The first item is new ankle socks available in red and blue, in all of the normal sizes. Stay tuned to the website as there will soon be long sleeved Referees shirts available (in red and blue). Both are trial items and will depend on demand. Only limited stock is available! To order the products, visit the TFA Online store:http://www.austouch.com.au/index.php?id=396
TagsTransfersLoan MarketAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Marseille urged to move for Chelsea striker Michy Batshuayiby Paul Vegas9 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveFrench pundit Pierre Menes has urged Olympique Marseille to re-sign Chelsea striker Michy Batshuayi.The Belgian has just had his loan at Valencia cut short and will not be returning to the Blues.Instead, Valencia are helping Batshuayi to find a new club.Menes, meanwhile, says OM should move for him:Houhou l’OM c’est pas une bonne idée ça? RT @lequipe Valence : Michy Batshuayi officiellement indésirable https://t.co/htcZe4MFrI— Pierre Ménès (@PierreMenes) January 10, 2019
NEW YORK, N.Y. – New York’s attorney general is accusing Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein of “repeatedly and persistently” sexually harassing female employees at his film company, according to a lawsuit filed on Sunday by the state prosecutor that could impact the company’s potential sale.“As alleged in our complaint, The Weinstein Company repeatedly broke New York law by failing to protect its employees from pervasive sexual harassment, intimidation, and discrimination,” state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in court papers filed against Weinstein and the company.Schneiderman launched a civil rights probe into the New York City-based company in October after The New York Times and The New Yorker exposed allegations of sexual assault and harassment spanning decades.Weinstein’s attorney, Ben Brafman, released a statement Sunday evening saying many of the allegations against his client are “without merit.”“While Mr. Weinstein’s behaviour was not without fault, there certainly was no criminality, and at the end of the inquiry it will be clear that Harvey Weinstein promoted more women to key executive positions than any other industry leader and there was zero discrimination at either Miramax or TWC,” Brafman said.Scores of women, including well-known actresses, have come forward with stories of forced sexual encounters. Weinstein was fired by the film company he founded with his brother Robert and expelled from Hollywood’s movie academy.The attorney general’s office said the lawsuit was filed on Sunday partly due to reports of the company’s imminent sale, saying it believed it would leave victims without adequate redress.“Any sale of The Weinstein Company must ensure that victims will be compensated, employees will be protected going forward, and that neither perpetrators nor enables will be unjustly enriched,” court papers said.Schneiderman’s investigation found that employees were subjected to various verbal threats from Weinstein such as “I will kill you, I will kill your family, and “you don’t know what I can do.”“To work for Harvey Weinstein was to work under a persistent barrage of gender-based obscenities, vulgar name-calling, sexualized interactions, threats of violence, and a workplace general hostile to women,” according to court papers.In one case, the probe found that “in a fit of rage against one female employee, he yelled that she should leave the company and make babies since that was all she was good for.”Female executives were forced to facilitate Weinstein’s sexual conquests with promises of employment opportunities to women who met his favour, according to the lawsuit, which also accused the company of being “responsible for the unlawful conduct” by failing to stop the abuse.The company and co-owner Robert “are liable because they were aware of and acquiesced in repeated and persistent unlawful conduct by failing to investigate or stop it,” court papers said.Representatives for Weinstein have previously denied all accusations of non-consensual sex.
FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. — The BC Wildfire Service has downgraded the status of three wildfires burning in Northeast B.C.Fire Information Officer Amanda Reynolds says that while the activity of the Tommy Lake Fire remains intense, fire activity on three other large fires has diminished to the point where the Service no longer considers them wildfires of note. According to Reynolds, the wildfire burning southeast of the Muskwa River near Fort Nelson has not experienced much fire activity in the past week. That fire currently sits at 4,793 hectares, and is not currently threatening any properties since it is located roughly 80 kilometres southwest of Fort Nelson. However, Reynolds said that crews may be looking at a modified response to that fire if it starts to see more fire activity. Closer to Fort St. John, both the Milligan Hills and Kahta Creek Fires have also been downgraded from wildfires of note. The Kahta Creek Fire, which has burned roughly 1,700 hectares near Buckinghorse River, has seen dramatically reduced fire activity over the weekend, especially after the fire saw 10 mm of rain fall late last week. There are currently 55 firefighters and 3 helicopters battling that fire, and Reynolds said that firefighters have been patrolling the fire’s perimeter to ensure that it doesn’t scorch a larger area. The fire is currently being held, meaning it does not appear to be spreading.Fire crews have also increased containment on the Milligan Hills Fire, which is 700 hectares in area. The 60 firefighters, 2 helicopters, and 3 pieces of heavy machinery have managed to build a fire guard and contain 35 percent of the fire, which is 10 kilometres from Milligan Hills Provincial Park. Reynolds said that the fire’s status has also been updated to “Being Held” which indicates that sufficient suppression action has been taken that the fire is not likely to spread beyond existing or predetermined boundaries.Despite this, Reynolds said that crews will continue to monitor these fires to try and ensure they don’t flare up once again.
New Delhi: A lip locking scene of actors Deepika Padukone and Vikrant Massey from their upcoming film “Chhapaak” has been leaked online. In the videos that have been doing the rounds on the Internet, the actors can be seen romancing each other at a terrace here while shooting for the scene. Also, the residents of the area are spotted watching the shoot and cheering for the actors as they kiss each other. In one of the videos, one of the residents can be heard saying, “Bache ko mat dikha (don’t show it to kids).” Also Read – I have personal ambitions now: Priyanka “Chhapaak” is based on the real life acid attack survivor Laxmi Agarwal and Deepika is portraying Laxmi in it. The film is being directed by Meghna Gulzar. It is scheduled to release on January 10, 2020. On her role, Deepika had said: “A character that will stay with me forever. It’s a very important story and it’s a true life incident, so hopefully good things will come out of it.”
Kolkata: Kolkata Police seized unaccounted cash worth more than Rs. one crore and arrested three persons in two separate raids in the city, a senior officer said on Wednesday. “Two persons named Kunal Kumar (29) and Rahul Kumar (27), both residents of Bihar, were arrested with unaccounted cash worth Rs 65 lakh from central Kolkata’s Mir Bhahar Road and Strand Road crossing at around 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday,” Joint Commissioner of Police (crime) Praveen Tripathi told IANS. In another incident, a Kolkata resident named Mohan Agarwal (29) was arrested with unaccounted cash worth Rs 35.5 lakh from Strand Road, the officer said. Cases have been registered against the three accused in the Burrabazar Police Station under charges of theft (IPC 379) and various sections of the CrPC.
New Delhi: Distancing from the statements of party leaders Pragya Singh Thakur, Ananth Hegde and Nalin Kumar Kateel calling Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse a “patriot”, BJP President Amit Shah on Friday said the party’s Disciplinary Committee will inquire into the matter and submit a report within 10 days. Saying the statements by the three leaders was against the party’s ideology, Shah tweeted: “The statements made by Pragya Thakur, Ananth Hegde and Nalin Kateel in the last two days are their own statements. The BJP has no relation with their statements. Also Read – India gets first tranche of Swiss account details under automatic exchange framework “However, they have retracted their statements and also apologized. The BJP has taken a decision to send their statements to the Disciplinary Committee. The committee will submit a report within 10 days to the BJP after receiving the replies of the three leaders over their statements that are against the ideology of the party,” he said. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President’s announcement came as the party faced criticism over the remarks ahead of the final phase of the Lok Sabha elections. Also Read – Trio win Nobel Medicine Prize for work on cells, oxygen Pragya Thakur was the first among the three party leaders to call Godse a “patriot”, leading the Election Commission to seek a report from the Madhya Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer. As her statement went viral, two BJP MPs — Union Minister Anant Kumar Hegde and Nalin Kumar Kateel — also came out in her support. Godse shot dead Mahatma Gandhi at a prayer meeting in New Delhi on January 30, 1948. He was hanged after a trial.
A week before Thanksgiving, the NFL’s top teams had plenty to be grateful for. Eleven of the top 13 teams in Week 12’s edition of our Elo ratings won their games, with the lone exceptions either losing to another good team on the road (the Arizona Cardinals, then ranked No. 2, fell to the third-ranked Seattle Seahawks) or suffering a stunning upset (the Kansas City Chiefs’ ill-fated trip to Oakland). And eight of the bottom 10 teams lost, generating the widest spread this season between the league’s haves and have-nots (as measured by the standard deviation of every team’s Elo ratings).There’s been a lot of talk about 2014 being a season of parity in the NFL (especially after the aforementioned Raiders victory completed this year’s “circle of parity,” the phenomenon by which any team could claim superiority over another via the transitive property). In one sense, that’s accurate. There’s no dominant Super Bowl favorite: The New England Patriots, Green Bay Packers and Denver Broncos have gone through hot and cold periods over the past 12 weeks, and the Seahawks and San Francisco 49ers have not even consistently been favored to make the playoffs. Nobody knows what to make of the upstart Cardinals (now less so than ever). By that standard, this season is as wide open as any.But this year has also seen a stark disparity between the NFL’s good and bad teams. The 2014 season features the 10th-largest standard deviation of Elo ratings through 12 weeks of any season since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger and the second-largest since 1986 (trailing only the 2009 season).Nearly all of the most imbalanced seasons took place before the NFL instituted true free agency and a salary cap in the early 1990s, which evened out payroll spending across the league and prevented dominant teams from hoarding talent. These measures had the effect of increased parity, both within seasons and between them.Pockets of inequality still emerge from time to time, even in today’s equipoised NFL. But most of the teams at the bottom of our rankings were above average (some significantly so) at some point in the past few seasons. Late in 2012, the Houston Texans and Atlanta Falcons — now ranked No. 23 and No. 25, respectively — had Elo ratings that would rank second in the NFL right now. And among the bottom third of teams in this week’s rankings, Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Washington and the New York Giants also had above-average Elo ratings as recently as two seasons ago.The league’s bad teams look particularly bad right now, and the poor got even poorer this past weekend. But even at an imbalanced moment, you can see the handiwork of the NFL’s parity machine.Last week, we wrote about how the Denver Broncos were a team in disarray, losing more points of Elo rating over the previous three weeks than any team in the NFL. In this past Sunday’s game against the Miami Dolphins, it looked like disaster was imminent again — Denver’s win probability was down to 10.2 percent late in the third quarter — before Peyton Manning sparked a comeback victory for the Broncos.The game wasn’t especially crucial to the Broncos’ postseason odds (they gained just 8 percentage points of playoff probability last week), but in concert with the Chiefs’ stunning loss at Oakland, it had a big effect on the AFC West race. By the end of the weekend, the Broncos had gained 24 percentage points of division-win probability, bringing their chances to 79 percent. The Chiefs lost 25 percentage points — by far the week’s biggest change in division-win probability. What had been surprisingly close to a toss-up race for the AFC West is back under Denver’s control.Week 12 was pretty damaging to Kansas City’s playoff chances. A week ago, the team was looking at a 41 percent probability of chasing down the Broncos for the division, and it had the conference’s best chance of securing a wild card slot (42 percent). But with their AFC West odds dwindling, the Chiefs probably need the wild card to make the playoffs. It might seem as though the Chiefs are still well positioned in that department — the Dolphins had been their primary threat going into the weekend — but after the AFC North rivals Cincinnati Bengals and Baltimore Ravens both won, the AFC’s wild card picture is as crowded as ever.The NFC playoff picture didn’t change all that much, although the Seahawks are once again favorites to make the postseason after beating the Cardinals. Although the game could be seen as the proverbial “statement win” with regard to NFC West supremacy, the loss didn’t really affect Arizona’s playoff chances; the Cardinals are still 94 percent likely to be in.Elo’s had a few solid weeks against the point spread. Don’t let it fool you: You shouldn’t take these ratings to Vegas and bet with them. But it is always fun to compare the gambling lines to those which would be predicted by each team’s pregame Elo ratings.One of biggest differences this week between Elo and Vegas involves a marquee matchup, in which the Patriots travel to Green Bay to face the Packers. The Packers have been on a roll of late, gaining the most Elo rating points of any NFL team over the previous three weeks, but still they rank just sixth in Elo. At least some of that is because Green Bay entered the season ranked 17th in the league with a below-average 1495 Elo rating, owing to a relatively down 2013 season that saw quarterback Aaron Rodgers miss seven games.With Rodgers back and playing at an incredibly high level as of late, Vegas has reacted quickly. The oddsmakers clearly consider the Packers one of the two or three best teams in the NFL. For their part, the Patriots have been on fire as well, so the fact that they are three-point road underdogs implies that the market considers them about even with Green Bay. Elo thinks the Patriots are roughly four points better per game than the Packers at a neutral site, so it will be interesting to get some measure of a referendum on Vegas and Elo’s different opinions of the two teams.CORRECTION (3:53 p.m., Nov. 26, 2014): A previous version of the Week 13 NFL matchups table listed incorrect numbers for the Elo win percentages and point spreads. They and the language in the piece have been updated.
It always comes back to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The “steroid era” may be over, but Major League Baseball is still dealing with its consequences. At the National Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony over the weekend, Craig Biggio was the only batter among the four new inductees. Although some of the greatest hitting records in the history of the sport occurred in the past 20 years, many position players can’t catch a break with Hall voters.So we ran a SurveyMonkey Audience poll asking Americans how they feel about steroids, amphetamines and the pre-integration era and then gathered FiveThirtyEight’s baseball fans to talk about the results (the following transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity):Walt Hickey: It’s pretty clear the vast majority of people — even baseball fans — are not comfortable with just letting the records stand. Of everyone surveyed, 88 percent thought the records should be struck down entirely or have an indicator that there was some funny business going on.Neil Paine: I’m not surprised the majority of those polled want something — anything — to be done about the numbers compiled during the steroid era. Baseball is the most statistical of all the major sports, and it has always loved to foster the notion that you could compare, say, Honus Wagner’s stats to those of Alex Rodriguez side by side, without any adjustment, and still make a meaningful comparison. Sabermetricians have long acknowledged this as naive; between park effects and era adjustments, there are plenty of ways baseball stats need to be tweaked to level the playing field between different generations of players. But even for the lay fan, the age of PEDs [performance-enhancing drugs] destroyed any pretense that unadjusted numbers could be freely compared between eras, and I think that fact alone upset traditionalists as much as anything else.Harry Enten: I must admit that steroids to me is a highly emotional issue. Many of the players we associate with steroids are people we also associate with being jerks — people like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and A-Rod. But the real question is: Where does it end? Is it that stats are changed? Are champions changed? There can be no doubt that many, if not all, of the champions for a period in the 1990s and 2000s had steroid users. We’re not going to go back and change winners. In a lot of this polling, people are making an emotional argument.Walt: I, on the other hand, could not care less about steroid use. I feel like this notion of the game as some platonic ideal that existed prior to the big bad performance enhancers showed up is patently false. Every era had its own competitive advantages, as we’ll talk about in a second, but it’s only the steroid issue — and not, you know, the players who had the competitive advantages of rampant stimulant use and not having to compete with black players — that seems to make people think The Game is not somehow Pure.Rob Arthur: I’m under no illusions the game of baseball is Pure (nor will it ever be), but I also don’t know if it was ever dirtier than it was during the steroid era. Cheating is and has always been rampant, both on and off the field, but with steroids, we have a means of cheating that seems particularly effective. You can see that both in the scientific literature, where steroids seem to improve strength by as much as 20 percent, but also on the baseball field, where we had some notable steroid users like Bonds smashing records left and right.Harry: But what about during the “deadball era” — specifically between 1912 (I think) and 1920, when you had the spitball among other things? Offensive numbers took a dive. There is clear physical evidence that a spitball (or scuffing the ball) is a big deal. Now using that wasn’t illegal when it first started, but neither were steroids. They are now, yet people look at them so much differently than the pitching statistics that were occurring in the 1910s.Rob: Harry, you definitely have a point. But I think one of the reasons steroids are so objectionable is because of the asymmetry they created between players: Some players who used them seemed to become almost inhumanly effective, others didn’t use them at all and gained no benefit, and still others used but didn’t improve substantially. When the spitball was legal, it was available to all pitchers, and I doubt that any pitcher’s spit was 50 percent more effective at decreasing offense than any other pitcher’s spit. (I am aware that once the spitball was banned, some players were grandfathered in and still allowed to use it. Obviously, that wouldn’t fly in the modern era.)Neil: And don’t even get me started debating whether Lasik surgery counts as “unnatural” and “performance-enhancing.”Walt: Yeah, Tommy John called — he wants his pitching speed back. We will get back to the 1920s era of baseball soon enough, Enten. For now: My favorite part of this was comparing how different fan bases cared about steroids based on how much their teams gained from steroid use.Editor’s Note: On Friday, we introduced the idea of a steroid “discount” — a penalty in percentage terms that would be deducted from players’ individual statistics if they were found to be using PEDs. Our poll asked respondents to recommend said discount, which we can also break down by team fandom.The following table is color-coded by how much (red) or how little (white) each team’s fans would penalize steroid-using players.1Specifically, players who were suspended for PED offenses, were linked to the Biogenesis scandal, were named in the Mitchell Report or whose failed drug tests were leaked to the media. Because some teams had far more fans respond than others — and some teams’ fans hardly voted at all — the columns have been color-coded to represent a combination of average response and the number of respondents. In other words, results have been regressed to the mean based on sample size. Likewise, the correlations at the bottom of the table were weighted by the number of respondents from each fan base.Walt: Hot damn, Giants.Neil: It’s interesting that, as fandom intensifies, a relationship does begin to materialize between how much the voter’s favorite team relied on steroid users and how much tolerance he or she has for steroid users’ stats.If we look at all of our survey’s respondents — including those who were and were not self-professed baseball fans — there’s essentially no relationship between team steroid reliance and how much steroid-tainted stats the voter would recommend taking away. But when you throw out non-fans, a small2Correlation: -0.2 relationship emerges. Fan bases whose stars used steroids to generate more wins, whether on a per-season basis or as a percentage of the team’s total, tended to want steroid users to be punished less.Then again, it’s a slight relationship at best. While San Francisco Giants fans — hello Barry Bonds! — wanted juicers dinged much less than the average fan base, fans of the Oakland Athletics and Chicago Cubs (who rank fourth and fifth in the degree to which they were helped by steroid-using batters) asked for some of the highest penalties of any group of rooters.But that’s not the only way to measure the cognitive dissonance between a fan’s acceptance of steroids and the degree to which his or her team benefited from them.Walt: I whipped this up really quickly: It’s the scatterplot of teams, with that “how much did they gain from PEDs” metric plotted against the percentage of their fan base that said they thought the records of steroid users should be struck. What an interesting relationship:Walt: It’s a small sample size, but I really love that fans of teams that didn’t gain a lot from PEDs seem more likely to desire retribution against players who did.Rob: The relationship between steroid contribution and desire for retribution is really fascinating and upholds a long-held suspicion of mine. It also suggests (again) that these attitudes are largely driven by emotions: If my team benefited, then steroids were OK, but if not, steroids were terrible! It shows that fans, in particular, have a hard time divorcing their own fandom from the questions about how much steroids benefited particular players and how much we should care as a result.Walt: So then the question becomes where do we draw the line when it comes to performance-enhancing things in each era? I personally think it’s bullshit that people get so riled up about steroids and not, for instance, the widespread amphetamine use in MLB in the era prior to it.It turns out America agrees!Walt: So, Neil, who would this affect?Neil: Like you said, it’s pretty widely acknowledged that amphetamine use was prevalent in MLB throughout much of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. During a 1985 drug trial, former Mets and Pirates first baseman John Milner testified that he had received “greenies” (amphetamines) from Hall of Famers Willie Mays and Willie Stargell at various times during his career, and Hall of Fame third baseman Mike Schmidt said the substance was “widely available in major-league clubhouses” when he played.So it’s at least possible — if not probable — that some of that era’s greatest superstars used a now-banned substance to sharpen their focus and boost their energy levels. (Even if the evidence is mixed over whether greenies actually even help athletic performance.)Walt: I feel like higher focus and higher energy is probably a nice thing for batters to have. I imagine their record collections were remarkably well-organized as well.I’m pretty happy to see some consistency here. I compared how people answered the steroid question with how they answered the stimulant question, and 88 percent of respondents (and 86 percent of fans) stuck to their guns and replied with the same answer they gave for steroid policy. It seems like at least among the general population there’s a lot more consistency with how to handle the policy than there is in the league.Still, it’s surprising that at the end of the day, 44 percent of Americans would strip away statistical accomplishments from amphetamine users in the era of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle.Neil: Agreed. The general attitude among sportswriters — even if it doesn’t necessarily make sense — is that there’s a distinction to be drawn between the supposedly widespread amphetamine use of the 1970s and the supposedly widespread steroid use of the 1990s. But according to those surveyed, there shouldn’t be. The moral judgment of the people appears to fall on both groups with equal fury.Harry: I really do wonder whether most people know that Mays may have used greenies. I tend to think not. If they did, there is no way that the polling numbers would look the way they do. I also tend to think that there is nothing ridiculous that Mays did in the sense that he looked normal, unlike Bonds who looked like someone shoved some orthopedic pillows in his arms. Not to mention that his head grew bigger than Donald Trump’s ego. It seemed natural. We tend to think of unnatural in how someone looks, not how they think.Neil: Right, and the bulked-up players and shifting head sizes gave fans and analysts a smoking gun of sorts. It added to the theatrical nature of the steroid hysteria. With a pill that doesn’t change appearance, you’re reduced to poring over stats and wondering whether a player’s out-of-the-blue power spike is just a career year or something much more sinister.Walt: But enough with the pharmaceutical advantages. What about the bigoted regime that kept black players out of the leagues? What about the competitive advantage conferred by excluding athletes based on the color of their skin?Walt: Kind of odd that baseball fans are nowhere near as mortified with pre-integration records standing than they are with stimulants. Neil, what’s the word on the effect that segregation had on baseball?Neil: One of the biggest tragedies of baseball’s color line is that we can’t know precisely how much the game’s pre-1947 stars benefited from only playing against white opponents. But we can certainly estimate how much more shallow the pool of available players was before the game was integrated. (As well as before the rise of Latin America and, now, Asia as a source of baseball talent.)As FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver notes in “Baseball Between the Numbers,” MLB was only drawing from a population of about 300,000 people per player in 1930. By 1960, when baseball was finally fully integrated, that number had more than doubled to 625,000, and it was a whopping 900,000 when Nate crunched the numbers in 2005. The bigger the talent pool, the tougher the competition, so it’s clear that pre-integration players had a major advantage in terms of the relative caliber of talent they played against.(A related note: Baseball’s level of talent is steadily increasing anyway as humans push the boundaries of athletic performance, which is another great reason statistics from the past can’t be compared to modern numbers straight-up.)Harry: My opinion on this is fairly simple: You can’t penalize players for things they didn’t control. Babe Ruth couldn’t play against a black player in the MLB even if he wanted to. It’s a tragedy that we were robbed of seeing Josh Gibson against Carl Hubbell, but we can’t go back and readjust the records.Walt: I don’t think it’s so much about penalizing players for things beyond their control as it’s about knocking down the idea that baseball was somehow defiled by pharmaceuticals. This nostalgia for baseball is wholly misguided — the Boston Red Sox integrated after Southern public schools! In 1959! — it’s not like this was an antiquated part of baseball history.Baseball’s commitment to some idyllic game that never existed — something that also manifests itself in a knee-jerk opposition to potential ways to improve the game, like the DH, speedier play and other experimentation — by now constitutes what I think is (on a long enough timespan) an existential threat for the league. The fact that more people aren’t more willing to look back in anger is a symptom of a much larger problem.Not to mention that at least the other two advantages at least made the game more interesting to watch. Segregation, if anything, made the game less interesting for fans out of mere spite. My main line? If you’re going to get indignant about steroids — something that unambiguously made the game more interesting — at least have the decency to be just as indignant about letting those segregated records stand un-asteriskedBut guys! We’re missing the point here. About 10 percent of Americans would strip Babe Ruth of his records! Including 8 percent of baseball fans. That’s awesome.Harry: What percentage of people believe we didn’t land on the moon?Walt: I mean Kubrick basically admitted as much in “The Shining,” man — learn how to read subtext.
Ohio State senior midfielder Megan McGillis handles the ball in the Buckeyes’ 13-9 win over Vermont on Feb. 12 at the Woody Hayes Athletic Center. Credit: James King | Lantern reporterThe Ohio State women’s lacrosse team (3-0) scored early and often in its 17-8 win over Cincinnati (0-1) on Sunday. The Buckeyes solved their early-scoring woes of the previous two games, netting five unanswered goals in the first four minutes of play.“The theme the whole week was getting off to a fast start,” coach Alexis Venechanos said. “I felt like we came in really focused and we were really on a mission. We knew Cincinnati was going to be well coached.”This was the sixth meeting between the two schools and the third in the past three seasons. The Buckeyes’ win kept them undefeated in six meetings against the Bearcats, with the series dating back to 2008.Within the first two minutes, sophomore midfielders Mackenzie Maring and Erika Keselman scored giving OSU the early lead. Then, for the second time this season, freshman midfielder Liza Hernandez scored two goals within 30 seconds, her first two of four on the day.“We wanted to just come out and play our game,” Hernandez said. “It feels amazing (to score four times). I just know I couldn’t have done it without my teammates and everyone around me.”Senior midfielder Morgan Fee added a goal of her own — her first of two in the first half — putting the Buckeyes up 5-0 with 25:16 remaining. The Bearcats would win the next draw, gaining possession of the ball for the first time in the game. Cincinnati took advantage of their first time with the ball when junior midfielder Brooke Kovinsky scored the first goal of the year for her program at the 24:52 mark in the first half. OSU went on to win 11 draw controls and take 25 shots compared to Cincinnati’s five and 12, respectively, showing how much the Buckeyes dominated the ball early. Venechanos said that a lot of that is attributed to the stellar play of Fee, who won 7 draw controls in the game.“She stepped up huge,” Venechanos said. “We put her in for the last five draws of the last game and she got those. So she’s been working really hard and I’m really happy for her.”Maring and Keselman again would score back-to-back goals moving OSU’s lead up six with 22:06 left in the first half. The Bearcats would respond with two goals from freshmen Monica Borzillo and McKenna Rushford.Up 7-3, OSU went on a 5-1 scoring run to close out the half, which included a hat trick from junior attacker Molly Wood, Fee’s second of the game and sophomore midfielder Baley Parrott’s sixth goal of the year.“We were just ready to show what we are and show what we’re made of this year,” Wood said. “We were firing on all cylinders today, we were all in control. It was really fun.”The Buckeyes opened up the scoring yet again in the second half when freshman attacker Alex Vander Molen scored her first of the day, second of the year, giving OSU a 13-4 lead. Cincinnati would try and fight its way back into the contest, going on a 3-1 scoring run cutting the Buckeyes’ lead to seven with 13:43 to play.OSU was plagued with turnovers in the second half, committing eight, turning their offense stagnant until Hernandez was able to score her fourth goal with 5:42 left on the clock. The Bearcats netted another goal, but OSU closed the game out with two more goals giving them the win, 17-8. One goal came from junior attacker Lauren Sherry and the other from sophomore attacker Alyssa Amorison in her season debut for the Buckeyes.For the second straight game freshman goalie Jillian Rizzo collected double digit saves, this time 11 on the day. Rizzo has been a constant safety blanket for this OSU team, helping them hold leads and coming up with big saves when needed.“She’s amazing,” Hernandez said. “She literally keeps us in games sometimes. I know she’s a freshman but she really doesn’t play like a freshman and we definitely need that.”In a game that was moved to Ohio Stadium due to some serendipitous February weather, OSU led from wire to wire. The Buckeyes, who took 40 shots compared to the Bearcats’ 25, were able to couple an aggressive attack on the offensive end with stout defensive play. “It’s always fun to score in the ‘Shoe,” Wood said. “But it was a team effort and that was what was really special.”OSU has the Stanford Cardinal up next, Friday at home at 6 p.m. Stanford is currently 1-3 on the year and have a game at Saint Mary’s on Tuesday before making the trip to Columbus.“Stanford is going to give us new challenges,” Venechanos said. “So we’re going to watch film this week, work on ourselves and then worry about Stanford … but it will be a big test for us.”
The former owner died tragically after a helicopter accident and for Leicester City’s goalkeeper he was the best boss everLeicester City’s owner Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha died tragically after his helicopter crashed outside the King Power Stadium.And for the Foxes’ goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel, he was the best boss one could have.“If you look back at my career, I’ve had to constantly prove myself and be compared to others. Constantly having to prove I am good enough,” Schmeichel told Sky Sports.“Then came a guy who said he believed in me from the first minute. He said he’d seen me play and just gave me the platform.”Liverpool legend Nicol slams Harry Maguire’s Man United form Andrew Smyth – September 14, 2019 Steve Nicol believes Harry Maguire has made some “horrendous mistakes” recently, and has failed to find his best form since joining Manchester United.“I’ve been here nearly eight years now and that says a lot about the stability here and the belief he had in me,” he commented.“Having gone from nine clubs to just being at one club, I was searching for someone who believed in me – he and his family did.”“It’s very easy to be caught up in this world of money, fame, and fortune. He is a guy who has done all that and doesn’t care about it. He only cares about helping people,” he added.“It just speaks to the man that he was. He didn’t need to buy a football club. That’s never a good business investment.”
Hibernian manager Neil Lennon has outlined his January transfer plans to sign two strikers for the club.Speaking from Dubai where the Hibernian squad is camped for warm-weather training, Lennon highlighted their need for investment in attack.“We want to bring in strikers if we can bring two in then great. But we’re hoping to at least bring one in just to add to what we have here,” he told Sky Sports.“At times it’s been a bit flat and we need that extra bit of competition and motivation for them all.”Match Preview: Rangers vs Celtic Boro Tanchev – August 31, 2019 It is time for the first Old Firm derby of the 2019-20 campaign, as Rangers host Celtic tomorrow at 13:00 (CET).Lennon was asked what kind of message he’s sending to the current strikers at the club, he said: “Must be better. You know you can do better and I know you can do better.“But we want more competition in that area and we want more goals in that area.”Lennon since last month has been demanding for better strikers for the club.