holland: over by over|date=20 February 2003|work=BBC Sport}}</ref> Rain before play reduced the match to 47 overs each, and Australia batted first. 
*Rain stopped play when they had reached 109–2 from 25 overs (i.e. 22 remaining). At the restart both innings were reduced to 44 overs (i.e. 19 remaining for Australia)
*Rain stopped play again when Australia had reached 123–2 from 28 overs (i.e. 16 remaining), and at the restart both innings were reduced further to 36 overs (i.e. 8 remaining for Australia)
*Australia finished on 170–2 from their 36 overs

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| rowspan="9" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 1
| Total resources available to Australia at the start of their innings
| align="center" | 47 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 97.1% 
|-
| Total resources remaining to Australia at interruption
| align="center" | 22 overs and 8 wickets 
| align="center" | 55.8%
|-
| Total resources remaining to Australia at restart
| align="center" | 19 overs and 8 wickets
| align="center" | 50.5%
|-
| Total resources lost by interruption
| align="center" | 55.8%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;50.5%
| align="center" | 5.3%
|-
| Total resources remaining to Australia at interruption
| align="center" | 16 overs and 8 wickets
| align="center" | 44.7%
|-
| Total resources remaining to Australia at restart
| align="center" | 8 overs and 8 wickets
| align="center" | 25.5%
|-
| Total resources lost by interruption
| align="center" | 44.7%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;25.5%
| align="center" | 19.2%
|-
| Total resources available to Australia (R1)
| align="center" | 97.1%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;5.3%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;19.2%
| align="center" | 72.6%
|-
| Total resources available to Netherlands (R2)
| align="center" | 36 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 84.1%
|-
| rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 2
| Netherlands' par score
| align="center" | 170&nbsp;+&nbsp;G50&nbsp;×&nbsp;(R2&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;R1)/100 =&nbsp;170&nbsp;+&nbsp;235&nbsp;×&nbsp;(84.1&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;72.6)/100
| align="center" | '''197.025 runs'''
|}

The Netherlands' target was therefore 198 to win (in 36 overs), or 197 to tie. It is fair that their target was increased, even though they had the same number of overs to bat as Australia, as Australia would have batted less conservatively in their first 28 overs, and scored more runs at the expense of more wickets, if they had known that their innings would only be 36 overs long. Increasing the Netherlands' target score neutralises the injustice done to Australia when they were denied some of the overs to bat they thought they would get. The Netherlands were all out for 122, giving Australia victory by 197 &minus; 122 = 75 runs.

This formula for Netherlands' par score comes from the Standard Edition of D/L, which was used at the time. Currently the Professional Edition is used, which has a different formula when R2>R1. The formula required Netherlands to match Australia's performance with their overlapping 72.6% of resource (i.e. score 170 runs), and achieve average performance with their extra 84.1% &minus; 72.6% = 11.5% of resource (i.e. score 11.5% of G50 (235 at the time) = 27.025 runs).

After the match there were reports in the media<ref name="AusNedReport"/> that Australia had batted conservatively in their final 8 overs after the final restart, to avoid losing wickets rather than maximising their numbers of runs, in belief that this would further increase the Netherlands' par score. However, if this is true, this belief was mistaken, in the same way that conserving wickets rather than maximising runs in the final 8 overs of a full 50-over innings would be a mistake. At that point the amount of resource available to each team was fixed (as long as there were no further rain interruptions), so the only undetermined number in the formula for Netherlands' par score was Australia's final score, so they should have tried to maximise this.

As Australia's innings was interrupted three times (once before it started) and restarted three times, their resource is given by the general formula above as follows:

Total resources available = 100% &minus; Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart &minus; Resources remaining at 2nd interruption + Resources remaining at 2nd restart &minus; Resources remaining at 3rd interruption + Resources remaining at 3rd restart = 100% &minus; 100% + 97.1% &minus; 55.8% + 50.5% &minus; 44.7% + 25.5% = 72.6%.