Rules on declaring an innings?

[paul]

As I understand it there is no ruling to clarify this in the league rules as they stand. This really needs to be examined by the committee to clarify the position. I know that it is being discussed at present. All ideas on how this should be handled in future are most welcome.

My own feeling is that no declaration should be allowed in a limited overs win/lose match. If a side does declare they forfeit their remaining bats to the opposition and bowling points should be awarded. The only possible advantage in declaring is to deprive the opposition of bowling points. I'm not suggesting this was the case on Saturday, but it would seem to be the net result. The side batting 2nd would still only receive their 45 overs.

[andrewshields]

Interesting. In a previous league, declaring was permitted but it meant forfeiting all batting bonus points and giving the opposition maximum bowling points. It was available as an option chiefly when one side was considerably stronger than the other but dodgy weather meant the game might not be completed - ie better a win without batting points than an abandonment. However, I can't recall it happening very often.

The only way it could benefit our league would be to move from the concept of 45 overs per side to 90-over matches. Then a side batting first could declare after, say, 41 overs and have 49 overs to bowl at the opposition. However, without the need to bowl out an opponent to gain maximum points (see numerous other Forum posts!), I can't imagine there'd be many takers except, again, in situations whether poor weather meant a game might noit be completed.

[andrewshields]

Under our current playing conditions, the bowling team should surely receive maximum points if the batting team declares. The batters have had their chance to gain maximum points, the bowlers have been deprived of theirs. Quite frankly, in a 45 overs per side competition, declaring is taking the p***.

[andrewshields]

The idea of declaring to deprive an opponent of maximum bowling points is a legitimate tactic in leagues which have a less rigid points structure than ours. At the moment we play a very straightforward type of cricket. Personally, as I've indicated in numerous posts on the points structure, I'd prefer a more nuanced game which demands more of a captain than batting first, scoring 300+ then waiting to collect 26 points regardless of how many the oppo score or how many wickets are taken (obviously Molehill Green v Thorley is a rare exception!!). I'm not necessarily advocating declarations on this basis since it seems the kind of detail at odds with the rest of our structure, but it's worth trying to find out how many others clubs want greater subtlety in our cricket.

[ginster]

The interesting thing is - we're all talking about declaring being used as a tactic to deprive the opposition of points, however, I'd suggest that this wasn't really the case in either of the declarations we've seen recently. The first one, sheer laziness, in not having someone ready to bat. The White Roding game, as far as I can tell from talking to people who played in that game, was basically due to the fact that it had already taken almost 3 and a half hours to bowl 40 overs, and they actually just wanted to get the game finished ( I think there was a BBQ scheduled for after the game.). This is becoming more of an issue I think, in that the last couple of years, teams are starting to take longer and longer to bowl 45 overs. Given that the 1st class teams are given 2h50 to bowl 45 overs, there is no reason why we should EVER find ourselves going over 3 hrs, but it happens on a regular basis.

The thing is, as regards depriving teams of bowling points - if they are that confident of winning with the target they've set, the likelihood is that the teams are not going to be that close in the league, so it wouldn't be in a teams own interest to deprive someone of bowling points - which is why we don;t see it very often.

As regards subtle nuances in the cricket we play. I think the reason that we consistently come up with problems regarding points systems, is that we are trying to introduce subtlety to a form of cricket which is designed to be completely the opposite. All professional 1 days leagues have always just used a fixed, points for winning, and tying formula ( except in some international tri-nations series where the use of bonus points has been generally slated) . As the whole point of a fixed length game, is that you score as many as you can, any way you like, and hope its more than the oppo, no more, no less - this invariably lmeans that trying to introduce bonus points for other areas, means that they will always be contested. see all previous posts on points systems.

Sorry for a bit of a ramble there, but hope it puts my thoughts across.


Just noticed Tro's message after I'd submitted mine. Interesting point about declaring being arrogant - surely any form of declaration in any form of cricket is arrogance - just saying, we think we have enough runs that you can't beat us. Maybe we should go back to timeless tests with no declarations allowed? :-D

edited by: ginster, Aug 10, 2004 - 12:08 PM

[ginster]

I thought we were finished with the Saffer debate.

Would you have said this normally -

"due to the presence of a number of good players, the result was never really in doubt"

[ginster]

No worries - if you read the thread on "Flying players in", you'll get the general idea!! :-D

[Ben]

I played in the game for Birchanger mentioned above and, to be quite honest, we were quite happy to get off the field and out of the sun five overs early. The two batsman that were in at the time were both S Africans and while it is possible we would have taken a few wickets a gained a few more points, it is equally possible that they could have got an extra 50-80 runs that would have crushed our morale completely. We were in a relatively positive frame of mind for our innings and we posted a reasonable score in reply.

However, due to the prescence of the aforementioned friends from the southern hemisphere, the result was never really in doubt. :roll:

[Ben]

My apologies, I am not overly familiar with forum etiquette (I will be doing some more reading elsewhere on the site shortly), but I do think either quote will do..... ;-)

[tro]

I am unclear as to the rules on declaring. It was in my understanding that as the game was limited overs that no declaration should be possible and as you pointed out, bowling points are available to the fielding team which makes declaring unfair. This happened in div2 recently when White Roding played Birchanger. White Roding declared with around 5overs to go, which would of been the ideal time for Birchanger to take a couple of wickets, and as they are in a relegation battle every point helps. This is just my view but i'd like to learn more about it and see what the ruling is?

[tro]

In response to a comment earlier made, i also agree that declaring in a 45 over game is taking the p***! Surely, as already discussed, the batting side should be either docked points for being so arrogant in thinking the game was already won or the bowling side given full points. When i heard about the declaration i have already mentioned i was furious. If they had wanted to declare against my team i would have told them where to shove it!

Secondly, i don't think that the league needs restructuring in any way whatsoever. it may be simple but it works. Extra bonus points, 90over games and all the other suggestions will ruin this league. Our league is meant to be exciting and with 90over declaration games we will end up playing the same sort of game as BSCC where one team bats for 30overs blobbing out for a draw instead of going for the runs. Pathetic.

[colincraig]

Just to confirm Paul's earlier comments, The Committee has taken an action to review 'Declarations' with regard to whether there should be a rule on Monday 18th October at the League Rules Meeting.

Any formal proposals are welcome. These should be submitted to me with the endorsement of the second Club.

Colin Craig
Secretary

[batanbowl]

Here are our (HBCC) views of what happened and what was agreed during and after the game:

1. During the game there was an incident where the local rule of overhanging branches was stretched by EFCC. A catch was taken inside the boundary but an overhanging branch touched the shoulder of the catcher after the catch was taken, its my belief that the 'overhanging branches' ruling that many a club invoke involves only the ball coming into contact with the branch. This catch was disallowed. The reason I bring this up is to put into context Fletch's remark whether we would have been able to take the last wicket anyway.

2. Having declared with 1 wicket to fall and 1 ball to face, my first thought was that this was a generous gesture on their behalf due to the aforementioned disallowed catch but was then informed that the real reason was their number 11 was unfit to commence his innings due to being heavily hungover from their week's tour. This means that he commenced the game in an unfit state to bat.

3. After the declaration, the EFCC skipper stated that it would be recorded as an all out innings by themselves, due to their number eleven being unfit to bat even before a ball was bowled and would be recorded as retired OUT. This was not what was submitted to the League.

For the sake of 1 bowling point, I am disapointed to find that EFCC have gone back on their word and has now shown a lack of sportmanship.

However, we will leave this to the league to discuse and hopefully make these two grey areas something that cannot be exploited in the future.

Dave Rooney
HBCC Captain.

edited by: batanbowl, Aug 14, 2004 - 12:03 PM

[Greg]

Surely in the EFCC case the batsmen should have been timed out, if he was not ready, therefore awarding the extra bonus point to HBCC.

Also it was my understading that in limited overs matches Declaring was not allowed, due to a game in the 70's where the only way the Batting side(somerset?) could not win the title was to Lose and then see their net run rate go down, so they declared without facing a ball if my knowledge is correct, they therefore won the title. And so after this it was made illegal to declare in a limited overs match.

The only logical way to get around this, if weather was a factor, would be for each batsmen to either run down the wicket and miss or just kick over their stumps.

[djbbb]

The rule was set after somserset declared after 1 ball to go through to the later phases of the benson and hedges cup. They were fined, thrown out of that years competition and banned for the next season. So we will see epping in 2006!! :lol: :lol: :lol: (this last comment is meant as a joke!! ;-) )

[djbbb]

We wouldnt waste players on such a meaningless fixture ;-)

What is good to see is that the league is now starting to even itself out as teams find their correct level. Our 2nd x1 are probably in a division too high and you fully deserve to be where you are with your efforts in recruiting players. I think within 3 years the first division is going to be a very good standard of cricket

[Fletch]

Can anyone please clarify what the league rules are for declaring an innings. On Saturday, we (Epping Foresters) batted first vs High Beach and we lost our ninth wicket on 318 - 9 with just one ball remaining in the innings. Our eleventh batsman wasn't ready to bat and hence we declared at 318-9. Obviously the down side here is that High beach were complaining that they weren't given the opportunity to secure their final bowling point (on the assumption that they would have taken a wicket). Our score has been registered as 318-9, which in reality is correct, however as we declined the opportunity to bat our number eleven, does that not technically mean that we were 318 all out? I only ask, because second spot of the third division is looking like being a closely fought battle between a number of sides, High Beach included and they would have benefitted from the extra point. Makes no difference to us really, as we are some way clear 2nd place now, just trying to be fair and reasonable !

[Fletch]

Steady fellas. Didn't intend to open up such a sizeable can of worms. I was merely interested in finding out if the league had any rules on the subject, which they evedently do not. In response to Tro's comments, it certainly wasn't arrogance on Saturday or indeed it wasnt intended as a p*ss taking gesture, it was more akin to ginster's thoughts of rank laziness and shoddy captaincy. In all honesty, depriving our opposition of a bowling point wasnt even a consideration on Saturday and I agree that if this were the case then arrogance could well be considered to be true. I guess as the league has no ruling on this situation then nothing can be done, however if it were mt decision, as a more than generous gesture on my part, I would happily give them the extra bowling point, hey whilst i'm at it, I may be extra generous and offer them another 150 runs as well, they still would have lost, so its largely an irrelevance!

[Fletch]

Wholly fortunate then that the league doesn't yet have a ruling on the declaration rules! We will therefore indeed be seeing EFCC next year, however not in div 3 with any luck. A victory over Hallingbury on Saturday will see us win our first ever championship and secure promotion to div2 so fingers crossed! I am sure on behalf of TBCC, djbbb would like to wish us luck on Saturday on our impending promotion. Also on behalf of EFCC, good luck to TBCC 2nd XI on trying to avoid the drop into div4, our thoughts are with you. I think we have to play you on the last day of the season, is it fair to say that we could be encountering a strong 2nd XI, somewhat resembling a 1st XI ???????? (Clearly also a joke!)