DJ says his success hasn’t come about by accident. Hard work has taken Tipperary footballer Michael Quinlivan to the pinnacle of the inter-county game.That’s the view of Clonmel Commercials fitness coach DJ Dwyer, who has known the full-forward since he was a juvenile player.Earlier this month Michael became only the second Tipp footballer to win an All-Star.
Two teams, and two great weekend results for Nelson Minor Hockey at the Peewee Rep Tournament this past weekend at the NDCC and Civic Arenas.The West Kootenay Rapids Tier 2 and 3 teams advanced to the playoff round with the Tier 2 squad capturing the Tournament Championship.West Kootenay Rapids Tier 2 blasted Springbank, Alberta 8-2 in the final. West Kootenay Rapids consist of players from Nelson, Castlegar and Nakusp.The tournament attracted teams from the East Kootenays, Alberta and Washington State.
A weeklong go –slow action staged by the workers of the Nimba Rubber Incorporated (RIC), formerly Cocopa, has ended with workers asked to return to work while their demands are being looked into.The workers right after the New Year celebration staged a go – slow, demanding better salaries, health care benefits and the timely distribution of their rice rations and salaries.According to the workers’ spokesperson, Sakpah Mahn, the workers no longer receive their salaries and rice rations on time as it used to be and their health benefits have been blocked at the Ganta United Methodist Hospital due to the management’s failure to settle arrears with the hospital.“We now pay our own hospital bills and our salaries as well as our food supplies are no longer coming on time,” said Sakpah Mahn, the Labor Union head.Cocopa is one of the concessions in Nimba where there is always management – employee crisis in postwar Liberia.In September 2013, the Government of Liberia took ownership of the Cocopa Rubber Plantation for what was considered as “bad labor practices” by the American owned “The Liberia Company/Libco.The decision to take ownership of Nimba’s largest rubber plantation was reached on the 19th of September 2013 at the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court in Sanniquellie based on the lawsuit against the management for not doing enough for the workers and the restoration of the company since the war.The case against Cocopa came after the new concession agreement was canceled owing to the expiration of the first concession agreement in March 2013.The House Committee on Agriculture paid several visits to the concession area to inspect the living conditions of the workers and assesses the housing, education, medical, water and sanitation as well as other facilities, but nearly all of those facilities were said to be in a deplorable state.During the visit, the Head of the Committee, Montserrado County Representative Josephine George Francis, classified the Liberia Company/Cocopa as one of the companies in Liberia with poor labor conditions as well as poor human and infrastructural development.Upon the court verdict in Sanniquellie, which is believed to have been challenged by LIBCO at the Supreme Court of Liberia, an interim management team under Nimba Rubber Inc., headed by Forestry Development Authority (FDA) Boss Mr. Harrison Karnwea, has since been managing the farm up to present.However, the management of NRI has blamed salary and ration delays as well as the absence of other benefits to the low price of rubber on the world market.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Indian High Commissioner to Guyana,Venkatakchalam MahalingamBy Vahnu ManikchandThe outgoing Indian High Commissioner to Guyana, Venkatakchalam Mahalingam, is urging the country’s political leaders to heed the advice of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and discuss the way forward for Guyana.At Monday’s post-judgement hearing, CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders urged that President David Granger meet with Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo to come up with a consensus on the way forward and as such, postponed the date to issue consequential orders on the No-Confidence Motion to July 12, 2019.High Commissioner Mahalingam underscored the need for the parties to do as advised by the Court.“I’m sure the consequential orders are mostly going to be a form of direction for both the political parties. But the hint given is that they should sit together and they should come out with a consensus and decide what the way forward is. So, therefore, we would like both parties to sit together, as advised by the Caribbean Court of Justice, and decide what is the best way forward for the democratic process to continue,” he posited.Democratic processContending that his country does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, the Indian diplomat emphasised, however, that they would like for the democratic process to take over and finally have this issue, which has been languishing for the past seven months, resolved.“The Caribbean Court of Justice understands what has been going on in Guyana and they wanted to put both parties together and arrive at a consensus. I don’t know, if consensus is not arrived at by both parties, what would be the order of the Caribbean Court of Justice or what would be the direction in the end, but we need to wait to see… But I’m sure Guyana will definitely find a solution for its betterment,” Mahalingam stated during an interview with Guyana Times on Tuesday.Following the June 18 rulings, CCJ President Justice Adrian Saunders urged the two sides to meet to find consensus before last Monday’s hearing for consequential orders. However, President David Granger sent an invitation to Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo on Friday for them to meet after Monday’s hearing. During that hearing, Justice Saunders expressed disappointment that the two leaders were yet to meet.“These matters are of the highest constitutional significance… and it beats me that the Leader of the Opposition and the President, and their respective counsel, had not met to discuss the issues that confront us. Everybody says these are important issues but it seems as though the same degree of urgency and deliberation that are expected of the Courts, we don’t see them being reflected in the behaviour of the political directorate and that I think is unfortunate,” the CCJ President expressed.In fact, he went on to note that the case puts the Court in an “awkward position” since it does not want to make political decisions, but at the same time, it has a remit to ensure that the rule of law is observed. This, Justice Saunders noted, however, can only happen if the political leaders display a spirit of compromise and reasonableness, which would allow the rule of law to take effect.The CCJ President’s comments were made after Attorney General Basil Williams told the Court that President Granger had acted “forthwith” and invited the Opposition Leader to a meeting on the relevant matters in relation to the cases but that meeting was yet to happen. In fact, he indicated that the Leader of the Opposition was yet to respond to the invite.However, at a press conference after Monday’s hearing, Jagdeo called out the Attorney General for deliberately misleading the CCJ. According to Jagdeo, a letter was indeed dispatched to his office but stated that he was being invited for a meeting after the June 24 consequential ruling, with no date or time indicated.Nevertheless, a response letter was sent on Tuesday indicated to that Jagdeo is prepared to meet with the President “at any time and on a daily basis if needs be”.Last week, the CCJ ruled that the No-Confidence Motion tabled in Guyana’s National Assembly in December 2018, had been validly passed, and in another case, found that the unilateral appointment of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), retired Justice James Patterson, was flawed and unconstitutional.After the Trinidad-based regional Court reiterated on Monday that GECOM has no chairman, Government announced on Tuesday that Justice Patterson has resigned.The CCJ President had also noted that the appointment process of a new GECOM Chair had to be reengaged and according to Jagdeo, in the missive to Government, he is prepared to meet and address the appointment of a new Chairman consistent with the ruling of the regional Court on June 18, 2019.
Debating: We need more well-educated, prepared people like Casey Luskin to hold their own against the bigots in debates, for one thing. Be sure you can articulate the ID position with clarity, without getting sidetracked or flustered by the anti-ID talking points. The debate will usually not change the bigot, but will impress those overhearing the conversation. Stick to the issue! So many arguments get dragged off onto tangents, because people opposed to ID typically have a lot of other hot buttons about religious people or conservatives. Don’t dodge their questions, but return immediately to the issue. If you can just get agreement on what the definition of intelligent design is, consider it a victory. It will get the ball rolling, and get the person thinking along new lines. It is especially important at school board meetings not to get sidetracked onto religion, the Bible, age of the earth, and other topics that are not part of the issue being debated. Such tangents play right into the bigots’ hands. They drool when well-meaning Biblical creationists toss them religious red meat (conveniently blinding themselves to their own religious premises; explore the Darwin’s God blog). Next day your quote will be taken out of context and blasted all over the newspapers as proof that “intelligent design is religion.” At school board meetings, or in private conversation, when responding to someone who ignorantly presents the evolutionist talking points, learn the art of parry. Turn the evolutionary talking points against themselves. Turn a red herring back to the trail; talk about “separation of dogma and state.” When the leftist clergyman says “True religion can handle truth in all its forms,” respond that “True science can handle all the evidence.” When they say, “ID is creationism in a thin veneer of pseudoscience,” respond that “Evolutionism is atheism in a thin veneer of just-so stories.” Use satire: “Yes, you’re right; we need to defend the rights of students to see fraudulent embryo drawings.” Use humor: “On this issue, ‘mainstream science’ is up the creek without a paddle.” Notice: parrying propaganda is not propaganda when it deflates the propaganda and returns the focus back to the issue. That is rhetoric, one of the classical arts, in the most honorable sense of the word. In private conversation: “do not cast your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces” (Matthew 7:6). This proverb by Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount is good advice for everyone. Don’t waste your time with bigots. Try to have rational conversations with those willing to listen. Win the honest inquirers over – and get them to vote. In each of these articles, Luskin not only quoted his opponents accurately and demonstrated knowledge of their arguments, but refuted them with detailed references, quotes, and arguments, refraining from ad hominem attacks. Luskin is no stranger to anti-ID talking points. Earlier this month in a radio interview, hot talker Thom Hartmann used all the tricks of the trade to portray him as an uneducated, religiously motivated, creationist zealot. Hartmann’s strategy may have backfired. Many listeners believe Luskin won the day, responding with clarity and reasoned arguments. Readers of mainstream press articles such as Vertuno’s miss out on this lively debate. They get their information handed to them by reporters who reprint old boilerplate talking points, and know how to massage the presentation for a desired outcome. If you want to be informed and forearmed in the evolution controversies, it is imperative you know Baloney Detecting. Vertuno’s ignorant presentation shows that he didn’t do any homework on the issues. He failed as a reporter – someone who should stick to the issue, the whole issue, and nothing but the issue. He tailored every word, every quote, every paragraph to make his bias look good and ID look bad. Propaganda tricks are everywhere: loaded words, red herrings, fear-mongering, glittering generalities, big lies, half truths, unsupported broad-brush assertions. His definition of intelligent design was lifted right off the NCSE talking points. Where else does a reporter quote the enemy’s definition of someone’s position? The Discovery Institute defines ID as the view that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” That’s it – no God, no Jesus, no “Higher Power.” You can use that definition to infer the cause of an arrowhead, a sculpture, a mysterious death, an alien signal, a message in a string of bits, or an intelligent cause behind DNA. Legitimate science uses intelligent design already – is it “bad science” to infer an intelligent source for skywriting in a cloud? What does this have to do with religion? What does this have to do with the worn-out long-misunderstood cliché, “separation of church and state”? Nothing! Yet the anti-ID forces continue to trot out their tired, old, thoughtless talking points. Critics will argue that Casey Luskin is not a reporter, and has an agenda, because his job is defending intelligent design. So what? There is nothing wrong with having an agenda, per se; every corporate board meeting has one. Better to face your day with an agenda than with undirected, purposeless causes! The issue is not whether one has an agenda, but whether one can support one’s position with facts and reasoned arguments from those facts. Who did the better job, everyone? Vertuno or Luskin? No contest. The evolutionists and their lapdog media succeed in keeping ID at bay not by the strength of their case, but their power. That’s vital to understand. Advocates of ID are not (in many cases) dealing with rational people. They’re dealing with intolerant bigots. We use that word advisedly. The dictionary defines bigot as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” It has been this editor’s personal experience that the evolutionists who have knee-jerk opinions against intelligent design know nothing about ID, and they don’t want to know. They refuse to learn about it, even when a mild, cordial invitation to a conversation, or material to read or look at, is presented. The knee-jerk response is, “That’s religion, that’s creationism in a cheap tuxedo, and you people need to be silenced because of separation of church and state.” If that isn’t ignorant, intolerant bigotry, what is? Is this the kind of society you want to promote, Eugenie Scott and Joshua Rosenau? Are you proud of your disciples? Compare that with this site; we continuously read and report from the top evolutionist writers and papers. Same is true for many ID advocates and creationists. We are interested in trying to figure out how anyone can justify thinking that blind, unguided processes can produce butterflies and human brains. Assuming most readers of this site are reasonable people, even if opposed to the views presented here, we offer the pro-ID readership some suggestions for strategy. Some reporters refuse to listen. Advocates of intelligent design (ID) have clarified their definitions, their evidences, and their goals for years now, with numerous books, essays, web articles, papers and lectures, but the secular mainstream press continues to misrepresent their positions, and divert discussion from the issues to red herrings. A vote by the Texas School Board concerning supplementary materials to match science standards offered the latest example. The Associated Press story is filled with talking points and generalities; the Discovery Institute response is detailed and to the point, citing scientific journal references for support. Will intelligent design ever get a fair hearing in the mainstream media? PhysOrg republished Jim Vertuno’s AP report. Bias against ID was evident from the opening photo of a protestor holding up a sign, “Keep Church & State Separate.” The board’s action had nothing to do with religion; it was about removing inaccuracies in textbook evidences for evolution, and keeping critical thinking, a core value in science, intact. Later in his article, Vertuno did mention board member Ken Mercer offering anyone $500 who could find Jesus or God in the state science standards, but a picture is worth a thousand blurs. Vertuno either stated or quoted typical anti-ID buzzwords and talking points throughout his short article, Finally, a word to Christians. (At this point we take the discussion beyond intelligent design.) We know that the real problem is not lack of information, but rebellion against the Creator. Paul explained to the Corinthians that the reason he did not come to them with great swelling words of oratory, like the sophists and philosophers of his day (notice; their wisdom is long defunct), was that the real power to change lives is in the cross of Christ (I Corinthians 1-4). At the core, people need to get saved. Only then can the Holy Spirit illuminate their dead souls, and transform them from the inside. Putting people in right relationship to their Creator “turns on the lights” in their darkened minds. Then intelligent design makes obvious sense, while the folly of wrong paths will fall like the scales from Saul’s eyes (Acts 9), leading to a new mission in life that has lasting impact. Christianity is not anti-intellectual. It is not mystical. It is grounded in history and evidence. Christians recognize that unbelievers have a fallen remnant of the image of God; therefore, it is necessary to refute false arguments using reason, knowing that deep down, people still know in their heart of hearts that reason is valid somehow. Christianity is the true intellectualism, recognizing the real problem, and the real cure, grounding reason in the Source it requires.(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Sidetracking the issue to politics: “The Republican-dominated board…” Tossing a red herring: “…a move some creationists hailed as a victory.” Using discredited definitions: “…intelligent design, the theory that life on Earth is so complex it was guided with the help of an intelligent higher power.” Quoting offhand slap from pro-evolution group, inferring that ID is “bad science”. Depicting evolutionists as “mainstream scientists”. Whitewashing Haeckel: “some biology materials that used drawings of embryonic similarities between species,” omitting to point out the drawings were frauds. Sidetracking to politics again: “One conservative group, Texans for a Better Science Education, had put out a call to pack Thursday’s public hearing….” Portraying evolutionists as the good guys to the rescue: “But they were outnumbered by witnesses urging the board to adopt the materials with few changes.” Vertuno did not identify the “witnesses” or who put out a call to them. Offering platform to anti-ID voices: “I don’t want my children’s public school teachers to teach faith and God in a science classroom,” said the Rev. Kelly Allen of University Presbyterian Church in San Antonio. [Note: the vote had nothing to do with religion.] “True religion can handle truth in all its forms. Evolution is solid science.” Offering platform to anti-ID voices, continued: “Intelligent design is creationism, wrapped in thin veneer of pseudoscience,” [Tom] Davis said. “Creation isn’t really science at all. It’s philosophy.” [Note: the vote had nothing to do with intelligent design.] Vertuno did not tell who this speaker was, or what his credentials were for analyzing science standards, ID, creationism, pseudoscience, or philosophy. Using scare quotes and genetic fallacy: Vertuno set up one proponent of the changes for debunking, by first tying him with religion, and then using scare quotes for his points: “David Shormann of Magnolia, who runs a Christian-based math and science education software company, said evolution has too many ‘untestable’ components and can’t provide a real look at ancient life without a ‘time machine or a crystal ball.’” Giving anti-ID the last word: Vertuno followed Shormann’s points with a professor making broad-brush accusations: “But Lorenzo Sadun, a math professor at the University of Texas, said those opposing evolution overstate gaps in the fossil record and other areas when trying to discredit the theory.” Ending with a stinger: “‘‘The theory of evolution is based on almost as much evidence as the theory of gravity,’ Sadun said.” This confuses a physical theory with a historical theory, and begs questions about what constitutes evidence, and simply makes an assertion, not an argument. Disarm your opponent by undermining his or her basis for argument . A materialist, for instance, has no grounds for using reason, because reason is not made of particles or forces, does not obey natural laws, and refers to logical truths that are universal, necessary, timeless and certain. As such, reason is “supernatural” by definition. If an evolutionist argues that creation is disqualified because it is supernatural, or starts listing all the things that make evolution “solid science,” interrupt gently and say, “Excuse me, are you trying to reason with me?” Probable answer is, “Of course.” Next question. “I’m confused; can you tell me how you got reason out of a big bang, or out of an unguided, undirected, purposeless process of evolution?” At this point, it’s game over; you just have to get your interlocutor to realize it. Tell him, “I’m sorry, but since you cannot justify reason, I cannot allow you to use it. I can justify it for me, because my premise is that it derives from a truthful, intelligent cause, whom I believe is God. So I will use reason on you, but you cannot use reason on me.” Every time he tries to argue with you, stop him. “Sorry, you know the rules. You cannot use reason if you cannot justify it. It is part of my world view, but not part of yours. Now if you want to become a theist, and affirm the existence of a personal, truthful source of reason, I will be happy to reason with you; otherwise, all you can say is nonsense, so you will have to allow me to do all the talking.” The purpose of this tough love exercise is to hold a mirror up to the person’s self-refuting position, to expose it for the folly it is. The bias continued in Vertuno’s follow-up Associated Press story that described a compromise vote later in the day. There, he gave the pro-evolution anti-ID group a prominent victory parade over the “ultra-conservatives” who had hoped for more accuracy in the teaching of evolution (no ultra-liberals were referenced on the pro-evolution side). The picture painted was one of victorious scientists pushing back the forces of evil: “Today we saw Texas kids and sound science finally win a vote on the State Board of Education,” said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that supports mainstream scientists in the teaching of evolution and has repeatedly sparred with board conservatives over education standards. “We saw the far right’s stranglehold over the state board is finally loosening,” Miller said. The Discovery Institute is a well-known ID advocacy group, but it is instructive to compare the reporting by the anti-ID press with their coverage written by spokesman Casey Luskin on Evolution News and Views: In “Eugenie Scott Misrepresents the Law on Evolution Education,” Luskin focused on the issue before the board, that of allowing accurate teaching of evolution, including critical thinking. He cited case law and standards in 11 other states. In a second post, responding to the mocking ad hominem attacks of a local professor. In “University of Texas Evolutionary Biologist Andy Ellington Mocks Fellow Texans as ‘Idiots’ and ‘Laughingstocks’ for Doubting Darwin,” Luskin argued three points that show the Texas Board standards for critical thinking about evolution would actually increase scientific literacy. Luskin refrained from name-calling against Ellington. In a third post, Luskin checked the original literature to refute claims by Ellington that the Miller-Urey Experiment was scientifically valid material for inclusion in textbooks. Luskin quoted the actual paper Ellington cited to show that it did not, in fact, offer evidence that the Miller experiment reproduced conditions on the early earth.
Exasperated by the lack of evidence for dark matter, some are now wondering if it came before the beginning.Cosmology continues living in unreality. It’s a strange time, when the lack of evidence for something is exceeded by scientists’ confidence that it must be there. They would rather live in confusion than in reality sometimes (26 July 2019).Unless one subscribes to the multiverse pseudoscience, the big bang is supposed to be the beginning of all matter, space, and time. It is for materialists, that is. The big bang, they believe, did not involve any mind or purpose. Nothing banged, and it became everything. It seems illogical to suggest that something else came before the first something even began to exist. Is that not what headlines are announcing today?Dark Matter May Have Existed Before the Big Bang, New Math Suggests (Space.com). If dark matter came from the big bang, one cosmologist groans, we should have detected it by now. So Tommi Tenkanen and others are wondering if they can push dark matter before the singularity, the origin of everything.Cracking the mystery of dark matter is one of the most frustrating quests of physics.One lingering suggestion of how to explain some of the challenges of dark matter is that the strange substance arose before the Big Bang. That moment represents the most popular explanation for how the universe began, in a snapshot singularity that expanded over billions of years into everything that surrounds us. And if dark matter did come first, that changes how scientists should hunt for the substance.Tenkanen and others like him come to this bizarre idea from particle physics and mathematical models. But if nothing existed before the big bang, then particle physics and mathematics did not exist, either. A child cannot give birth to its parents, especially when the parents don’t even exist.Dark matter may be older than the big bang, study suggests (Phys.org). This press release emanating from Johns Hopkins University is a replay of the previous article. It repeats the error that astronomers might know dark matter came first by the distribution of galaxies. But since those distributions are wedded to the theory of dark matter, the reasoning is groundless and circular.Fascinating New Study Claims Dark Matter May Be Older Than The Big Bang (Science Alert). Science reporters will regurgitate anything a “scientist” says, no matter how illogical or fact-free. Here is an example by Michelle Starr. She admits there’s no way of knowing, but as long as a “scientist” entertains a weird idea, it’s worth reporting. In fact, the more bizarre, the more the fun!At this stage we just have no way of knowing. As Harvard-Smithsonian theoretical physicist Avi Loeb said earlier this year, “the current situation for inflation is that it’s such a flexible idea, it cannot be falsified experimentally.” He was talking about whether or not cosmic inflation actually happened (also a matter of debate), but the statement works for the timing of the whoompf, too.…It’s all highly theoretical stuff, but it’s about as good a lead as any on the mysterious matter that’s playing a key role in shaping our Universe. It’ll be fascinating to see how the search for dark matter plays out in the coming decade.In search of signals from the early universe (Phys.org). This article is not about dark matter, but assumes it. Astronomers at the University of Pennsylvania are scouring the cosmic microwave background (CMB) again, evolutionary assumptions guiding the way. With their new toys, one project participant says, “we’re going to be looking at cool stuff, the evolution of the universe over cosmic time,” which he says will be “fun.”Dark energy vs. modified gravity: Which one will prevail? (Phys.org). There are a few astronomers willing to question the existence of dark energy, an equally-mysterious substance to dark matter. A researcher at the Polish Academy of Sciences is toying with the idea of modified gravity. Their project is called GalaxyDance.GalaxyDance will provide a new way to make cosmological tests of gravitational theories a reality. The final results, no matter which theory (dark energy or modified gravity) they favor, will have far-reaching and ground-breaking consequences for our understanding of the Universe on the largest scales.If our tests eventually provide a signature of new physics foreseen in beyond-GR [general relativity] theories, it will shake our current view and understanding of the large-scale evolution of the cosmos. If, on the other hand, our inquiry strengthens general relativity, it will mean that we need to look harder to explain the mystery of dark energy.How long will the belief in mysterious unknown stuff be considered scientific? Never underestimate the time on their hands for idle speculation. Science used to be against that.One article turned up in my Android phone’s News feed today, but the link dropped off the feed, and I can’t find it. It was by an astronomer trying to argue that dark matter is not a myth. He was very adamant that astronomers did not make it up. They have very good reasons for believing in it, he tried to explain, tossing in some abstruse math and big bang diagrams. But if you read such things with a critical eye, as I do, you find that the bluffing outperforms the evidence. All his reasons depended on the big bang theory. It was circular reasoning, and he couldn’t even see it. Basically, his theory needs dark matter, so therefore it exists, and it’s worth spending millions of dollars searching for it, even if we never find it and don’t know what to look for. Such people want to force everyone into their web of belief, equating the web of belief with science. They are not open to alternatives, and they cannot think outside the box. Beware of such people.(Visited 454 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
It was jelly beans four years ago and it is vaseline this time as a controversy erupted in the second India-England Test when VVS Laxman was accused of using it on his bat to manipulate the Hot-Spot technology in the Decision Review System.”Has Vaseline on the outside edge saved the day for Laxman?” tweeted former England captain Michael Vaughan after Laxman was ruled not out by third umpire after the Decision Review System (DRS) was pressed into action by England in the first session of play.The Indian batsman was on 27, in the total 48/1, when the last delivery of James Anderson’s ninth over passed his bat. The bowler and the rest of England players promptly went up in appeal for a catch behind the stumps and began gathering around the batsman.As umpire Asad Rauf ruled in Laxman’s favour, England skipper Andrew Strauss went for DRS but that too didn’t favour the home side.Kevin Pietersen and Laxman were seen getting into a bit of an argument and later Stuart Broad told media persons his side was convinced it was a nick.”Players feel Hot-Spot sometimes doesn’t show faint edges. It’s a bit of a flaw,” stated Broad.But what kept the controversy lingering was the Vaughan tweet which virtually accused Laxman of wrong-doing since vaseline or any liquid on the bat don’t show up on the Hot-Spot technology.Broad actually went ahead and checked Laxman’s bat if there was any vaseline or liquid applied to it.”I had a cheeky feel of the edge of his bat as the ball went past him. There was no vaseline, no liquid there. It’s just that Hot-Spot is not showing very faint edges,” he said.advertisementIt is the second time vaseline has quite infamously figured in Test matches between the two countries who recently celebrated the 100th Test between them at Lord’s last week.When England toured India for the 1976-77 series, England’s left-arm fast bowler John Lever was accused by Indian skipper Bishan Singh Bedi of using vaseline to gain undue swing with his bowling during the Delhi Test and end up with 7/46 and 3/24 in his debut Test.Tests between the two at Trent Bridge too are known to stir up the pot.In 2007, the infamous jellybeans incident happened which was intended to show to the incoming batsman Zaheer Khan that he was faint-hearted.Sreesanth too was full of antics and misdemeanour in that Test – he once bowled a beamer at Kevin Pietersen; came around the wicket and bowled from practically 19 yards at Paul Collingwood and then shoulder barged the then England captain Vaughan for which he was fined 50 percent of his match fee.- With PTI inputs
Earlier this week, the NCAA officially issued a rule change to ban college football players from wearing “crop top” jerseys (tucking their jerseys into their pads to expose their midsection) during games. This most notably affects Ohio State running back Ezekiel Elliott, who popularized the look during the Buckeyes’ College Football Playoff run.Well, it looks like Ohio State fans are trying to strike back. A few have started a petition on change.org to block the NCAA from the rule change. They’ve already got over 5,500 signatures – and the official support of Elliott himself. Earlier this week, Elliott’s father jokingly tweeted that he is going to wear a crop top jersey himself in the stands at games next year.We’re not sure if this petition is going to get the job done, but it makes it clear that Ohio State fans aren’t happy. [GameDayr]
Here’s another stunning aspect of Germany’s 7-1 domination of Brazil on Tuesday: We have a new best soccer team in the world. The blowout changed the landscape of ESPN’s Soccer Power Index (SPI) ratings. Going into the match, here’s what the SPI top five looked like:Despite somewhat unimpressive play in the World Cup, Brazil still ranked first over Argentina by a healthy margin, and the Germans ranked fourth. But when ESPN’s Stats & Info team recalculated the SPI on Wednesday morning, a very different picture emerged:Essentially, Germany’s incredibly lopsided victory caused it to flip spots with Brazil. Now the Germans have a sizable lead over the rest of the field (nearly as big a separation as Brazil had going into the tournament), and Brazil has dropped to fourth behind the Argentines and Colombians. (Note, too, that Colombia’s SPI dropped marginally, because Brazil’s loss affected the strength-of-schedule component of its rating.)SPI was wrong Tuesday in its estimation of the relative qualities of Germany and Brazil, even after adjusting for the loss of Brazil’s superstar forward, Neymar. But the good thing about a rating system like SPI is that it can use new information to revise its estimates; the stronger the new evidence, the greater the adjustment. And a 7-1 win is strong evidence that SPI had Germany rated too low and Brazil too highly.
College football’s championship will be decided via a playoff bracket for the first time this year, rather than media polling or the near universally loathed Bowl Championship Series. You can read about the details of the new setup here, but the basic gist is that a 13-person committee of experts will come out with their own weekly rankings of the top 25 teams starting Oct. 28 and culminating in a Dec. 7 ranking of the top four teams in order to seed a four-team playoff.The committee is new and its members have yet to release any rankings, so it’s hard to say what their voting tendencies will be. But it’s probably a good bet that they won’t stray too far from long-standing rankings such as the Coaches Poll and the Associated Press Top 25. And if the AP’s rankings (since 1992) are any guide, now is when the existing Top 4 teams start to solidify their places in the final, pre-bowl edition of the regular-season rankings.Up until Week 5 of the college football season, the schools on the periphery of the AP’s Top 4 typically have a slightly lower probability of finishing the year among the (now-coveted) top quartet of teams than those currently occupying those slots. Starting in Week 6 — and accelerating in Weeks 7-9, the current stage of the 2014 campaign — the teams in the top four slots begin to pull away from the rest of the pack, increasing their probability of ending the regular season among the “Final Four.”That’s good news for Florida State, Auburn, Mississippi State and Ole Miss, each of which found themselves sitting in the AP’s Top 4 after the dust cleared on this past weekend’s wild spate of upsets. Teams that survive midseason aren’t completely in the clear — historically, there’s still about a two-in-five chance that one of the teams in the existing Top 4 falls out after Week 9 — but teams in that position are significantly more assured of being “in” now than they were just two weeks ago.