g. But that has its own g. But that has its own | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » General Chat
q123
q123 Jan 31
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. DeAndre Houston-Carson Jersey . -- Tom Brady now stands alone when it comes to career wins by an NFL quarterback.Brady became the leagues leader in victories among QBs, earning his 201st by throwing for 269 yards and a touchdown to lead the New England Patriots past the struggling Los Angeles Rams 26-10 on Sunday.Brady, who was 33 of 46, had tied Peyton Manning last week in a win over the New York Jets.Its always been about winning, and Ive been very fortunate to be on a lot of great teams, Brady said of reaching the milestone. Im just really grateful.His lone touchdown pass came on a 14-yard pass to Chris Hogan in the first quarter. LeGarrette Blount scored the games first touchdown , rumbling for a 43-yard, ankle-breaking score in the first quarter while spinning around safety Maurice Alexander in the process. He finished with 88 yards on 18 carries.The Patriots (10-2) have won seven of their last eight as they prepare for a tough stretch against three teams with winning records over their final four regular-season games.On the same day that Los Angeles coach Jeff Fisher and general manager Les Snead were given contract extensions, the recently relocated Rams (4-8) proved they still have a long way to go after losing for the seventh time in eight outings.The Rams entered the game ranked 31st in total offense, averaging just 295 yards per game. Those struggles continued Sunday. They managed just 25 yards in the first half, the fewest by a team in a game this season.Los Angeles was outgained 402-162 for the game.In his third career start, rookie Jared Goff was picked off twice, completing 14 of 32 passes for 161 yards.QUOTABLEThats a record that I dont think will ever be broken. Hell continue to build on it, Im sure. -- Blount on Bradys wins mark.I kind of made a point to watch his first drive. -- Goff on watching Brady, whom he congratulated postgame on setting the wins record.RAMS FUTILITY: How bad was the Rams offense in the first half? The Patriots had more fourth-down conversions (two), than the Rams had total first downs (one). New England had 12 total first downs. Los Angeles also ran just 18 offensive plays, compared to 42 for the Patriots.FORCING TURNOVERS: After not forcing a turnover for 44 straight possessions, with interceptions by cornerback Malcolm Butler in the first quarter and linebacker Kyle Van Noy in the third marked four takeaways for the Patriots defense over the past two games.BIG FOOT: Rams P Johnny Hekker had a 76-yard punt in the fourth quarter. It was his third punt this season of 75 or more yards. He had boots of 75 and 78 yards last month against the Panthers and Jets.INJURIES:Rams: CB E.J. Gaines sustained quad injury in the second quarter.Patriots: WR Danny Amendola left late in the third quarter with an ankle injury and did not return. He was later spotted walking on crutches in the tunnel underneath Gillette Stadium. CB Eric Rowe also did not return after leaving with a hamstring injury.UP NEXTRams: Host the Falcons on Sunday.Patriots: Host the Ravens next Monday night.---Follow Kyle Hightower on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/khightower---For more NFL coverage: http://www.pro32.ap.org and http://www.twitter.com/AP-NFL Eddie Goldman Jersey . Canada is now down to its 22-player limit, although but players wont be registered until Christmas Day. Changes could still be made as a result of a suspension or injury. Cheap Custom Bears Jersey . Now, with Game 6 set for Fenway Park and an 8:07 p.m. ET first pitch, the Detroit Tigers face the unenviable task of having to beat the Boston Red Sox twice, on the road, to advance to the World Series. http://www.custombearsjersey.com/ . Three came down to the fourth quarter while quarterbacks continued to shine in all four games; so important to the overall quality of the game. Whether or not Faf du Plessis applied an artificial substance to the ball in Hobart was irrelevant, David Warner said on Tuesday. And, to the series outcome, perhaps that is true. But that du Plessis was that evening found guilty enough of ball-tampering to cop a fine was anything but irrelevant to crickets bigger picture.Under the Laws of Cricket - Law 42.3, to be precise - players are allowed to polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used. Du Plessis second conviction in three years - and South Africas third - is a warning to the rest that there will be a crackdown on this law, even though there is no clarity on what, for crickets purposes, constitutes an artificial substance.Broadly speaking, we all have some idea that shoe polish is synthetic and saliva is natural but what if the shoe polish is mixed with saliva? How much of the synthetic substance needs to mix with the natural one for all of it to be deemed artificial? And what if the artificial substance is food? Organic food? The wording of the law is too vague.As Jason Gillespie said in an interview on these pages, Its a tough one because in the laws of the game it says, technically, no one should be able to have anything in their mouth on the ground. You shouldnt be able to have any lollies, chewing gum, anything. I mean how far do we want to go? You cant have a Gatorade or whatever power drink they have because its got sugar in it. So everyone, just drink water. Where do you want to go with it?Gillespie is one of several former players to support the storm in a teacup argument over the shining of the ball. It is actually just accepted and isnt a big deal, Matt Prior said on Twitter, while Sourav Ganguly told ESPNcricinfos Match Day du Plessis, is not the first person who has done it and I dont think he will be the last.That was what South Africa were hoping would get du Plessis out of trouble. They are understood to have used the everybody-does-it defense. They produced footage of several high-profile players, including Virat Kohli and David Warner, using saliva that could have come into contact with an artificial substance on the ball.Neither example is as blatant as du Plessis: Kohli rubs something close to his teeth and for a split-second there seems to be gum visible, while Warner applies a lip balm and then receives the ball after the next delivery to polish. For the ICC to investigate those clips and lay a charge, the matter should have been brought to its notice within five days of the event*. Consider the similarity to the seatbelt law. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of drivers and passengers choose not to buckle up and when they are caught, they are fined because they are guilty of an offense. Even if youre an advocate for freedom of choice, or you fervently believe the seatbelt wont save your life, or you just forgot to put it on, you are still guilty, and will be sanctioned, and so will everyone else who is caught. Matt Forte Jersey. ut perhaps the dossier du Plessis defence produced - and the comments from former players - will prompt a thorough enquiry. It may even lead to a realisation that a law becomes redundant if it is so openly flouted. Or perhaps it will just cause those players to become even more discreet, particularly the South Africans.They are only team to be caught in the past three years and every time, it has been by broadcast cameras. There is one school of thought that du Plessis would not have found himself charged if only South Africa hid their actions as well as other teams. He has just been a bit stupid, Ganguly said. Maybe because he was ignorant that the camera was on him. He could have done it differently.In this case, if du Plessis had had the sweet under his tongue, for instance, he would have got away with it completely. The on-field umpires, who check the ball after every over to assess its condition, did not detect anything amiss. However, it is interesting to note that all three umpires were strong in telling the hearing that had they seen du Plessis actions on field, they would have taken action immediately. At least the officials and the administrators are in sync, even if the players are not.All that leaves the ICC with a problem. One of their own laws is being flouted because players have found ways to skirt around it. Clearly, some players view it as a law that exists just for the sake of it. If players are happy to break it so long as no-one gets caught, there is obviously a problem. If the ICC is serious about enforcing its law, they need to make better efforts to clamp down, as they did with illegal bowling actions. Otherwise, they could accept that some form of working the ball will take place and make room for that within the laws.Perhaps that is the most reasonable solution. In any case, most players arent sure how an artificial substance actually affects the way the ball moves. Im no expert in the science of how a sugary sweet will impact on the aerodynamics of a cricket ball. I wouldnt have a clue, Gillespie confessed.So here is a left-field thought: someone could try to find out. Scientific research could be conducted into what substances have an effect on the ball, and whether such effects are significant enough to justify the laws existence. Perhaps cricket would end up with a list of banned substances, as WADA does with doping. But that has its own problems in terms of practicality.The issue is a hazy one, but if this hearing brings any sort of clarity it will prove a landmark moment indeed.*1215GMT The piece has been altered to clarify the ICC process regarding the Kohli and Warner footage ' ' ' 
Password protected photo
Password protected photo
Password protected photo