HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 19:50:33 GMT

In article 20104@mtu.edu,  psbapat@mtu.edu (BAPAT) writes:
> 
>> 
>> ps
>> Mushtaq may not have a very good series against India  (quite possibly he 
>> 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
>> 
>
>There have been two notable examples to the contrary, both times India ended 
>up losing the test matches:
>
>Pat Pocock and Phil Edmonds in Gatting's team in India
>and
>Tauseef Ahmed and Iqbal Qasim in Imran's team again in India!
These are not examples of spinners having good series which is 
what I explicitly stated (see above). These are isolated matches on 
exceedingly helpful pitches. 

As an example of a bowler having a good series consider 
Kapil with 30+ wickets and Imran with 41 (82-83). 

BTW, do India and Pak play later this year? When and who is the host?

	--SAN

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: tittu@tittu.b23b.ingr.com (Tittu Mathew)
Subject: Indian Cricket ?
Followup-To: tittu@tittu.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:52:07 GMT


Hello guys,

	The Indian teams tour to SA starts OCT 29. But now India is playing
	Zim so when is the tour program starting?. Let us say the tour
	now start OCT 1st week, then the team has to be selected sometime
	in Aug. Does any body know when the team is going to be announced?.
	Isn't there going to be some sort of selection matchs before picking
	the team, presumably Irani Trophy or Wills Trophy. Anybody know
	when are these matchs to be played?.

Thanks in advance
Tittu Mathew
tittu@tittu.b23b.ingr.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272)
Subject: Re: England 13 ...?
Reply-To: shamim@.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 16:47:11 GMT

In article 22JUL199210594703@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu,  diwadkva@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.ed(Vaibhav A. Diwadkar) writes:
>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.


I posted a small item a few days ago about this but perhaps you 
missed it. Russell, Salisbury and Malcolm are out; 
Mallender, Childs, Ramprakash and Newport are in. 
--shamim

---
	--SAN
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:32:00 EDT
From: Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Double Internationals

In article <23JUL199219104255@zeus.tamu.edu>, avs4700@zeus.tamu.edu (ANAND
SRINIVASA) says:
>
>C.B.Fry, England's captain around 1910 was also a double international. He
>played rugby (?) at an international level and was also a noted long jumper.
>
>
>> Probably true. Legend also has it that the king of some African country
>(Monrovia?) was so impressed by Fry's feats that he offered Fry the
>presidentship of his country. Of course, the cricketer-rugbier(?)-
>long jumper-gentleman that Fry is, he quietly declined the invitation.
>
its not legend. except that i think the country was albania and that he was
offered the kingship. i'll have to check up on that. Fry, however, did hold a
post as some sort of exalted secretary to ranjitsinghji.

Stay cool,
The Thinker

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've touch'd the highest point of all my greatness;
And from that full meridian of my glory
I haste now to my setting.  I shall fall,
Like a bright exhalation in the evening
And no man see me more.
                -- Shakespeare
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
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: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:18:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.152656.4664@gw.wmich.edu>, x90mumtaz@gw.wmich.edu writes:
|> hi,
|>    I have a suggestion to make.
|> 
|> Rec.sport.Cricket.scores news group was created for the sole purpose of
|> writing scores. It is my suggestion that news group be used more frequently
|> by posting all county matches score cards in that news group. 
|> 
|> If R.S.C.Scores is not supposed to be used then it's better to finish that
|> news group.
|> 
|> Atif Mumtaz
|> 
|> 

	I second this + also earlier proposals to use
	rec.sport.cricket.scores
	for the test match updates.
	If you want discussion then cricket can be used,
	if you want scores then cricket.scores
	this would seem to be a good distinction,
	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.

	tom
From: dlow@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au.ua.oz (David J Low)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: LBW rules: Expert Opinion needed
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:04:06 GMT

From article <1992Jul21.173240.23418@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, by aksimha@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Arun Simha):
> 
>    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 :-) :-)

     A succinct summary (or "umpire's guide to the LBW :-) ) was posted a
     few months ago - I've found it very useful for adjudicating:

     1) did the ball pitch outside leg stump?  If YES then NOTOUT, else 2)

     2) did the ball pitch outside off stump?  If YES then (i), else 3)
	   (i) did the batsman play a shot?  If YES then NOTOUT else 3)

     3) would the ball have hit the stumps?  If YES then OUT else NOTOUT.

	  This is arranged in the most useful way for thinking about the
	  decision!  So, there is no reason why you can't get out to a
	  legbreak (like I did in last season's semi final :-{ ) as long as
	  the ball pitches in line and would have hit the stumps if your
	  (my!) bloody pad hadn't got in the way.  For the record, I _was_
	  trying to use the bat :-), I was just too far back, and the ball
	  would have taken the top of off stump.

		  David (with thanks to the original poster of this system!)

--
   ___          ~~            | David J. Low, Atmospheric Group, Dept. Physics
  /  /-----^-/~~~             | Adelaide University, South Australia 
 /  /-------/~  "I'll be back"| 
<__/  '            --- Arnie  | E-Mail : dlow@physics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Double Internationals
From: cctr123@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (Alan Murray, CSC Operations, Uni of Canty)
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:15:01 +1200
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <1992Jul23.145959.25463@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, wakankar@egr.msu.edu (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
> There was a player by the name of John Walker who played cricket for NZ. and also ran track. I think he held the record for a mile for some time.
> Can anyone confirm this
> 
You mean John Walker the 1976 Olympic 1500 metre gold medalist and first man to
run a mile under 3 min 50 secs? - nah he never played international cricket.

Alan

From: rajeev@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Rajeev Menon)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:35:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Forget Gatting and acknowledge the misconduct was Re: English Umpiring, hello Rajeev
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
From: ipg@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ian Gent)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Question on Umpiring and LBW
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:00:55 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul28.084134@is.morgan.com> andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad) writes:
>I recently witnessed an umpire give "not out" under the following circumstances:
>The bowler in question was in the habit of appealing to the umpire with a loud
>snort (or grunt - something like "aaaarrrrgggghh"). When a certain ball hit the
>back pad and was almost certainly out, the umpire gave "not out" on the grounds
>that a vigorous snort does not constitute an appeal.
>
>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?

Law 27, "The Appeal", paragraph 2, states that "an appeal of 'How's That?'
shall cover all ways of being out."  Nowhere does it state that that is the
only way one may appeal.  For example, one could say "Was that out caught?"
and the umpire would not be empowered to give it out LBW.  

So the umpire was wrong in the specific claim about "How was that", 
though probably right that a snarl is not an appeal.

>Was the umpire correct in the second refusal?

Of course not!  An astonishing claim by the umpire.

Paragraph 1, Law 27, says "The umpires shall not give a batsman out unless
appealed to by the other side which shall be done prior to the bowler 
beginning his run-up or bowling action to deliver the next ball."

Obviously the ball is usually dead before this happens. 

Ian Gent
From: mcbean@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: England 2nd Innings
Date: 28 Jul 92 10:19:11 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster

In article <1992Jul27.182953.23617@walter.bellcore.com>, shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272) writes:
> 
> Two years ago when Gooch was LBW to Terry Alderman in almost every innings, 
> I heard several people making the preposterous claim that English umpires were so
> fair that sometimes visiting teams got the advantage over England. 
> It is instructive to compare the number of times Gooch has been LBW to Alderman and 
> to Waqar,  who bowls at least as straight, if not straighter, than Alderman. 
> (For example, look at Waqar's stats for number of batsmen bowled or LBW.) 

To be fair to the umpires Shamim, Alderman's balls do not swing as viciously
late as does Waqar, and the late swing would create doubt in the umpires mind. 
I watched a bit of him bowling and a lot of the balls would start on off stump
then swing.  The English batsmen were also getting way forward thus creating
more doubt in the umpires mind.  Mushtaq I thought was unlucky with a couple of 
lbw decisions, and there was one from Waqar to Smith which looked dicey.  It's
hard to make judgements from a tv camera high over mid-on/mid-off, and that's
the job of the umpire.

> 
>>
>>A sense of superiority is certainly most of it. I'm just not sure 
>>it is "racist". Also, all of us --- you and I included --- have a sense
>>of superiority in some way. Of course, we do not think it "misplaced",
>>but others might. The way to counter the TCCB is not by raising slogans
>>of "racism" but by thwarting it strategically. As I said, the importance
>>of TCCB in the ICC is diminishing. With a few well-organized moves, it
>>can be put in its place --- the cricket board of one of nine test playing
>>countries. No more.
>> 
> Only if the ICC agrees to take away the veto power of Australia and England. 
> That decision is supposed to be debated next year. 
> 
> BTW,  as an example of another brainless piece of legislation, the 
> ICC match referee is to be paid out of the fines levied during the test match. 
> 
> 		--SAN

It is interesting how hard Australia and England are trying to keep this right. 
One of the more ingenious statements was that since they never use it why
bother getting rid of it.  

As for the fines;  this was another rule championed by the TCCB as a way to get
the WI to bowl more overs.  Now it seems not even their piddling medium pacers
can manage to bowl 15 overs in an hour, so we are guaranteed fines in matches
it seems.  On the subject of dissent, I wonder if Viv Richards would have been
fined for his withering glares at umpires from 1st slip?

McBean
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Cricket as an Olympic Sport
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:04:28 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

In article <1992Jul24.163015@is.morgan.com> andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad) writes:
>
>My original comment:
>In my opinion no team sport (with possibly the exception of the relay - which
>i don't classify as a *team* sport anyway) should be part of the Olympics. The
>Olympics was always to do with the achievement of the individual not the
>collective efforts of the 'Harlem Globetrotters'.
> 
>So i'm glad cricket is not on the roster.
>
>End of thread

Not so fast!  Consider:

The real purpose of the modern Olympics is to celebrate nationhood and
sell products.  The individual achievement part is there only to sell tickets.
So cricket should fit in just fine.

One could also argue that relay is the ultimate team sport,  much more so
than cricket where ... well, go look up Ravi Shastri :-)

And if everything else fails, could we have one of those single wicket 
tounaments?  I can think of half a dozen events that are more bogus and
could be eliminated to make space.

'Natty dread will write again...

j n a
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz)
Subject: Re: LBW rules: Expert Opinion needed
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:57:22 GMT

I can't believe how many people can't understand such a simple rule
(which has been posted already so I won't repeat it).

But for those who have difficulty with that, here's how it works.

1) if its not a legal delivery its not out
2) if it pitches (lands) outside leg stump, its not out,
	otherwise you *totally ignore* where it pitches.
3) if it hits the batsman outside the line of off stump, then
	its not out if (s)he was playing a shot.
4) if you get this far, then the only question left is whether the
	ball was going to hit the stumps, if no, then not out,
	if yes, out (unless the ball then went on to break the
	stumps, in which case the batsman is out bowled).

Simple?   (perhaps not always to apply in a particular case, but
its certainly suimple to understand).

kre
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad)
Subject: Re: Run Out by the Bowler
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:27:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.174322@axion.bt.co.uk>, dgrove@axion.bt.co.uk (David Grove) writes:
|> 
|> 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.
|> 
|> [ etc, etc ]
|> 
|> 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.
|> 
|> 
|> What's the general opinion of RSC on this subject?
|> 
|> Dave Grove.  

Well, I think you should have warned him. That you didn't means you're a dastardly chap (to coin a phrase).

Mind you, if the game was in a phase where quick singles were being run, i would warn him then hope upon hope that he still did it. 'Cos i would run him out in an instant. Only trouble is, no one ever lets me bowl so i doubt if i would ever have the pleasure.

AC
From: jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: start of play
Date: 23 Jul 1992 05:25:13 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Folks the game has started.  Well that's the good news.
THe bad news is that here is the complete list of words
that I have been able to make out in the first 20 minutes.

Pakistan, England, Rameez, Aamir, No wicket.

So the conclusion is that Pakistan is batting, with the
score .. oh lets just say .... 15 for no loss.

The reception can only get better.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pakistan Affairs Desk presents the sights and sounds of Headingley
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Botham sighting:

There is a shot of our man again, sitting in the stands.
He seems to be visibly disconcerted by the sudden realization
that millions are just waking up all over America -- and many
are having a chuckle at his expence for no good reason.

j n a
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz)
Subject: Re: Question on Umpiring and LBW
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:40:05 GMT

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?

Probably, though not for the reason stated - the players have to appeal,
and while "How's That?" is explicitly in the laws (27(2)) as a suitable
method, nothing otherwise limits exactly what words should be used.
However the umpire is entirely within his rights to ignore inarticulate
shouts - though he couldn't reasonably give a batsman not out because
of such a thing, noises made by the bowling team are just noises.

| Was the umpire correct in the second refusal?

Definitely not - the ball being dead has nothing to do with whether
an appeal may be made - just two things prevent that - the bowler starting
his run up for his next delivery, or "time" being called.  (27(1)).

What's more, the laws also explicitly state (27(3)) that even if an appeal
is rejected, there any be another appeal - two obvious situations where
that may happen, if the bails are dislodged with a slow bowler bowling,
the umpire at the bowlers end may be asked if the batsman is out (would
be bowled), he may say no - the other umpire might then be asked - looking
for a possible stumping.   Or, for some reason (unlikely, but possible)
someone might explicitly ask if the batsman is out LBW, on being told "no"
there may then be an appeal for caught at bat pad (or wherever).

kre
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: brit@wagner.Physics.McGill.CA (Dave Britton)
Subject: Re: England 2nd Innings
Organization: McGill University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:00:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.163200.20826@walter.bellcore.com>  
shamim@.bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4813,,21272) writes:
> Had Pakistan
> bowled first, as they did here in 1987, things would have been a lot
> different. The lesson is very clear.  The weather in England makes a
> mockery of any plans about the last innings.  One has to play according
> to the day.  Cloudy conditions at Headingley means you put the others
> in.  As it was the second day was mostly bright and clear, the ball did
> not do as much and Gooch and Atherton made the difference.
> 

It strikes me as curious that the series is tied yet Pakistan has got
to this point due to superb skill and  England with "bland" bowling 
(etc etc heard on this newsgroup) have obviously just fluked it. 

Gooch has consistently played fantastic cricket and to
pull off a century on a bowlers wicket against the renowned attack of
Pakistan, was an impressive feat which I would classify a little
more generously than "the ball did not do as much and Gooch and Atherton
made the difference". 

Dave.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad)
Subject: Question on Umpiring and LBW
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:41:34 GMT


I recently witnessed an umpire give "not out" under the following circumstances:

The bowler in question was in the habit of appealing to the umpire with a loud
snort (or grunt - something like "aaaarrrrgggghh"). When a certain ball hit the
back pad and was almost certainly out, the umpire gave "not out" on the grounds
that a vigorous snort does not constitute an appeal.

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?
Was the umpire correct in the second refusal?

Andrew Coad
Morgan Stanley
New York
(212) 703-2112
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
From: mamohamm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (SKEPTICAL)
Subject: England's Victory
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:10:25 GMT


	Congratulations to the English team and thier supporting 
	netters. The Win is well deserved. 

	Sure makes the last test match exciting.

regards
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
IMITATING IS THE FINEST FORM OF FLATTERY
She Sells Sea Shells on a Sea Shore
Speculating about speculation is pure  SKEPTICAL
From: azhar@cs.duke.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Pakistan collapse... Malik stands tall
Date: 31 Jul 1992 14:03:49 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Paksitan were 213/9 with Salim Malik not out on 79 and only Aqib
Javed to support him. I think it is time to to say good night nurse. :-)

Salman [run out] Azhar

PS: Source- Call to Kuwait... Kuwait? Yes, Kuwait! Also talked
to Ian Botham, who was in Kuwait when Saddam's army was there.
They tell me that he was not stolen and taken to Iraq. :-)

Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket