Bad infield fly rule call mars Cardinals victory over Braves in NL wild card game

It only took eight innings for baseball's umpires to register the worst call of the postseason and the Atlanta Braves paid a big price for it in their 6-3 National League wild card loss to the St. Louis Cardinals.

With one out in the eighth inning and runners on first and second, Atlanta's Andrelton Simmons hit a fly ball to left field. The ball dropped in between backpedaling shortstop Pete Kozma and left fielder Matt Holliday and it looked as if the Braves would have the bases loaded with one out to stage a rally from their three-run deficit. Left field umpire Sam Holbrook, however, made a delayed infield fly rule call as the ball neared the ground. The call ruled Simmons out for the second out of the inning and an angry Turner Field crowd responded by showering the field with garbage.


Atlanta manager Fredi Gonzalez used the 18-minute delay that followed to put the game under protest. Major League Baseball denied the protest, however, because the infield fly rule is strictly a judgment call and not subject to any appeal. There is no distance mentioned in the infield fly rule language and an umpire must only determine that an infielder could have caught the ball with an ordinary effort.

Read More

Robert Vadra: Will the truth ever come out?

Ten years ago, I bought a new apartment under construction in DLF Exclusive Floors, Phase V, Gurgaon. I took a loan from ICICI Bank to finance my purchase. I made it explicitly clear to the bank that I need the loan money disbursed to me on or before a certain date by which I needed to pay DLF the balance amount. After assuring me that the same would happen, ICICI Bank released the payment three days late. DLF charged me interest at 20 per cent per annum for the delay. I wrote to DLF and requested the Manager, Customer Services, to waive off the interest since the payment delayed by just three days was on account of the bank and I couldn't be blamed for it. DLF refused to do so, in a letter to me, which is still in my possession.

Ten years later, when I learnt that DLF gave away property worth Rs 300 crore for less than Rs 38 crore, it was hard to digest. The same firm who refused to forego Rs 2,191 to me knowing fully well that I was not personally responsible for the delay, let go Rs 262 crore to Robert Vadra. Wait, the story gets even more mysterious. DLF gave Vadra an interest free loan of over Rs 65 crore without any security to finance his acquisitions. Why? Robert says he has known the DLF owners for a long time and they are friends of his. Can anyone with a modicum of intelligence buy this explanation?

While it is okay to make concessions to friends, is it plausible to believe that the DLF owners willingly relinquished over Rs 260 crore to Robert purely on account of friendship? The Congress party came out in full strength to defend the party president's son-in-law with some leaders even calling up news channels to offer a sound byte on the issue. The leaders can't be blamed as they saw this as an opportunity to please Madam Sonia Gandhi. The Congress party has a history of rewarding loyalty and this issue gave a perfect opportunity to earn brownie points with the high command.

Resources : http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/rajengarabadu/707/63958/robert-vadra-will-the-truth-ever-come-out.html

English Vinglish’ review: It has a long lasting, feel good factor!

Resham Sengar

After a sabbatical of 15 years, Sridevi has returned to do a meaty role in ‘English Vinglish’ and post watching the film, I have just one word for the actress - FLAWLESS!

Gauri Shinde has donned the director’s hat to tell the story of Sashi (Sridevi), a middle-aged Maharashtrian housewife who earns her own money by making sumptuous ladoos (which happens to be her passion too) and selling them to the connoisseurs. A lot of women would identify with Sashi since she is one of those dedicated yet taken-for-granted homemakers who are ridiculed for their poor linguistic skills by their English speaking family. In the movie, Sashi finds herself being an object of constant potshots by her husband(Adil Hussain), who has little respect for her real talent and her 7th grade daughter who feels ashamed to even introduce her mother to her school folks.

So when an underestimated and belittled Sashi flies off to New York to lend a helping hand at her niece’s wedding, she smartly grabs the opportunity to enroll herself into English speaking classes that promise to teach the language within a period of flat four weeks. In no time, Sashi becomes the most committed student in her class, starts watching English films at night and doing her homework religiously- all to polish her English reading and writing skills and more importantly to earn respect that she duly deserves from her family. In the midst of her literary pursuit, she also finds her classmate cum friend – a Frenchman (an irresistible Mehdi Nebbou) getting attracted to her plain simple personality. Yet, despite several barriers that come her way, Sashi manages to achieve her goal (that includes ordering her meal at the café with super confidence) which could be an inspiration to many aspiring English learners.

Going beyond the ‘ordinary’ story of ‘English Vinglish’, it is a movie that teaches a lot of life lessons. First, it gives a peek into the feelings of those who are not good at reading and writing the language and find themselves becoming a subject of disdain and jibe whether at home or in public. Second, it is a crash course on mannerisms for all those ‘refined’ husbands and children out there who believe that the woman of the house is only worth taking nonsense; notwithstanding the fact that she goes out of her way to please them, without a complaint. Third, like I said before, the film is all about dedication towards one’s aims and a relentless pursuit towards your dream, come what may.

Sridevi as the de-glam Sashi looks completely stunning and gets very much into the skin of her character in the film. The way she emotes when she is looked down upon for her poor angrezi is worthy of a good round of applause. It is safe to say that after ‘Sadma’, Chaalbaaz’ and ‘Chandni’, she will always be remembered for her versatile act in ‘English Vinglish’. Clearly, this movie is one of her best works till date.

Moving on to film’s direction, kudos to Gauri Shinde for narrating a story which leaves such an impact on the viewers. Also, a special thanks to her (she has also written the story) for making a film on such a unique storyline which apparently has a close connection to the life of Shinde’s mother and perhaps, many other Indian women out there.

Amit Trivedi has given cool and foot tapping music to the film while designer Sabyasachi has done his job very well in dressing up Sridevi in colorful khadi sarees that suit her age and role.

Overall, ‘English Vinglish’ is a complete family entertainer and worth every penny! Yes, Sridevi is back!

Rating: 4 cheers to Sridevi, Gauri Shinde and the complete cast for their perfect job!


Sources : http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/movies/english-vinglish-review-it-has-a-long-lasting-feel-good-factor_120413.htm

Live Cricket Score: Australia vs Pakistan, ICC T20 World Cup 2012 match at Colombo

By CricketCountry Staff

Colombo: Oct 2, 2012

Pakistan will be desperate for a huge win against the marauding Australian side, when they clash in the crucial ICC World T20 Super Eights’ clash on Tuesday in Colombo.

Pakistan will have to pick up the pieces from their all-round failure against the arch-rivals and come up with an inspired performance against the unbeaten Australian side, which has been almost assured a semifinal berth with a commanding eight-wicket victory over South Africa in their last game yesterday. 

Aware that one more defeat will ensure their exit from the tournament if India manage to beat South Africa later in the evening today Pakistan, after a win and a loss, have to clinch it against Australia to have any chance of making the semifinals.

Australia are the in-form side of the tournament with the top-order batsmen in roaring form and the frontline bowlers among the wickets. 

The main worry for Pakistan would be swashbuckling Australian openers Shane Watsonand David Warner, who have become the most successful pair in the T20 Internationals. 

Against South Africa, Watson single-handedly guided the team to victory with a brutal 47-ball 70 and 2/29 while bowling. 

Teams:

Australia: David Warner, Shane Watson, Michael Hussey, Cameron White, George Bailey (c), Glenn Maxwell, Xavier Doherty, Matthew Wade (wk), Brad Hogg, Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc.

Pakistan:  Mohammad Hafeez (c), Imran Nazir, Nasir Jamshed, Kamran Akmal (wK), Umar Akmal, Shoaib Malik, Shahid Afridi, Abdul Razzaq, Umar Gul, Saeed Ajmal, Raza Hasan.

Catch live-scores and ball-by-ball commentary of the Australia vs Pakistan clash here

Video: Watch the preview to the Australia-Pakistan clash at the ICC World T20 2012

Super Eight Points Table  

ICC Twenty20 World Cup 2012: Match time table with group details 

FACT CHECK: Presidential debate missteps

CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press

Updated 9:33 p.m., Wednesday, October 3, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney spun one-sided stories in their first presidential debate, not necessarily bogus, but not the whole truth.

They made some flat-out flubs, too. The rise in health insurance premiums has not been the slowest in 50 years, as Obama stated. Far from it. And there are not 23 million unemployed, as Romney asserted.

Here's a look at some of their claims and how they stack up with the facts:

OBAMA: "I've proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. ... The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue."

THE FACTS: In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 trillion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. Take those "cuts" away and Obama's $2.50/$1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases shifts significantly more in the direction of tax increases.

Obama's February budget offered proposals that would cut deficits over the coming decade by $2 trillion instead of $4 trillion. Of that deficit reduction, tax increases accounted for $1.6 trillion. He promises relatively small spending cuts of $597 billion from big federal benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He also proposed higher spending on infrastructure projects.

___

ROMNEY: Obama's health care plan "puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea."

THE FACTS: Romney is referring to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel of experts that would have the power to force Medicare cuts if costs rise beyond certain levels and Congress fails to act. But Obama's health care law explicitly prohibits the board from rationing care, shifting costs to retirees, restricting benefits or raising the Medicare eligibility age. So the board doesn't have the power to dictate to doctors what treatments they can prescribe.

Romney seems to be resurrecting the assertion that Obama's law would lead to rationing, made famous by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's widely debunked allegation that it would create "death panels."

The board has yet to be named, and its members would ultimately have to be confirmed by the Senate. Health care inflation has been modest in the last few years, so cuts would be unlikely for most of the rest of this decade.

___

OBAMA: "Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it's true — but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we're already beginning to see progress. In the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you're already getting a rebate."

THE FACTS: Not so, concerning premiums. Obama is mixing overall health care spending, which has been growing at historically low levels, and health insurance premiums, which have continued to rise faster than wages and overall economic growth. Premiums for job-based family coverage have risen by nearly $2,400 since 2009 when Obama took office, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent. This year's 4 percent increase was more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.

When it comes to insurance rebates under Obama's health care law, less than 10 percent of people with private health insurance are benefiting.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/FACT-CHECK-Presidential-debate-missteps-3917656.php#ixzz28IzqhnBG

Cowboys need to control damage better

By Dan Graziano | ESPNDallas.com

As everyone shouts and scrambles this morning to figure out who's to blame for what happened to the Dallas Cowboys on Monday night, I'd like to suggest that we at least consider the Bears as one possible answer. Chicago has a good, tough team with an opportunistic defense that's built on forcing turnovers. They are well coached and understand where to press their advantages. I'm sure, for example, that forcing Brandon Marshall inside on short routes to limit the damage he might do on the outside seemed like a good idea to the Cowboys in their defensive meetings last week. The Bears saw it as a chance to get him matched up on linebackers, whom he could dominate with his size. They were right. Sometimes you get outplayed and outcoached. It's a tough league, and the other team's getting paid, too.

For me, the most disturbing thing about Monday night for the Cowboys was the way they fell apart once the game appeared lost -- the sloppy, unfocused and downcast way they played the fourth quarter when all they still had to play for was pride. For a team that's trying, as Jason Garrett has said, to "build a football program for the future," that part of the performance stands out as something that needs to be addressed.

There was a point in the game at which Tony Romo had thrown only three interceptions, and you could have reasonably said two were not his fault. Dez Bryant made a mistake that led to the first one (though I still think blame is shared there, as it appears Charles Tillman may have jumped the route and picked the ball anyway), and Kevin Ogletree's stone hands act caused the second. The third was a result of a poor, over-aggressive decision by Romo to try to make something happen. The fourth and fifth were just plain sloppy, and their effect was the eradication of Romo's benefit of the doubt. By running his interception total into the realm of the incomprehensible, he invited those who would blame him for every loss to blame him for the loss.

Once the Bears were up two touchdowns in the fourth quarter, the Cowboys were in the worst possible situation -- one in which Romo was trying to do too much and making bad decisions as a result. Adversity can be a very bad thing for Romo, and last night was an example of a guy flooring the gas pedal after blowing out a tire. When keeping it together would have showed his team a lot, even if a comeback wasn't possible, Romo fell totally apart.

Same thing happened on defense, where at the end of their first bad game of this season the Cowboys' defensive backs appeared to have left early to beat the traffic. It's no picnic trying to cover Marshall, but you are expected to try, and to do so for all 60 minutes. Marshall's 31-yard touchdown catch in the fourth quarter that put Chicago up 34-10 should have come in a gift bag with a note thanking him for visiting Cowboys Stadium. Contesting plays like that in the game's final minutes would have shown you something about this revamped Dallas defense, and it might have been something even more impressive and valuable than the high quality of its play in the first three games of the season.

And yeah, I know the defense was missing three starters, and I know Bryant dropped too many passes, and I know it's disheartening when you realize a game has slipped away from you, at home, with a billion people watching in prime time, etc. But that doesn't mean you just fold up like an umbrella and let the visiting team continue to embarrass you.

The Cowboys players were accountable after the game. They stood there and took responsibility for the loss and their many failures in it. And that does show you something about a team and give you reason to feel as though it has the kinds of solid citizens and dedicated professionals it needs to succeed. But they could have offered even more reason to feel that way if they'd appeared, in Monday night's fourth quarter, to be angry or upset about what was happening to them, or showed more determination to keep it from getting worse.

Monday's wasn't a game the Cowboys should have won. The Bears were in the NFC Championship Game two years ago. It's fair to say they're a little further along in their program than the Cowboys are in theirs. It would be far less of a surprise to see Chicago in this year's playoffs than it would to see Dallas there. That was true before the season started, and it's obvious this morning. The Cowboys are building something, and they have a ways to go.

But where they failed Monday was at the end, when they had a chance to use a tough loss to a tough team as a character-building experience. To show grit and determination in the face of insurmountable difficulty. When the going got tough Monday, the Cowboys collapsed utterly. And if I were a Cowboys fan or coach or player, that would bother me a lot more than the turnovers, the dropped passes or the loss itself.

Gandhi Jayanti celebration: K. Natwar Singh's tribute to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - the great communicator

New Delhi, October 2, 2012 | UPDATED 20:19 IST

Today is Gandhi Jayanti. The annual routine will be followed. Prayer meeting at Tees January Marg. Bhajans and wreath laying at Rajghat. Floral tribute in the Central Hall of Parliament. Twelve months later the same drill will be enacted. In between, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi will be all but forgotten.
I saw Gandhiji only once. That was in mid-June, 1945. His train had stopped for five minutes at Bharatpur station. The Mahatma was on his way to Shimla to attend a conference called by the Viceroy, Lord Wavell.
As the train approached the station all hell broke loose. I too was one of a huge crowd. I had taken my autograph book and Rs.5, the "Mahatma's fee" for getting his autograph.
As soon as the Frontier Mail came to a halt, there was an unseemly rush to reach the third class compartment in which he was travelling. I too ran, but to the other side of the train by jumping between two bogies. Several others did the same. I latched on to the window bars. I had a good look at him. He was in his half dhoti. The famous watch too I spotted. He was darker than I had imagined. It was impossible to get his autograph. The train moved. I had the Gandhi darshan.
In 1920, Gandhi arrived on the political scene of India like a whirlwind. He asked the prostrate people of India to stand up and hold their heads high. Non-violently he non-cooperated with the Raj. The message was loud and clear. It electrified India. He denounced the Raj, not the British people. Nevertheless, he did make the Raj stick in their throats.


Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/mahatma-gandhi-jayanti-celebration/1/223056.html