HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hasan@vxcrna.cern.ch (LAUGHING LEPer)
Subject: Re:    Pakistani Players Use Filthy Language!?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:40:00 GMT

In article <92205.035855U28765@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U28765@uicvm.uic.edu> writes...
>Salam to Everyone:
> 
>I have been "led" to the impression that Pakistani players use filthy
>Punjabi words on the field and do so in large, liberal quantities. I
>am curious as to how true that is ........
>

You bet it is! But I don't imagine you to be such a prig to call
them filthy. They are colourful, heartfelt and oh so expressive --
terms of endearment, and quoting Gavaskar, "in the choicest of
Punjabi". And here I think even Sunny, the keen and perceptive
observer that he is, went wrong (or may be  he used the conventional
bourgeois wisdom to make his point :-)). The Pakistani players
were not fighting -- "like fisherwomen" as he said -- and as any
budding psychology undergrad would discern, they were "male-
bonding" and thus reinforcing the team spirit (should I put a 
smiley here?).

Anyhow there are few languages in the world that can compete
with Punjabi in its sheer inventiveness and the richness of
vocabulary when it comes to such intimate matters :-). Look
how closely related "gal" and "gaal" are, both in their sound
and etymology :-). Baoo gaalaan de baghair gallaan da ki suaad. 
(for those unfortunate enough not to understand this sensuous
language, it means -- a tongue in cheek is better than two
wagging -- am I right Jawad :-))

>Sources:
>1) A book by Kapil Dev (1987?) goes into great detail on how the above
>   happened when the Indian team would bat in Pakistan.
> 
>2) A recent post of an article by Sunil Gavaskar discussing Pakistani
>   cricket team's winning mentality included an excerpt about how the
>   above occurred during Pakistan's tour of India where JM scored 280.
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It should be India's tour of Pakistan. Didn't JM score 280* at Hyderabad
in that particular series of 1982-83? 
> 
>Asif the Asymptote
>Chicago

-Hasan
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: T4D D3 Post-lunch pseudo-update
Date: 25 Jul 1992 08:05:59 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


A couple of more quick wickets must have fallen.  England are 301/6.
Gower and Lewis are in, Hick and Ramparkash may have departed.

Sorry folks, this is the best my radio will allow me.  Perhaps
someone else can post a more detailed scorecard.

j n a
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: raza@hobbes.ccs.uwo.ca (Mr. Raza Syed)
Subject: Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:36:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.151634.23594@walter.bellcore.com> shamim@.bellcore.com writes:
>will not). India has superb players of spin and I can not recall any other world 
>class spinner being successful against them in the last two decades. 
>
>	--SAN


Iqbal Qasim.


S.R.Raza


Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: praim@connext.ucs.sfu.ca 
Subject: Re: Rule Question
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:10:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.091515@axion.bt.co.uk> dgrove@axion.bt.co.uk (David  
Grove) writes:
> 
> Being new to this newsgroup I don't know if this has been discussed recently  
or not, if so then sorry but please can we discuss it again!!
> 
> I hope someone out there can settle an arguement/discussion held in the bar  
(where else) after a recent cricket match.
> 
> If the bowler knocks the bails off the stumps with his leg whilst running up  
to bowl should the umpire rule a dead ball or allow play to continue with all  
the usual stuff that applies once the bails have already been removed??
> 
> A quote from the rule book would be appreciated, but failing that then any  
(factual) replies would be just as useful!!
> 
> 		Thanks,
> 
>



This was discussed some time ago here. Didn't bring my rule 
book to work today but I can tell you for sure that in the 
circumstances above play continues, no signalling of anything.
It justs makes a run out at the non striker's end more 
difficult.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: s1172217@giaec.cc.monash.edu.au (Mark Smith)
Subject: LBW law
Organization: Monash University College Gippsland, Churchill, 3842, Australia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:06:31 GMT

The law is law 36, I will quote it here in its entirerity.

LAW 36  Leg Before Wicket

1. Out LBW
The striker shalll be out LBW in the circumstances set out below:

  a) Striker attempting to play the ball

  The striker shall be out LBW if he first intercepts with any part of his
  person, dress or equipment a fair ball which would have hit the wicket and
  which has not previously touched his bat or a hand holding the bat, provided
  that:
    i) The ball pitched in a straight line between wicket and wicket or on the
    off side of the striker's wicket, or in the case of a ball intercepted
    full pitch would have pitched in line between wicket and wicket; and
    ii) The point of impact is in a straight line between wicket and wicket,
    even if above the level of the bails.

  b) Striker making no attempt to play the ball
  The striker shall be out LBW even if the ball is intercepted outside the
  line of the off stump if, in the opinion of the umpire, he has made no
  genuine attempt to play the ball with his bat, but has intercepted the ball
  with the same part of his person and if the circumstances set out in (a)
  above apply.

Quoted from the 1992 edition of Wisden.

Mark.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: T4 D4 First hour (pseudo_update)
Date: 26 Jul 1992 06:07:53 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


I know, this is probably not a very good use of the bandwidth
for me to post this sort of an update, but I'm hoping that
someone out there has the imagination to enjoy the great battle
that is going on out there.

After one hour of trying every trick with my radio, here's what
I can tell you.

Inzamam and Malik are still in.
Asif Iqball is in the commentary box.

Let your imagination furnish rest of the details.

j n a
From: ucap22a@ucl.ac.uk (Mr Alisdair R Davey)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Headingley post mortem
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:47:24 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium, London

Mr Akram speeds in...bowls...thuds in Gooch's pads - *Enormous* appeal..
Much muttering...burying of heads...sighing etc...Akram knew it would
have hit the stumps...so did Gooch...the Umpire knew too...and the 
wicketkeeper was in danger of being impaled by a flying stump but for
Gooch's pads...but the umpire gave him not out - a mistake. *NO* !
This is because the ball pitched outside, albeit marginally, leg stump.
Is it then time to reconsider the LBW law with respect the the leg stump ?
If it were the same as for the off-stump I think Gooch would have been out
3 or 4 times LBW. Something else that occurred to me...As I understand the
LBW law - Gooch could be hit on the pads outside the line of the leg stump
playing a shot, if the ball gits him on the full, ie a full toss - could this 
be Akrams answer to Waqars inswinging yorker ?
Alisdair
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: hasan@vxcrna.cern.ch 
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:01:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.165835.27340@unislc.uucp>, ramana@unislc.uucp (Ramana Ramachandran) writes...
>The other day I heard that kapil is playing for east bengal in soccer 
>which made me think how many cricketers have represented their country
>in another sport?
> 
>	One named gopalan (?) represented India in both hockey and cricket.
>	Iam not sure of the name but the "gopal" part of it is definite!
> 
>	Also I remember charlesworth of Australia (I suppose hockey fans
>	would know him better) playing for western australia and thus does not
>	qualify as a double international.
> 
>Please add more...
> 
>ramana ramachandran
>ramana@unislc.slc.unisys.com
	
	I remember once he played as a 12th man in a test match
	at Perth against the Pakistanis. So would he qualify?

-Hasan
From: yelton@uful07.phys.ufl.edu (John M. Yelton)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: E-P T3 Umpire Palmwer - FACTS
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:58:05 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

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.
Ken is the elder - he was a good county seam bowler and late order 
batsman for many years. He played for England when he happened to
be in the right place at the right time (SA?) and they had a lot of
injuries. Younger brother Roy was in and out of the Somerset team
for a few years but never got a regular place. He was a wildish 
opneing bowler. Ken's son Gary has also played for Somerset, but his
career seems to have followed his Uncle rather than his father. Maybe
he will follow in the family tradition and there will be a new generation
of Palmer umpires......

John Yelton
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: LBW rules: Expert? Opinion needed
From: John.Mcmullan@comp.vuw.ac.nz (John Michael McMullan)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:06:55 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.


RE: The ball striking the batsman's front foot/pad on the full.


  All the time's that I've adjudicated in this sort of situation the batsmen
have virtually walked...

	The ball struck them on the full between the line of the stumps...

  My father + various captains of teams I've played in have told me that
if it strikes the batsman on the full it doesn't matter where it might have
gone when it hit the ground, you just continue the line of the ball and if it
would have hit then it's out.

  Big, hairy pace bowlers have almost killed me when I gave these decisions
my usual little pause to think. Surely they can't have been wrong? :-)

-- 
---John McMullan---------------------------jmcmulla@comp.vuw.ac.nz---
		             My Signature
-----------Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand -----------
From: dgrove@axion.bt.co.uk (David Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Question on No Ball
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:25:40 GMT
Reply-To: dgrove@axion.bt.co.uk (David Grove)
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


In article 20132 andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad) writes:

>I recently called "No Ball" on the first delivery of the game because the >bowler
>had not declared his bowling style to me. In the back of our scorebook it >clearly
>stated that a bowler must decalare his bowling style to the umpire and must >also
>declare any changes to it. As an afterthought, I checked in Wisden for the >same
>ruling but could not find it anywhere - it merely said that a bowler must >declare
>any *change* to his bowling style; no reference was made to the initial style >and whether that had to be declared. What do you all think? Was I correct?

Technically it'd appear that you were perfectly correct. However, it strikes me
as being within the spirit of the game for the umpire to initially *ask* the 
bowler what his action is and then only call a no-ball should the bowler
change his action without first informing the umpire!!

Furthermore, it's necessary for the umpire to know the action to enable him to
indicate visibly to the bowler with a raised arm that play may not commence
whilst the batsman is taking guard, inspecting the field, etc.

I'm sure I'd be less than impressed should I be bowling and have a no-ball
called under such circumstances (however, up to now I've always declared my
action).

Dave Grove. 
=============================================================================
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Tour Match 1992 July 29 (Wednesday)
Date: 29 Jul 92 23:22:58 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.


Tour Match 1992 July 29 (Wendesday)
Day 1 of 2

Pakistan XI v Minor Counties - at Marlow, Buckinghamshire


PAKISTAN XI

Asif Mujtaba                 b Cawley   12
Shoaib Mohammad  c Davies    b Donohue   2
Inzamam-Ul-Haq   c Adams     b Lewis     4
Zahid Fazal      c Smith     b Lewis    93
Naveed Anjum     c Humphries b Cawley    0
Moin Khan                    b Cawley    0
Aamir Sohail     c Humphries b Toogood   7
Rashid Latif     c Cockbain  b Smith    14
Mushtaq Ahmed    c Humphries b Cawley   16
Waqar Younis             c & b Adams    57
Ata-Ur-Rehman           not  out         9

Extras                                  12

Total                                  226

MINOR COUNTIES

Calway          c Latif     b Anjum      9
Burn                    lbw b Waqar     21
Folland                not  out         56
Cockbain               not  out         30

Extras                                  14

Total                                  130-2

Match Continues Thursday
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: hasan@vxcrna.cern.ch 
Subject: Re: Pak vs India, Sharjah 1986
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:44:00 GMT

In article <14kuneINNh3r@agate.berkeley.edu>, aim@ocf.berkeley.edu (Ali Mirza) writes...
>I thought Pakistan needed *four* runs to tie the score off the last ball.
>It might have given them the win because of the rules regarding what to do
>in case of tied scores. I'd appreciate if someone can mail the scorecard
>of that match.
> 
>Also, can someone from England state the number of first class matches the touring
>side needs to win in order to qualify for the bonus?
> 
>Thanks.

 They've already won 7 and still need one more victory
 from the two county games left. BTW, why is everybody
 so keen for the tourists to win this bonus? This is 
 just an arbitrary target (8 out of 12 or 13? county
 games) and would not set any record.

-Hasan
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:27:52 EDT
From: Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
 <1992Jul31.151344.23466@walter.bellcore.com>

In article <1992Jul31.151344.23466@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@.bellcore.com
(Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272) says:
>
>Abdul Qadir is not playing: when I said "today" it meant the active players.
>I think Qadir's playing days are over.
>        --SAN
>
why isn't AQ playing today? i heard that he had some disagreement with imran.
but now that imran has retired (or has he? he's un-retired at least a couple
of times already), i would suppose that JM would like him on the team.
btw, i wasn't denying/asserting that mushtaq is the best leg spinner around
today. its just that the sample size is so small that its tough to make a
comparison. after all how many leg spinners are playing at test level? anyone
got a list?

Stay cool,
The Thinker

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magpie, n.:
        A bird whose theivish disposition suggested to someone that it
        might be taught to talk.
                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
From: khan@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (LAHORI POOND)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: info needed
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:56:12 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

> 
> 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


  No I dont think they were wives of any Indian crickters or for that matter
  Gavaskar's.I am sure that one of them was a  Goodrich.I think she was from 
  their family.As a mater of fact she even came to pakistan after the
  cup. ;)


    Btw did anyone notice how Tauseef Ahmed got clobberd at the end when he was
  running into the pavilion by one of the police officers.

               ___
   Lahori (LHL 111) Poond
  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: aamir@cs.sfu.ca (Aamir Husain)
Subject: Pak vs Eng T4
Keywords: at 9.15 PST
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 16:18:44 GMT


Test match special is over for us in N. america,
englnd were 74/2

gower 22 no
ramprakash - 0 no

any netters in england, come on please keep us informed now.
you guys actually get to watch the cricket. share some of that
info. 
Cricketer in waiting

Aamir signing off

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: cdcs@st-andrews.ac.uk (Colin D. C. Steele)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: County Championship 1992 July 22 (Wednesday)
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:01:36 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.

County Championship 1992 July 23 (Thursday)
Day 3 of 3


At Derby
Derbyshire (4) 175-3 (JE Morris 82, TJG O'Gorman 68, CJ Adams 112*)
and 66-2
Middlesex (3) 216-2 dec (DL Haynes 70, MA Roseberry 100*)
MATCH DRAWN


At Cardiff
Yorkshire (4) 348-8 dec (MD Moxon 103, RJ Blakey 125*, SR Tendulkar 18)
and 102-2 dec (D Byas 68*, SR Tendulkar 7)
Glamorgan (4) 200-6 dec (SP James 80)
and 219-9 (A Dale 59*)
MATCH DRAWN


At Cheltenham
Hampshire (2) 167 (TC Middleton 64, CA Walsh 6-33)
and 274-8 dec (RSM Morris 64)
Gloucestershire (8) 339-8 dec (GD Hodgson 56, MW Alleyne 86, RC Russell 75
                           JR Ayling 4w)
and 95-7 (SD Udal 4w)
MATCH  DRAWN


At Canterbury
Kent (23) 275
and 160-8 dec (AR Caddick 6-52)
Somerset (4) 133 (MJ McCague 5-23)
and 220 (MN Lathwell 72, RP Davis 6-75)
KENT won by 82 RUNS


At Leicester
Durham (4) 145 (DJ Millns 5-41, AD Mullally 4-39)
and 116 (DJ Millns 5-46, WKM Benjamin 4-34)
Leicestershire (23) 256 (NE Briers 93)
and 6-0
LEICESTERSHIRE won by 10 WICKETS


At Northampton
Northamptonshire (7) 334-9 dec (AJ Lamb 209)
and 218-4 dec (AJ Lamb 107, A Fordham 75)
Warwickshire (8) 316-7 dec (TL Penney 100*)
and 206-5 (AJ Moles 66, RG Twose 78)
MATCH DRAWN


At The Oval
Surrey (5) 333-4 dec (DJ Bicknell 60, PD Atkins 99, MA Lynch 97*)
and 219-7 dec (AD Brown, MG Field-Buss 4w)
Nottinghamshire (19) 201-2 dec (RT Robinson 73*, P Johnson 107*)
and 352-7 (PR Pollard 74, MA Crawley 95, P Johnson 78, MA Feltham 4-118)
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE won by 3 WICKETS


At Hove
Sussex (8) 342-5 dec (JW Hall 140*, DM Smith 105, JD Fitton 4w)
and 302-3 dec (MP Speight 119*, JW Hall 71)
Lancashire (6) 349 (SP Titchard 54, NJ Speak 59, GD Lloyd 96)
and 238-9 (J Crawley 65, NJ Speak 62, PJ Martin 52*, SEH Giddins 5w)
MATCH DRAWN


At Kidderminster
Worcestershire (6) 448-6 dec (TM Moody 178, DB D'Oliveira 100)
and 186-5 dec (SR Lampitt 63, SJ Rhodes 62*)
Essex (5) 300-5 dec (ME Waugh 138*, N Hussain 78)
and 0-0
MATCH DRAWN



TABLE

                       Pld.  Won  Btg.  Blg.   Tot.
1    Essex              14    7    45    36    183
2    Leicestershire     14    5    27    38    145
3    Kent               13    5    34    27    141
     Nottinghamshire    12    5    31    30    141
5    Hampshire          14    4    41    34    139
6    Nottinghamshire    14    4    41    33    138

7    Warwickshire       13    4    30    43    137
8    Derbyshire         13    4    27    32    123
9    Worcestershire     14    3    36    38    122
10   Somerset           13    3    37    36    121
11   Sussex             13    3    36    33    117
12   Surrey             14    3    38    30    116

13   Middlesex          13    2    40    35    107
14   Lancashire         15    1    48    41    105
15   Yorkshire          13    2    34    32     98
16   Gloucestershire    14    2    27    38     97
17   Durham             13    2    29    35     96
18   Glamorgan          11    1    23    26     65




CDC
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad)
Subject: Re: How to be out LBW real easy
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:24:02 GMT

It is not correct to say that a ball pitched outside the off-stump will produce
a not-out provided the batsman attempts a stroke. Consider an off-break which
pitches six inches outside the off and cuts in. The batsman plays a back foot
shot and misses, it hits his pad six inches in front of the wicket ......
He will be given out. You won't be given out if you had got to the pitch of the
ball because no umpire could tell if the movement off the pitch would have caused
the ball to hit the wicket.

The difference between off-breaks and leg-breaks is that you can safely "pad up"
to a leg-break without fear of being given out. For off-breaks you can be given
out if you "pad up". As in the example above, if a batsman goes onto his back foot
to a leg-break, say some kind of wierd pull-shot, misses and the ball cuts in to hit his pad six inches in front of the wicket, you will be (correctly) given out.

In interpreting the LBW law, a good starting point is the official MCC 'Laws of
Cricket'. The 1992 version is available from Lords.

Andrew Coad
Morgan Stanley
New York
(212) 703-2112
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272)
Subject: 4th test Pak/Eng
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 01:59:40 GMT


Well, folks, here is the initial word from England on the condition of the Headingley pitch. 
Two weeks ago, there was a lot of talk that two pitches had been prepared and that 
they would seam, i.e., help the seam bowlers.  Harry Brind, the curator at the Oval was supposed to visit and pick one of them. My initial report from some of the 
players is that the pitch is brown and should be a batting wicket. So much for the seaming idea. 
Of course, it could be another Lords story: the pitch could be good for batting and we could 
have a result in three days! 

	--SAN
ps
Please keep the scores coming on RSC. I do not have the luxury of being at the test match this 
time around so am relying on RSC for the latest scores. Many thanks in advance. 

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket