Talk:Declaration and forfeiture

Cronje bribery

Removed this from the forfeiture section:

, and later it was discovered that Hansie Cronje had been bribed to come to this arrangement with Hussain, who was completely unaware of this bribery. is this true?

It's possible (Cronje was found guilty of bribery), but I think we need a source before making such a specific and strong claim. Stevage 15:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It could have been one of the things revealed to the King's commission but you're right, we need a source first Nil Einne 12:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs a specific source. I have deleted the paragraph until one can be found.Matt5AU (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan/England match

I've deleted this paragraph, as the match was awarded under Law 21 (and is already covered under the appropriate article for that Law, The result in cricket), rather than being forfeited under Law 14. Tevildo 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just once again deleted the paragraph on the England/Pakistan match as it has nothing to do with the declaration/forfeiture of an innings. This article is only about Law 14.Landr (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I have misunderstood something... England were batting second, right? So the following text makes no sense: "At that time, the laws did not permit a side batting first to forfeit an innings, so England's first innings was treated as having been declared at 0 for 0 after 0 balls.".

Shouldn't that say "the laws did not permit a side batting second to forfeit an innings". TomH 19:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That confused me too, someone should consult the laws before changing it I suppose but it does seem that it should be the other way round.Tony2Times 01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Nottinghamshire v. Kent match

Quick question: in the account of the N'shire - Kent match, the match was drawn because...? Had time expired, thus implying the captain had declared too late? His side was winning on points but hadn't allowed time to let his side take 10 wickets. Is that right? Just looking for clarification. Perhaps adding the clause, "... thus the captain had not allowed his team sufficient time to take the 10 wickets needed to achieve a decision." Otterswimshome (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Declaration rules

Another question: "Before declarations were made legal"... can someone track down and add when declarations were made legal? Feyrauth (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

. . . and another . . .

"... farcical situations, where the fielding side would make no attempt to dismiss a batsman who was trying to be dismissed"

Surely the batsman would just knock the bails off in this situation? No need to 'try to be dismissed'?

As it says "citation needed" (!)

Gilgamesh4 (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

At a guess: the umpire can only give a batsman out if there is an appeal. If the fielders refused to appeal then the batsman could knock his stumps out completely and nothing would happen. Spike 'em (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)