HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones)
Subject: Re: R.S.C.Scores be used more frequently
Reply-To: matty@cs.su.oz.au
Organization: Basser Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:52:47 GMT

In article <9220500.906@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
|> In <1992Jul22.021849.11106@cs.su.oz.au> tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones) writes:
|> 
|> | 	I second this + also earlier proposals to use
|> | 	rec.sport.cricket.scores
|> | 	for the test match updates.
|> 
|> no no no - please no.
|> 
|> | 	especially to stop
|> | 	a) having to wade through mountains (rivers?) of out of date updates
|> | 	b) searching for scoreboards in 'cricket'
|> | 	c) 'scores' being wasted on the occasional final test scorecard.
|> 
|> These don't make sense, if you move all the updates to r.s.c.s then
|> unless you don't care about the scores at all and want to ignore them
|> totally, you still have to wade through out of date updates, except now
|> they'll be in r.s.c.s
|> 
	Yes but that is my point. If you want the scores, then you 
	will be prepared to look through a group dedicated for their
	usage, if you want discussion, likewise.

|> You'll still have to search for scoreboards
|> 
|> 
|> Leave things as they are - that means that if you want the scoreboards
|> then you look in r.s.c.s and only get occasional updates, if you want
|> lots of up to date info, look in r.s.c
|> 
	The fact is that there are two groups, based on a fairly natural
	and even distinction (scores vrs discussion), but this distinction
	is not being exploited effectively, and the groups are not used
	as effeciently as I believe is possible.

|> 
|> If people want the updates to go away from r.s.c so they can concentrate
|> on the thousands of "the umpire cheated" articles that appear during,
|> and after, every test, 

	Yes, this is unfortunately much of the content, but there is
	often intesting topics of discussion to follow.

|> kre

	tom
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: England 2nd Innings
From: Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:56:00 EDT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Jul27.224235.28919@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@.bellcore.com
(Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272) says:
>
> [........................................]  Let's see if England take
>the same attack to India this winter. I daresay India will make 500
>runs more often than not.
>
however, england will probably make 600 or more each time with hick, if
he is selected, finally getting among the runs with a couple of 100s/200s

Stay cool,
The Thinker

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything should be built top-down, except the first time.
From: vlakshmi@ho02.eng.ua.edu (Venkatraman Lakshminarayanan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: test
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:30:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Originator: vlakshmi@ho02.eng.ua.edu
Julieline: see if this comes up.

hello,i am sorry.i just wanted to test if this worked.
have a nice day.
srik.
From: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Eng vs Pak day 4 (Close of play)
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:58:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: vms.0095E31B.94AD5F60
Reply-To: 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services

In article <1992Jul26.203537.22587@ecst.csuchico.edu>, jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali) writes:
>Congratulations to all the supporters of the English team for a well
>contested victory, and to all cricket fans for such entertaining
>cricket.  This tour, which has been anything but dull, is suddenly
>that much more exciting.
>
>Next test at Lords, August 6-10

Sorry , but not with the intention of nitpicking
the next test is at Oval,London.
bye,
>
>j n a

************************************************************
RAM            		       BULLS -93	

Politicians' statements tend to have a low specific gravity.
They carry less weight  than their volume would suggest.
		- Jonathan Miller
************************************************************
From: kashif@planecrash.berkeley.edu (Mohammad K. Qayyum)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: info needed
Date: 22 Jul 1992 21:32:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
Reply-To: kashif@planecrash.berkeley.edu (Mohammad K. Qayyum)
NNTP-Posting-Host: planecrash.berkeley.edu

It was 4 runs required. 
last wicket. 
What a match.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: gregw@hspice.portal.com (Greg Widdicombe)
Subject: Re: Another question for rule book owners!....
Organization: Meta - Software
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:47:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.202318.3935@julian.uwo.ca> raza@engrg.uwo.ca (Mr. Raza Syed) writes:
>
>
>Is it necessary that a ining should be started with a new ball?
>like if a captain of the fielding side wants to use a old ball
>can he do that, can he use the same ball in the second ining which
> was used in first ining?
>
>S.R.Raza.

As long as the ball has been approved by the Umpires and Captains
prior to the start of the match, any ball may be used. [LAW 5]

-- Greg

-- 
     Greg Widdicombe     |  Meta-Software, Inc.  |    _--_|\
  * Up from Down Under * | 1300 White Oaks Road, |   /     *\
                         |  Campbell, CA 95008   |   \_.--._/
 gregw@hspice.portal.com |     (408)369-5451     |         v
From: aamir@cs.sfu.ca (Aamir Husain)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Pak vs Eng T4
Keywords: start of 1st day
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:31:13 GMT
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

pakistan won the toss and elected to bat
pakistan same team
england stewart keeping wkt, 
ramprakash, mallender, and i guess newport

pakistan 15/0
sohail -9 
rameez -4


Aamir
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz)
Subject: Re: R.S.C.Scores be used more frequently
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:52:58 GMT

In <1992Jul22.021849.11106@cs.su.oz.au> tom@cs.su.oz.au (Thomas James Jones) writes:

| 	I second this + also earlier proposals to use
| 	rec.sport.cricket.scores
| 	for the test match updates.

no no no - please no.

| 	especially to stop
| 	a) having to wade through mountains (rivers?) of out of date updates
| 	b) searching for scoreboards in 'cricket'
| 	c) 'scores' being wasted on the occasional final test scorecard.

These don't make sense, if you move all the updates to r.s.c.s then
unless you don't care about the scores at all and want to ignore them
totally, you still have to wade through out of date updates, except now
they'll be in r.s.c.s

You'll still have to search for scoreboards


Leave things as they are - that means that if you want the scoreboards
then you look in r.s.c.s and only get occasional updates, if you want
lots of up to date info, look in r.s.c

r.s.c.s is only "wasted" because not enough people send scoreboards there.
It could easily have the daily scorebboards of the test matches, and
end of match reports of all the tour matches, the various domestic
competitions (county cricket in Eng, Shield in Aust, ...) and such, so
that anyone who wants to find scores can find them there easily, and so
they'll be archived so we can come back to them later.  All that's needed
is for people to agree to send the data there.  (r.s.c.s was much busier
in the Aust summer than it is now).

If people want the updates to go away from r.s.c so they can concentrate
on the thousands of "the umpire cheated" articles that appear during,
and after, every test, instead of the updates, then a better scheme would
be to create rec.sport.cricket.updates or something - it just takes someone
with enough real desire to have this happen to go through the usenet
group creation mechanisms (but it probably won't finish during this tour
of England by Pakistan - for the rest of that we can just keep the
updates in r.s.c).

kre
From: rpendse@velveeta.mfg.hou.compaq.com (Raju Pendse)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Tour ground rules
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:06:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: twisto.1992Jul24.150607.18079
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation

I saw an article on rsc recently which mentioned that the SouthAfrican board
had decided to have three umpires in the test matches with India later this
fall. The third ump being the replay ump like in the football games in the 
USA. The question I have is that can the cricket board of the home country
set the rules without consulting the cricket board of the touring country ?
What are the ICC rules in this regard. Does the home country have complete
authority on setting the ground rules or do they have to be worked out in
consensus with the board of the touring country ?

Any insights into this ?

Regards,
Raju Pendse:
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: avs4700@zeus.tamu.edu (ANAND SRINIVASA)
Subject: Double Internationals
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:03:00 GMT

Michael Holding was a 400m runner and participated in the 
World University Games (not the Olympics). I am not sure
if he won any medal though.

Also, there was this captain of the English team of the 
forties - I don't remember his name (Douglas ?). But I 
sure do remember his initials : JWHT - because he was also
known as 'Johnny Won't Hit Today' ...


____________
anand.
From: srd@ukc.ac.uk (S.R.Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Question on Umpiring and LBW
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:11:50 GMT
Reply-To: srd@ukc.ac.uk (S.R.Davies)
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.


     Somebody wrote :
>>
>>| The umpire explained that the Laws of cricket require the bowler to appeal
>>| with "How was that?". The bowler, on hearing this, appealed with "HOw was
>>| that?" and the umpire declined further on the grounds that the ball was
>>| now dead.
>>
     On the subject of appealing, isn't it about time appealing was
 abolished altogether, or at least limited to just the key person
 involved (bowler for lbw, keeper for stumping, etc). I think that having 
 the entire fielding team, including the guy at third man and the one on
 the square leg boundary etc haranguing the umpire for lbw everytime the
 ball hits a batsman's pads is an insidious development of the modern
 game. I think it contributes to umpires making mistakes (both for and
 against the fielding team). Why the need for an appeal? If you score
 a goal playing football you don't have to appeal to the referee for the
 goal to stand. If a batsman clips the ball away to the boundary, he does
 not have to appeal to the umpire for 4 to be added to the total. I think
 the appealing should be done away with ... let the umpire concentrate
 on adjudicating over the difficult decisions.

 Regards, Steve.
From: dgrove@axion.bt.co.uk (David Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Rule Question
Date: 22 Jul 92 08:15:15 GMT
Reply-To: dgrove@axion.bt.co.uk (David Grove)
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


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,

	  	   Dave Grove.


=============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: diwadkva@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.ed(Vaibhav A. Diwadkar)
Subject: England 13 ...?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:59:00 GMT

I read (or heard) somewhere that England have made four changes in their
team for the Headingley (?) test.  I haven't seen anything on rsc about this.
I believe Phil Newport and Neil Mallender are included in the squad.
My guess is Salisbury, Hick, Russell and Atherton are casualties.  Anyone
with a confirmation on this?

					- Vaibhav.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kumar@ditsydh.syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (V.R.Kumar)
Subject: Cricket News from Down Under
Organization: CSIRO Division of Info Tech, Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 22:26:12 GMT


REST OF THE WORLD  VS WALES

Rest of the World under the captaincy of Sunil Gavasakar crushed Wales by 213 runs on
July 16.

Rest of the World : 283 for 6 in 50 overs

Harper : 81 (76 balls)

Sunil Gavaskar : 48

Mark Greatbatch : 68

Wales : 70 all out


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAKISTAN  VS INDIA

CROWD VIOLENCE KILLS IMRAN'S CHARITY MATCH

LONDON, Wednesday, 29 July 1992.

 A charity match between Indian and Pakistan was abandoned after fighting broke out
between rival fans. The game at the National Sports Centre, Crystal Palace, had been
staged to raise funds for legendary all-rounder Imran Khan's cancer hospital in Lahore,
and both countries fielded teams of the highest quality.

But after the fourth pitch invasion of the evening was followed by scuffles in the
stands, the match was called off at the crucial stage in what had promised to be
highly entertaining battle. The limited over contest had to be reduced from 42 to 40 
and then to 35 after numerous delays for pitch invasion and a 25-minute late start.
The near capacity 16,500 crowd had been warned over the public address syystem that 
the match would be scrapped, with the announcere insisting that Imran was desperate
for order to return.

Scores :

India : 220 for 4 in 35 overs

Pakistan : 152 for 4 in 29 overs  

Earlier, the crowd had been regally entertained by Kapil Dev, one of the greatest 
allrounder in cricket history, who scored 133 off mere 97 balls, including seven sixes
and twelve fours, and then took 3 wickets in his first five overs for 27 runs.

Pakistan was never really on course to make the 221 required, although Javed Mianded             
(55 not out) and Rameez Raja, who it a six and eight fours in 61, did their best against
very tight bowling and enthusiastic fielding. 

Source : "The Sydney Morning Herald", dated 30 July 1992
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers,

Ramkumar

-- 
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| V.R.Kumar (Ramkumar Venkatachalam)                                 |
| CSIRO, Division of Information Technology                          |
| P.O.Box:1599, Macquarie Centre, North Ryde, NSW 2113, AUSTRALIA    |
From: dgrove@axion.bt.co.uk (David Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Run Out by the Bowler
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:43:22 GMT
Reply-To: dgrove@axion.bt.co.uk (David Grove)
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


Wht has it been rammed down my (and many other's) throat by various cricket
gurus that for the bowler to run out the non-stricking batsman before
delivering the ball is so unsporting.

I once performed the dastardly(?) deed many years ago in a youth game (the
fact that I'd been hit for 44 of 4 overs, with no wickets and numerous dropped
catches may have prompted my action) and got a right rollocking the from
the umpire (*their* umpire and for all I knew may have been the batsman's
father).

I still maintain that if the non-striker leaves his ground before the ball
is bowled then he deserves to be run out and like to think that if I was
batting then would accept the outcome with the only anger being directed at
myself for lacking concentration/being stupid.

Should the batsman attempt (unsuccessfully) a suicidal single (an equally stupid act and one that I'm not totally unfamiliar with) than the fielders
quite rightly have no qualms about running him out.

What's the general opinion of RSC on this subject?

Dave Grove.
From: 9063iyerm@vms.csd.mu.edu (Murali Iyer)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Question on Umpiring and LBW
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:55:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: vms.0095E587.6670C560
Reply-To: 9063iyerm@vms.csd.mu.edu
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services

In article <9221100.27444@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>In <1992Jul28.084134@is.morgan.com> andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad) writes:>
>
>| The umpire explained that the Laws of cricket require the bowler to appeal
>| with "How was that?". The bowler, on hearing this, appealed with "HOw was
>| that?" and the umpire declined further on the grounds that the ball was
>| now dead.
>
>| Was the umpire correct in the first refusal?

I have umpired in a couple of matches where one of the bowlers was a deaf-mute
player.............. 

The whole situation as explained by Andrew Coad is a ridiculous case of
subjectivity creeping into what should have been a dispassionate task. If the
umpire can't stand the bowler appealing with one hand up in the air and another
on his cr**ch, can the prudish umpire reject the appeal on the grounds that 
that is not the right way to appeal,  because he doesn't like the "dirty
style"? This seems like such a case. Also, it is not just the bowler who has to
appeal, as far as I know. Any fielder can appeal, like in the case of a
stumping the wicky can appeal, and it is valid.

There are many rural teams whose players do not know a word of english and just
know the general sound of an appeal and do it by rote. 

-Murali

                               Murali Iyer 

Analyst/Programmer,                                Home  : (414) 288 8766
Marquette University, CSD                          Office: (414) 288 6890
517, N.14th St, Rm 159,                            1343, W Wisconsin, #331,
Milwaukee, WI 53233.                               Milwaukee, WI 53233. 

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: suresh@lgc.com (Raghavan Suresh)
Subject: Olympic Hockey result
Organization: Landmark Graphics Corp., Houston, Tx
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:39:15 GMT

Some one was interested about result of India vs Argentina Olympic hockey match.Here you go:

India bt. Argentina 1-0
Pargat scored the goal off the first penalty corner in the 5th minute which
was deflected into the goal by the Argentinian goalkeeper.

Subscribe to rec.sport.hockey.field for results, updates and details.
From: aksimha@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Arun Simha)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: LBW rules: Expert Opinion needed
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:32:40 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA


   Hi,
      There seems to be quite a lot of confusion regarding the LBW rule.
      (Yeah, What's new?). Most cricketers interpret the rule differently,
       especially when it comes to an LBW appeal off a leg break. Now, as
       I have always understood it, a batsman cannot be given out off a 
       leg-break, right? However, one often comes across umpires who feel
       that such appeals such be sustained if the batsmen are way on their
       backfoot, covering the wickets. Could a kind soul post the *EXACT*
       wording of the LBW rule (law?) from the Cricket Rule book, please?
       ..and let us debate over it :-) :-)

     
  Cray for me,
 
  Arun Simha
From: aam9n@helga6.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: England 2nd Innings
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:41:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <712179368@lear.cs.duke.edu> azhar@duke.cs.duke.edu (D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.134434.24937@cco.caltech.edu> sagrawal@cco.caltech.edu (Sanjay Kumar Agrawal) writes:
>>A run out appeal against Gooch was just turned down. The television
>>replay showed him to be out (according to the commentators). 19 for none.
>
>	   The funny thing is that when English umpires make such
>decisions they are mistakes, and when a *&!^&%^# colored umpire does
>it is dishonesty. Racism never fails to amaze me.
>

I don't think it is racism, really, but it has become increasingly clear
to the rest of the world that English umpires are every bit as ordinary as
those of any other nationality. For every Shakoor Rana, there is a Roy
Palmer. And while Dicky Bird has been the best of umpires in recent years,
David Constant has surely been close to the worst. Pakistan did not lose
this match because of umpiring, but I can see us abandoning the whole
crusade for neutral umpires based on a few experiences like this. I hope
we don't. The temptation to get back at the "damned Pommies" must be
countered with principles higher than those shown by the pathetic English
cricket establishment. Inevitably, as more teams experience the skills of
Palmer and co., the myth of English umpires will wither away even in
England (it has everywhere else). Neutral umpires are the future, whathever
the TCCB might think. Its influence on world cricket is diminishing anyway
as more countries acquire test status. It might be useful for the "upstarts"
in the ICC to throw their support behind South Africa for the next World Cup
just to help the process along.

As for Pakistan, no team with batting as brittle as ours deserves to win
as often as we do --- thanks to our incredible bowlers. It is great, though,
that Malik is proving his class in English conditions. Now that the series
is even, we call all look forward to a great fifth test --- if the rain diety
permits, of course.

Ali Minai
Organization: Doctoral student, Metallurgy and Materials Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:16:45 -0400 
From: Alok Sharan <as56+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: WHAT ABOUT CRICKET!!!!!!!!
	<1992Jul23.222833.27159@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu>

On 23-Jul-92 in Re: WHAT ABOUT
user @bingsuns.cc.binghamton. writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.150204.4711@gw.wmich.edu> x90mumtaz@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>>hi,
>>   Can't anybody in Pakistan, India, Australia, New Zealand, ENGLAND and
>>even USA , Canada mail the full details of the first day of 4th test. 
>>
>>Atif [who is anxiously waiting for a reply] Mumtaz
> 
> 
>Folks in Pakistan/India have no access to RSC to post the scores.
                   ^^^^^^
Actually, that's not true. There are institutions in India that have
access to r.s.c., but it seems that reading newsgroups isn't really
popular there. However, to the best of my knowledge, Pakistan does not
have internet facilities.

> 
>Folks in Australian/New Zealand don't really care what's going on in
>the 4th test match.
> 
>Folks in USA can't receive clearly the BBC commentary!!
> 
>Where as folks in ENGLAND are too busy in watching the game..!! :)
> 
>Sorry we are out of luck this time on rsc.
> 
> 

Alok