| No. 1 'Bama encouraged by return of Ingram, Dareus By JOEDY McCREARY 2010-09-19T15:21:07ZDURHAM, N.C. (AP) -- Mark Ingram took his first carry nearly 50 yards for Alabama. Marcell Dareus snuffed out Duke's first rushing play for a loss.... hosted.ap.org |
Harlequins 40-13 Exeter | Premiership match report Harlequins 40-13 ExeterYou might be tempted to say that this was back down to earth with a bump, were it not for the fact that in Exeter they are already as down-to-earth as they come. This was more like confirmation of what they knew already – that this season is going to be hard for a side promoted at such short notice and with no experience of life in the Premiership.Not that Exeter were humiliated. They stood fast for most of the first half and were still within sight of Quins at the break, but two yellow cards in the third quarter ended their challenge.The two spells in the bin did overlap, but for about 45 seconds. The first was served by Haydn Thomas for not retreating 10 at a quickly taken penalty by Danny Care; the second was by James Hanks for not retreating ... you know the rest.Care was a handful throughout. Gonzalo Camacho, the Argentina winger, was worked over soon after the first was awarded; and a penalty try followed soon after the second, from a five-metre scrum that was always going to be hard work with seven in the Exeter pack.At 33-6 on the hour, that was the game, but, having conceded the bonus-point try with four minutes to go from a lineout and series of drives, Exeter scored in the corner through Mark Foster at the death, which was probably just reward for their efforts having worked the Quins defence very hard at the end of the first half.This was a good day for Quins – a bonus-point win to get their season on track. They ended up having to toil for much of the first half-hour, even if the way they burst into the game had looked ominous for the visitors.It seemed Harlequins had decided that, as well as Exeter had done to date in their first season in the Premiership, no one had yet tried to run them off their feet. The first 10 minutes were a blur of Harlequin runners. Exeter could not get their hands on the ball, but they stood strong and did what any bona fide Premiership side would under the circumstances – concede penalties. Four of them in the first seven minutes. Two of them were within Nick Evans's range, so they were six points down in almost as many minutes.Quins, though, for all their pace, had still not won this season, and that affects a side's confidence. The Chiefs soon worked their way back into it. Two penalties from the deadly Gareth Steenson had them back level before too long, even if a penalty at the restart from the second enabled Evans to nudge the home side back in front.On the half-hour, though, Quins upped it again. Camacho broke left, George Lowe broke through the middle, and Nick Easter drove to the base of the posts for a 16-6 lead at the break. A penalty from that first yellow-card offence stretched things further, 10 minutes into the second, and within the next 10 Quins accelerated away with things, helped along in no small part by those yellows. Dazzling hands had Camacho in for their second try, the pack secured the third, and Tom Guest dotted down for the fourth.So, it is back to the soil for the Chiefs, where they are happiest and where they will not panic. Quins, meanwhile, will start looking towards the bright lights, which is where they are happiest.HARLEQUINS Brown; Camacho, Smith (Chisholm 29), Turner-Hall, Lowe; Evans (Clegg 77), Care (Dickson 77); Marler (Jones 65), Cairns (Brooker 51), Johnston (Lambert 51), Kohn, Vallejost (Browne 77), Robshaw (capt; Guest 51), Skinnere, EasterTries Easter, Camacho, penalty, Guest Cons Evans 4Pens Evans 4EXETER Arscott; Jess, Sestaret (McKenzie 20), Rennie, Foster; Steenson (Davis 61), Thomas (Poluleuligaga 64); Sturgess (Moon 77), Clark (Alcott 51), Tui (Budgen 57), Hayes (capt), Hanks (Gannon 71), Johnson, Scaysbrook, Phillips (Slade 6)Try Foster Con Davis Pens Steenson 2PremiershipHarlequinsExeterRugby unionMichael Aylwinguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
NHL's Columbus Blue Jackets renew deal with MillerCoors The National Hockey League's Columbus Blue Jackets have signed a multi-year renewal of its corporate partnership with MillerCoors LLC. feeds.bizjournals.com |
Paul Rees: Regulations too rigid at World Cup Hard-line restrictions imposed by the IRB to keep the Rugby World Cup 'on message' make you wonder if the event is worth itIs the World Cup worth it? The New Zealand Rugby Union has been asking itself that question virtually ever since it was awarded the right to stage next year's tournament. It will make a loss: it is merely a matter of scale.The International Rugby Board will make a substantial profit: the more it makes, the more individual unions will receive, from big to small. It is one reason why the Rugby Football Union plans to clamp down on the commercial and media activities of the England players during the tournament.Players will be banned from using social networking sites as long as England are involved in the tournament. No making twits of themselves on Twitter or having to face punishment for a Facebook faux pas. And no newspaper columns, which would not be much of a loss given that they are already carefully censored.The ostensible reason for the crackdown is that the RFU does not want a repeat of some episodes in cricket in the summer when players, led by Kevin Pietersen, found that free speech cost. Remarks posted in the heat of the moment generated headlines and fines.England do not want their campaign undermined by having to put out fires lit on social networking sites. That is understandable, if symptomatic of the way a sport that used to be known for its close relationship with the media keeps on building walls and barriers.There is another reason for the determination to keep players in line, and it has as much to do with images as words. The IRB has had to fight hard for sponsors during a time of economic gloom and it has put up a number of restrictions in New Zealand, helped by a government act passed in 2007.Each stadium used in the World Cup will have a clean zone, with a five-mile radius, in which no rival of one of the official sponsors will be allowed to advertise. A group of supporters wearing, for example, a club jersey that bore the logo of a competitor to one of the official backers would have to remove it or be thrown out of the zone, never mind gain entry to the stadium.If someone puts up an advertising hoarding that is not inside the zone but can be seen from it, such as in the air, they will be breaking the law and would face a fine of up to £70,000 as well as a criminal record. The IRB's success in getting the law to support an assault on ambush marketing may persuade the organisers of other events to seek a similar sanctuary.The RFU is concerned that one of its players, posting a picture of himself on the internet wearing something that would embarrass the IRB because it contained a forbidden logo, would undermine the official crackdown. It is one thing to use the law to force groups and individuals to comply, but if the Rugby World Cup was ever held in the United States, where the freedom of speech is deemed more important than a sponsor, the Board would face many more obstacles than it did in New Zealand where every cent will count.Is the World Cup worth it? The IRB, or powerful sections of it, were so appalled by the quality of rugby in the last two tournaments that the experimental law variations were introduced. England especially were deemed to be a threat to the tournament's commercial appeal with their lamented limited approach, not that either Australia or France, never mind the IRB, did badly financially as hosts.The RFU will have to negotiate a deal with its players if it wants them to give up commercial activity and there will doubtless be several meetings between the two parties in the coming months. Any union that fails to control its players' activities off the field faces forfeiting some of its participation money if the tournament rules over advertising are broken and there is a danger that squads will be so tightly controlled and monitored that they will feel more in prison than an hotel.And what restrictions will be imposed on the family and friends of players who go to New Zealand. Will there be any comeback if 'wrong' images are posted on the internet? Or a politically incorrect message gains a wide currency? Will mobile phones, iPods, iPads and laptops have to be handed in before anyone is allowed into a team hotel?The IRB has a duty to protect its sponsors, some of whom are paying more than £2m for the privilege, but should it do so to the point where someone offering their house for rent during the tournament faced prosecution if they used the words rugby, world and cup in their advertisement?Ambush advertisers know that the best way to secure attention for their wares is through publicity, as happened during the football World Cup in South Africa earlier this year when a group of women, arrested for wearing orange miniskirts, were thrown out of a ground because the colour represented one that was a symbol of a brewer that was a rival to one of the main sponsors.How many would have got the message but for the subsequent fuss? Just as the IRB needs to make money out of the World Cup, so do traders in New Zealand, who may never get a similar opportunity again. The word open should not just be applied to the rugby.Ignore the bonus trapThe Six Nations committee has ruled out introducing bonus points into a tournament which stands alone in the major professional world in not rewarding defeat.The Six Nations believes that introducing bonus points would amount to change for change's sake. The championship was working and tweaking the system could make it worse rather than better.The Six Nations is unusual in that a win is worth two points, rather than four. Introducing bonus points would mean that a defeat by seven points or less was worth the same as a draw, a nonsense that could only be corrected by increasing the points for a win.There is another reason why bonus points could be anomalous. A team could win the grand slam but not the title. In 2002, France won five out of five. England only lost the one match, in Paris by five points, and scored at least four tries in their other four matches.With bonus points, that would have given them 13 points to the 11 of France, who only scored four tries once. If the values were changed and a win had been worth four points, both teams would have had 21. How would they have been separated?England had the superior try tally and points difference but they had lost to France. Surely a team that wins every match in a five-game tournament has the right to consider itself better than the rest?This is an extract taken from The Breakdown, guardian.co.uk's weekly rugby union email. You can sign up here.Rugby unionPaul Reesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Yankees, still trailing in series, refuse to be eliminated For the first time in their American League Championship Series against the Texas Rangers, the New York Yankees played like defending World Series ... rssfeeds.usatoday.com |