Talk:Declaration and forfeiture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cricket Portal Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability Declaration and forfeiture is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Categories and templates: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)