Its exactly the same. If he has over then he has already won. They don’t take runs away.
as long as the book cancels wagers on both sides i have no problem with the rule.
I know that is the rule, but I never understood the logic behind it. If the game is over the total and gets shortened, over should still be a winner and under still a loser. What possible claim do under bettors have that their bet should be cancelled? They don't take runs off the board.
Same for season win totals. If the cancelled games could have had any impact on determining the winner, all bets are cancelled. IF NOT, all bets stand.
Books should change this rule and make it right. They must have done the analysis and determined that since they're almost always holding more on overs than unders, it would cost them $X/yr to change the rule. That's why I don't like the "if they cancel both sides it's fair" argument; nah, it's still not fair, still a goofy rule that only exists because it is advantageous to the house on the aggregate.
Hard enough to beat the juice, now we need to beat fucked up rules too that make no sense?
Maybe they can change the retire rule in tennis while they're in there tinkering.