Bermuda started out with the knowledge that it is a game first reduced to 35, and then 30 overs, and paced their innings accordingly.Having planned and played out 15 overs with a 30 over game in mind, a further rain interruption meant that the game was suddenly reduced to 22 overs.

What this effectively meant that Bermuda had wasted, for no fault of theirs, 15 overs at a moderate run rate, and were suddenly left with only 7 overs to slog, while Bangladesh had the entire 22 overs to play at a breakneck speed and thrash out whatever score was necessary.

Now, one understands that rain interruptions are a natural problem that you have to accept, but the point is - if you have reserve day, and the provision to continue the game from where it was left off, why bother messers Duckworth and Lewis until it is absolutely necessary?

 
It seems to make sense to let play continue as per a normal 50 over game on the first playing day even if there are interruptions, and bring in the rain rule only if there is a threat of rain on the second (and last reserve) day. A proper 50 over game spread over two days is a much better prospect than a farcial 20-30 over game played out giving a raw deal, or played out in darkness.

The disaster that happened in the final was one  that had it's roots in this same rule - the question of the three embarassing overs would never have arisen had the ICC allowed to game to continue as a 50 over game over two days. Needless to say, a 50 over game would have been fair to both teams in many other ways as well.

 
There a lot of things the ICC and the concerned authorities needs to wake up to - hope this is amongst the first of them.