HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rasf@st-andrews.ac.uk (Russell Anthony Stewart Fiedler)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Three umpires at a cricket match
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:29:59 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

In article <1992Jul24.145502.22424@st-andrews.ac.uk> rasf@st-andrews.ac.uk (Russell Anthony Stewart Fiedler) writes:
>In article <22JUL199219302539@ctrvx2.vanderbilt.edu> diwadkva@ctrvx2.vanderbilt.edu (Vaibhav A. Diwadkar) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul22.193204.27648@leland.Stanford.EDU>, 
>>urajan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Uday Rajan) writes...
>>
>>>Just read in the July 15 edition of the Times (London), that the South
>>>African cricket board is seriously considering using three umpires in 
>>>each of the Tests against India later this year. 
>>
>>	- Actually my reading of the article is that it is a done deal 
>>	as far as the four test matches go but will not use them in 
>>	the onedays.
>>
>
>Huh? This is totally the opposite of what I read in the papers a few days ago.
>The Guardian had a few comments from the head of the South African board who
>said that when they tried the system in a match last season... 
>I'll see if I can hunt up the article. 

And here it is...

Guardian 18 July

SA rejects umpiring by televion

South Africa has rejected the use of television cameras to monitor controversial
umpiring decisions in the Test series against India in November.
Krish Mackerdhuj, president of the United Cricket Board of South Africa, said
yesterday: 'We tried it at one match last year and we found it a fiasco. The
umpires on the ground had a tendency not to take decisions immediately and refer
them to the third umpire monitoring the television screen. It kills the game.'


Looks like those early reports may have been the result of long liquid lunch
at a Wapping hostelery. It wouldn't be the first time...


Cheers,

Russ Fiedler.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: wayne@gbrmpa.gov.au (Wayne Amisano)
Subject: Re: Why is cricket not an Olympic sport ?
Organization: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:27:49 GMT

bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao) writes:

>ravi@wti.com (Ravi Raj) writes:

>>The only reason I can think of is the sheer duration of 
>>the game. A full 8-10 hours for every match is probably
>>not financially feasible. But did you know that in the
>>year 1900, cricket was a full medal Olympic event? And
>>they probabaly didn't have a limited overs concept then,
>>so each match must have taken 6 to 8 days to complete. But
>>there probabaly were not more than 3 or 4 cricket playing 
>>nations then...

>>Any input?

>Actually, with the introduction of the one-day game, a knock-out
>tourney would be very feasible.  The only problem I can see is that
>the host country will in all likelihood not have the
>grounds/facilities.  

>But, if a regional qualifying was held to get it down to 16 teams for
>the Olympics, you could probably manage with 4-6 grounds (assuming
>that the pitches could be repaired sufficiently quickly, or to prepare
>several pitches on each ground).  With many more countries having
>national cricket teams (how many members of the ICC in all, anyone
>know?), now could be the time to try again, maybe in 2000....

Maybe they could follow the concept of the original WSC comp in
the late 70's and prepare the pitches and then install them on
the grounds..

>>Ravi N. Raj					ravi@wti.com

>Bharat


cul wayne


-- 
Wayne Amisano (VK4KT)     _-_|\\    E-Mail - wayne@gbrmpa.gov.au
Great Barrier Reef       /     \\   Phone  - +61 77 81 8861 (GMT+1000)
Marine Park Authority.   \_.-._/    Fax    - +61 77 72 6093
Our's to use Wisely!          v     Mail   - GPO Box 1379, Townsville QLD 4810
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: sagrawal@cco.caltech.edu (Sanjay Kumar Agrawal)
Subject: Pak 2nd innings
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:35:04 GMT

Pakistan are 64 for 3, half hour after tea. Batsmen out Aamir, Asif
and Javed. Rameez is batting in his 40s'. Mallendar has taken all 3 wickets.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: papadopoulos-dimitrios@CS.YALE.EDU (Dimitrios Papadopoulos)
Subject: Re: Excitement and Controversy
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:30:55 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.150717.21623@walter.bellcore.com> shamim@.bellcore.com writes:
>In article 5916@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk,  ucap22a@ucl.ac.uk (Mr Alisdair R Davey) writes:
>>Hehe...I like some of Boycotts comments. On an exceedingling good shout from
>>Akram (can't remember the English Batsman), Tony Lewis said " Hmmm...possibly
>>just missing off stump", Geoff Boycott having already intimated that he thought
>>it was out replied "Yes...hitting middle ". Bias ? What Bias ?
>>Alisdair
>
>
>I think I've said it before but it certainly bears repeating: Of all the TMS crowd, 
>Boycott impressed me the most. I didn't hear him at Headingley but 
>he was one of the few voices of reason at Old Trafford when the Aaqib incident 
>hit the fan, and his analysis of the game was of the highest calibre. 
>--shamim
>
>---
>	--SAN
>


This is from one of the syndicated columns written by Sunil Gavaskar.He is 
talking of the second One-day international in the ongoing series and
writes about Boycott commentary.He writes-

...There was another side to the Inzamman-ul-haq dismissal.As he walked 
back to the pavilion he looked at the edge of the bat,which prompted
Geoff Boycott who was commenting at that stage to say that "there is
no need to look at the bat,he was plumb out.".Coming from Boycott it was
rich,considering he was a past master at rubbing the forearm if he was
caught off the shoulder of the bat or brushing his thigh gaurd if he was
caught glancing down the leg-side or quickly moving his feet away from 
the stumps for a leg side decision.......


--Pushkar

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: pvr@argo.rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao)
Subject: Re: English umpiring
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 05:38:54 GMT

In article <01GMWX1HCHGIAKVCE7@ccmail.sunysb.edu>, ABEGLEY@ccmail.sunysb.edu (Anthony M. Begley) writes:


|> > Nobody is talking about  English umpires cheating: the original
|> > postings all talked about the English Cricket establishment's claim
|> > that English umpires are the best in the world, 
|> 
|> They are THOUGHT to be the best in the world because the best umpire
|> is the consistent one who has the most experience at the highest level.
|> Some English umpires qualify on this. Lets try to avoid the old sweeping
|> generalisations.
|> 
|> >that TV replays 
|> > show that they do make mistakes as everybody else, 
|> 
|> Well, what a surprise !! Of course they do -- noone can be questioning this,
|> surely. As an aside I hope everyone criticizing umpiring decisions has 
|> actually umpired themselves in a game. Im sure we all know how difficult it
|> is in the heat of the moment, especially 2 foot short run outs !
|> 
|> >that if a Pakistani/Indian umpire
|> > makes a mistake it is dubbed as cheating by visiting Aussie and English
|> > sides, their estab and their media
|> 
|> I feel this is a tremendous generalisation. Forgive me if Im wrong but the 


I agree that it is a generalization. But _definitely_ not tremendous .......


|> incidents of complaints about cheating umpires are not commonplace on Englands
|> tours. We are all remebering the gatting-Rana episode alone. I agree that
|> in the heat of a tight match everyone can lose a little control, and that
|> the gutter press of all nations are the trouble makers.


It is not _just_ the Gatting-Rana incident, that makes one sick.

I cannot remember a _single_ tour of India by England or Australia, on which the
captain of the visiting team didn't crib about the alleged cheating by umpires. 
It really makes one sick (esp if you are an Indian, i.e. at the receiving end of
the childish complaints).


|> > , and that this duplicity generates ill-feelings
|> > in players which can be removed by employing third country umpires.
|> 
|> I would agree that although it will not remove all the problems generated by
|> the nature of umpiring and cricket itself, 3rd country umpires would overall
|> help the game rather than hinder it.


Well said.

No one is claiming that third country umpires will solve all the problems clouding
umpiring disputes completely.


|> >	--SAN


|> Tony



--------
PVR Narasimha [SRT is simply the best
               Whether it's an ODI or a test] Rao
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: raza@hobbes.ccs.uwo.ca (Mr. Raza Syed)
Subject: Re: T4 D2
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:48:49 GMT

In article <9207241109.AA17074@cs.utexas.edu> jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali) writes:
>
>Pakistan 197 all out.
>
>
>                             	  _\\|/_
>                                 /      \
>                                |  0  0  |
>Aquib Javed b. Munton...........|   /\   |   (second ball)
>                        	 \/    \/
>                                /        \ 
>                        	\  . .  /
>	                          \___/     
>Salim Malik 88 n.o.
>Malik in the series so far has scored 370 runs (165,55,12,34,16,88*)
>with an average of 74.
>
>j n a

Another great inings by Malik at Headingley! last time he made 99
which turned out to be the match winning ining for pakistan, hope this one
too turns out to be match wining! Just a month ago Imran said after lords
test that Salim Malik is a good WKT bunny!

S.R.Raza.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:21:45 EDT
From: Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: E-P T3 Umpire Palmwer - FACTS
 <9JUL199208521715@watson.bms.com> <36472@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>

In article <36472@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu>, yelton@uful07.phys.ufl.edu (John M.
Yelton) says:
>
>There seems to be some confusions as to who Palmer is. There are two
>Palmer umpires, Roy and Ken, the one involved in the fracas is Roy.
>                                                     ^^^^^^
rather a strong word, don't you think? :-)

Stay cool,
The Thinker

Cogito ergo potum                               I think therefore I drink
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SXK129@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                                Penn State University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thirty days hath Septober,
April, June, and no wonder.
all the rest have peanut butter
except my father who wears red suspenders."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: rakesh@ecr.mu.oz.au (Rakesh DESAI)
Subject: HISTORY of LBW Rule Required
Keywords: History, Leg Before Wicket
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:26:51 GMT

This is addressed to all Cricket Gurus, Historians and Archaeologist.

Request for history of Leg Before Wicket Rule (42 or 48 or whatever)
since 1877 or from its conception date.

Reason:  Just wish to see how this rule evolved and changed (or was it
same throughout the history).

Many times we get comments from Richie Benaud, Ian Chapple, etc. that
ball was missing off/on stump or ball pitched outside leg stump.  The TV
cameras are generally on one side of stumps and we never can tell for
sure that how ball pitched and in which direction (exactly) it was
heading.  I guess for that matter bowler and wicket keeper are also on
slightly different angle from the line of stumps and only umpire can
observe the perfect line.  I just wonder the simulation technology
which these days Michael Jackson uses in his video (i am not sure the
name but may be called Morphism), can be applied to simulate the
trajectory of ball from a real life situation to adjudge whether ball
would have hit the stump or not by removing batsman from simulated
picture.

This is just from my thought process.  Any sensible discussions welcome.

rakesh

************************************************************************
*   Rakesh Desai, Mech & Manf Eng, Uni of Melbourne, Parkville,Vic 3052*
*   email : rakesh@ecr.mu.oz.au   * (03) 344 6728                      *
************************************************************************
From: x90mumtaz@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: info needed
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:13:17 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Jul22.221425.19852@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>, vu0208@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (!) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.174946.17755@vela.acs.oakland.edu> mkyeddan@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Murali Yeddanapudi) writes:
>>Hello netters, 
>>               Does someone remember the breathtaking one-day match
>>(IND-PAK) at Sharjah, in which Miandad hit a sixer off the last ball
>>from Chethan Sharma ? I was wondering if PAK needed only 4 runs off the
>>last ball or more in order to win. Could someone post the info ? Thanks
>>in advance.
>>
>>vijay
>>
>>
> 
> I think Pakistan *needed* 6 runs to win in 1 ball (the last one!).
> 
> 
I think some of my friends are confused. Well I shall try to narrate the
exact words of the TV commentator at the beginning of last bowl.

"Last bowl coming up. 4 runs required. Sharma comes in bowls.......IT'S
A SIXXXX!!!! My word....Pakistan has won an incredible match........"

The rest is history. Anyway the camera then briefly focused on two
ladies who through out the match had cheered everytime a PAK wicket fell.
At that final moment the camera caught them in tears. Rumors are abound 
they were the wives/relatives of some Indian Cricketers. I've heard that
one was Gavaskar's wife. Can anybody verify????

Atif Mumtaz
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shamim@bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi)
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 00:08:56 GMT

In article 1744@samba.oit.unc.edu,  Sanjay.Naik@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Sanjay Naik) writes:
>Reading about the double internationals reminded me a guy called C. Aubrey
>Smith. I think he played for England in tests (he was definetely a first
>class cricketer) in the 20's/30's (??). He later went to Hollywood and
>starred in a lot of movies, including the  classic '39 version of 'The
>Four Feathers'. Now there's a few Indian cricketers who have attempted to
>act, but not with the success of good old C. Aubrey ;-)
>
C. Aubrey Smith played for England against SA in one test match but that was in 1888! 

	--SAN
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Blasting a certain Pakistani supporter
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:16:05 GMT
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide

Just a few quick words:

To the Pakistani "gentleman" who abused me most severely after you guys
deservedly won your test using my post about being a Yorkshireman who bathes or
showers atleast twice a day can I now claim that it was the will of Jesus
Christ who won England the test??  No more daft than you claiming Allah won it
for you.....

To lose to Englands most defineitely pedestrian attack, how do you feel?? 
Javed was a true highlight reflecting evrything you said about him in your
first couple of letters (I automatically deleted the rest without reading).

To the rest of the Pakistan supporters I apologise for the rather brusque tone
here, and I realise that one person does not make a whole country racist.  I 
would mail directly to him if only I could remember his address....

regs

Rob
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: s1172217@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Mark Smith)
Subject: Bowler breaking the wicket
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill, 3842, Australia
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:09:21 GMT

If in the case of the bowler breakings the wickets the ball is still fair,
their is no no ball and the ball is not dead unless one of the other
requirements for this to happen actually occurs ie. bowler puts front foot
over line etc., what must be done though is that seeing that the wicket is
broken in the case of a run out the bails must be put back on and then taken
off or a stump pulled from the ground and touched with the ball.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272)
Subject: Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 15:13:44 GMT

In article 102528SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu,  Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.183943.27160@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@.bellcore.com
>(Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272) says:
>>
>>So who is better leg spinner than Mushtaq in the world today?  ......
>>
>he's still got a long way to go before he reaches AQ's level. however, i'd like
>to see if mushtaq have a good series vs india (at home or away), something even
>AQ couldn't do (he averaged about 40 as a bowler vs india)
>
>Stay cool,
>The Thinker

Abdul Qadir is not playing: when I said "today" it meant the active players. 
I think Qadir's playing days are over. 
	--SAN
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Test Match 1992 July 25 (3rd Day)
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:54:07 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.


Test Match 1992 July 25 (Saturday)
Day 3 of 5
4th Test Match England v Pakistan
Headingley Cricket Ground, Leeds

Pakistan won toss

  PAKISTAN

  Aamir Sohail     c Atherton   b Mallander 23    c Stewart    b Mallender   1
  Ramiz Raja                    b Pringle   17    c Atherton   b Munton     63
  Asif Mujtaba                  b Mallander  7    c Hick       b Mallender  11
* Javed Miandad    c Smith      b Pringle    6    c Stewart    b Mallender   4
  Salim Malik              not  out         82            not  out          13
  Inzamam-Ul-Haq   c Hick       b Munton     5            not  out           2
  Wasim Akram              run  out         12
+ Moin Khan        c Hick       b Lewis      2
  Waqar Younis     c Hick       b Mallander  6
  Mushtaq Ahmed                 b Lewis     11
  Aqib Javed       c Hick       b Munton     0

  Extras        b 1  lb 2   w 7   nb 16     24                               4

  Total                                    197                              98-4

  Fall       34-1 (Sohail)   54-2 (Mujtaba)      11-1 (Sohail)    53-2 (Mujtaba)
             60-3 (Ramiz)    68-4 (Miandad)      64-3 (Miandad)   96-4 (Ramiz)
             80-5 (Inzamam) 111-6 (Akram)
            117-7 (Moin)    128-8 (Waqar)
            192-9 (Mushtaq) 197-10 (Aqib)

                      O     M      R     W              O    M     R     W
  Lewis              23     6     48     2              7    1    22     0
  Mallander          23     7     72     3             15    6    26     3
  Pringle            17     6     41     2         (4)  4    0    18     1
  Munton             10.3   3     22     2         (3) 10    2    32     0
  Gooch               6     3     11     0



  ENGLAND

* GA Gooch                    b Mushtaq 135
  MA Atherton                 b Akram    76
  RA Smith         c Miandad  b Aqib     42
+ AJ Stewart              lbw b Waqar     8
  DI Gower               not  out        18
  MR Ramprakash           lbw b Mushtaq   0
  GA Hick                     b Waqar     1
  CC Lewis                lbw b Waqar     0
  DR Pringle                  b Waqar     0
  NA Mallander                b Waqar     1
  TA Munton        c Inzamam  b Mushtaq   0

  Extras                                 39

  Total                                 320


Fall        1-168 (Atherton)   2-270 (Gooch)
            3-292 (Stewart)    4-298 (Smith)
            5-298 (Ramprakash) 6-303 (Hick)
            7-305 (Lewis)      8-305 (Pringle)
            9-313 (Mallander) 10-320 (Munton)


Bowling              O     M     R     W
  Wasim Akram       36    12    80     1
  Aqib Javed        16     3    48     1
  Waqar Younis      30     3   117     5
  Mushtaq Ahmed     29.5   6    60     3
  Aamir Sohail       2     2     0     0
 


Match continues Sunday, Monday


CDC
From: sagrawal@cco.caltech.edu (Sanjay Kumar Agrawal)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: England's run chase...
Date: 26 Jul 92 16:08:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cco.1992Jul26.160844.27510
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

has been interrupted by bad light. 71 for 4; Gower & Ramprakash batting.
From: pvr@argo.rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: absurd ranji rule
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:10:22 GMT
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas

In article <1992Jul27.220723.15570@cs.umn.edu>, karnik@cs.umn.edu (Neeran M. Karnik) writes:

|> In <nr0sodg@fido.asd.sgi.com> shankar@sgi.com (Shankar Unni) writes:

|> >In article <Brz1F1.7tv@acsu.buffalo.edu> sivap-m@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Muhunthan Sivapragasam) writes:


	[story of how Lalchand Rajput deliberately missed a chance to run the
	last batsman of the opposite team (in the 2nd innings) out to keep the
	the chances of winning the match alive (!!!!) deleted]


|> >No, that would *not* have happened. The scoring-rate rule is applied
|> >in the Ranji Trophy only if both sides do not complete their first
|> >innings.  If Rajput had run out the last Delhi batsman when he had the
|> >chance, Bombay would have walked into the finals on the first-innings
|> >lead, regardless of the scoring rate.
|> 
|> 	Waitaminnit, it's not the scoring-rate rule that would have been
|> applied here, it's the slow-overrate rule! If Delhi had been allout then,
|> Bombay would have been penalized @ 12 runs/over short, and they had bowled 
|> several overs short at that point. So, with those additional penalty runs,
|> Delhi's 1st-innings total would have exceeded Bombay's score. Later, Bombay
|> caught up with the overrate, and dismissed Delhi 1 run short of their score 
|> to go on to the finals.


That's perfectly right. Being all out at that particular point of time would
have given enough penalty runs for Delhi to make the target (i.e. make the
target after (due to) the fall of last wkt!). Even the news paper reports
said the same thing.


|> 	Come to think of it, this must have been the quarters, not the semis,


As far as my memory goes, it was indeed the semis as Muhunthan Sivapragasam
wrote in his original post.


|> since Bombay haven't made it to the Ranji finals for some time now....


Oh, no! How can anyone forget the 1991 Ranji final between Kapil's Haryana
and Manjrekar's Bombay (with Veng, Sachin, Kambli in the team)?

That was easily the best Ranji finals of the last decade or two. What a close
match! What a bowling by Kapil, what a solid knock by Sachin and an exciting
(unbeaten) century by Veng! With most Ranji matches finishing without both the
teams getting all out even once, it was refreshing to see such a close match
with a result (win for Haryana by 3 (?) runs) .........


|> >Shankar Unni				E-Mail:	shankar@sgi.com

|> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Neeran  Karnik  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


--------
PVR Narasimha [SRT is simply the best
               Whether it's an ODI or a test] Rao
From: azhar@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Test Tea score
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:30:16 GMT
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <14p54kINN5fc@uk-news.UK.Sun.COM> Phil.Lander@UK.Sun.COM writes:
>Remind me which side had the "pop-gun" attack again :-)
>Phil

	   WY shall do the reminding. :-)

dsqa

-- 
"To have loved and lost is better than to have won.... For, the burden
of victory has to be shouldered throughout life, and all losses rest
easy in the insatiable abyss called grave." 
--- D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar CS Dept Duke U  azhar@cs.duke.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket