Lancashire 2014: The red rose blooms once more.

[SaintPowelly]

I wonder if Middlesex are brave enough to declare their innings with just two wickets down and gamble on taking Lancs wickets within 110 overs.

There is a rule against deliberately declaring to rob a side of bonus points.

[Aidan11]

I wonder if Middlesex are brave enough to declare their innings with just two wickets down and gamble on taking Lancs wickets within 110 overs.

There is a rule against deliberately declaring to rob a side of bonus points.

I wondered about that. If they get 300 for 2 though it may be hard to prove.

[Making_Splinters]

Maximum bowling points, now just need to bat big and bat once.

[captaincolly]

I wonder if Middlesex are brave enough to declare their innings with just two wickets down and gamble on taking Lancs wickets within 110 overs.

There is a rule against deliberately declaring to rob a side of bonus points.

I wondered about that. If they get 300 for 2 though it may be hard to prove.

David Capel is at the ground as the official declarations monitor! Is the current situation Lancashire need to score at least 350 in the 110 overs if Middlesex get maximum bowling points?
What happens if they both end up with the same number of points? There's a suggestion in Twitter it would go down to the number of points between the sides over both games but that could end up the same because in the first game it was 22-4 to Middlesex. Don't know if that's correct though.

[captaincolly]

According to Kevin Hand-who is usually right, Middlesex go down if both teams end up on equal points.
That could complicate things?

[westoelad]

I wonder if Middlesex are brave enough to declare their innings with just two wickets down and gamble on taking Lancs wickets within 110 overs.

There is a rule against deliberately declaring to rob a side of bonus points.

I wondered about that. If they get 300 for 2 though it may be hard to prove.

David Capel is at the ground as the official declarations monitor! Is the current situation Lancashire need to score at least 350 in the 110 overs if Middlesex get maximum bowling points?
What happens if they both end up with the same number of points? There's a suggestion in Twitter it would go down to the number of points between the sides over both games but that could end up the same because in the first game it was 22-4 to Middlesex. Don't know if that's correct though.

Yes if wins and losses are identical it's decided on overall pts from the 2 games between the sides. However if Lancs only get 18 more pts than Middx in this game their pt total will be 1 less than middx so Middx stay up on pts gained. Alernatively if Lancs get 19 more pts they tie on pts but stay up on the above criteria.

[Aidan11]

My head's aching with the permutations.


And I wasn't aware the was such a thing as a Declarations monitor. Learn something new every day.

[captaincolly]

My head's aching with the permutations.


And I wasn't aware the was such a thing as a Declarations monitor. Learn something new every day.

It's going to be virtually impossible for Capel to rule out a declaration because Lancs argument would be they have to win so need time to bowl out Middlesex. declaring at 250 might be pushing it but if they get 300 and Middlesex don't have max bowling points it wouldn't be astonishing to want to declare in a 'normal' game.

[Making_Splinters]

According to cricinfo we need to get 350, should Middlesex get maximum bowling points it's all over.

[Aidan11]

Just thinking about the possibility before the match of an unsporting declaration - If Middlesex were able to bat and bat and bat taking, say three whole days to get 750, would that be considered just as bad as declaring with two wickets down? It would be unlikely they'd get penalised for it.

[captaincolly]

Just thinking about the possibility before the match of an unsporting declaration - If Middlesex were able to bat and bat and bat taking, say three whole days to get 750, would that be considered just as bad as declaring with two wickets down? It would be unlikely they'd get penalised for it.

Yeah, that would be fine by the rules but certainly dubious tactic.

Will be interesting if Lancs get to 250/5 ( currently 220/5) and then want to declare. Would be borderline extraordinary dec with a lead of just around 40 with 5 wickets in hand.

[captaincolly]

Just thinking about the possibility before the match of an unsporting declaration - If Middlesex were able to bat and bat and bat taking, say three whole days to get 750, would that be considered just as bad as declaring with two wickets down? It would be unlikely they'd get penalised for it.

Yeah, that would be fine by the rules but certainly dubious tactic.

Will be interesting if Lancs get to 250/5 ( currently 220/5) and then want to declare. Would be borderline extraordinary dec with a lead of just around 40 with 5 wickets in hand.

All academic now. 6 down with a possibly dubious decision so need to get 300 before losing 9th wicket now!

[captaincolly]

A bizarre dismissal-croft out caught down the leg side but Roland-Jones didn't appeal because the ball brushed Croft's trousers not bat Could turn out to be a hugely costly error by the umpire.TRJ also took a wicket earlier with what looked like a no ball but there are no cameras with the side on view.

[Alviro Patterson]

A bizarre dismissal-croft out caught down the leg side but Roland-Jones didn't appeal because the ball brushed Croft's trousers not bat Could turn out to be a hugely costly error by the umpire.TRJ also took a wicket earlier with what looked like a no ball but there are no cameras with the side on view.

I thought if the bowler doesn't appeal for a decision it can't ever be given out.

[captaincolly]

A bizarre dismissal-croft out caught down the leg side but Roland-Jones didn't appeal because the ball brushed Croft's trousers not bat Could turn out to be a hugely costly error by the umpire.TRJ also took a wicket earlier with what looked like a no ball but there are no cameras with the side on view.

I thought if the bowler doesn't appeal for a decision it can't ever be given out.

Big appeal from slips & keeper-looked as if it was given out while TRJ was in his follow through. He was interviewed after close of play and effectively said it wasn't out "no comment" he said with a sheepish grin!