Tag: Kyle

World Cup 2019: Ricky Ponting warns Australia of bouncers against India at Oval

first_imgWorld Cup 2019: Ricky Ponting warns Australia of bouncers against India at OvalAustralia were rattled by pace and bounce in their last match of the World Cup 2019 by the West Indies, which they eventually managed to win by 15 runs in Nottingham.advertisement Reuters LondonJune 8, 2019UPDATED: June 8, 2019 08:51 IST Australia were rattled by pace and bounce in their last game against West Indies (Reuters Photo)HIGHLIGHTSAustralia will face India at The Oval in London on June 9Australia have won both their games in World Cup 2019Australia had knocked out India in the semi-finals of the 2015 World CupAustralia assistant coach Ricky Ponting expects India to select an extra fast bowler on Sunday to exploit the holders’ vulnerability to short-pitched deliveries seen in their scrappy win over the West Indies in the World Cup.The Caribbean pace battery terrorised Australia’s top order at Trent Bridge, reducing them to 38-4 in the eighth over, with Oshane Thomas hitting Usman Khawaja on the helmet in an illustration of the top order’s obvious discomfort.Steve Smith added 72 and Nathan Coulter-Nile hit 92 to help Australia build a respectable score, though the side still collapsed for 288 with one over left of their full quota.India preferred Bhuvneshwar Kumar’s swing to Mohammed Shami’s pace against South Africa, but they might sacrifice one of their two frontline spinners to accommodate a paceman at the Oval, Ponting suggested.”(Jasprit) Bumrah we know is a very good new ball bowler and I’m sure he’ll mix it up and bowl some short stuff and some full stuff,” Ponting told cricket.com.au referring to the currently top-ranked ODI bowler.”Bhuvneshwar will probably not worry you too much with his pace or his bouncers. Hardik (Pandya) can maybe rush you a little bit, so maybe they have a decision to make on the overall make up of their side.”Do they maybe go with only the one spinner and use (all-rounder) Kedar Jadhav as a second spinner and play another fast bowler?”We’ll worry about that in the next couple of days and make sure all the boys are prepared.”advertisementA three-time World Cup winner himself, Ponting said he would discuss the matter with Khawaja and Glenn Maxwell, who responded to one short delivery with an unusual attempt to pull the ball, only to lose his wicket.”Usman got hit again … so he’s had a few hits in the last few weeks. I haven’t spoken to him (to see) if he’s rattled, but that’s part and parcel of top order batting against brand new balls…”You’ve got to find a way to cope and a way to get through hostile spells knowing that it’s not going to last forever,” Ponting said.”It’s a bit of an uncharacteristic shot from (Maxwell) as well. He’s not a natural hooker and puller of the ball anyway,” said Ponting.”It’s just a little bit of a blip on the radar that we’ll have a chat about and make sure we’re prepared for the next game.”For sports news, updates, live scores and cricket fixtures, log on to indiatoday.in/sports. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for Sports news, scores and updates.Get real-time alerts and all the news on your phone with the all-new India Today app. Download from Post your comment Do You Like This Story? Awesome! Now share the story Too bad. Tell us what you didn’t like in the comments Posted byrohan sen Tags :Follow India vs AustraliaFollow World Cup 2019 Nextlast_img read more

Supreme Court throws out conviction over threats posted on Facebook

FILE – In this Dec. 1, 2014 file photo, John P. Elwood, attorney for Anthony D. Elonis, who claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent, speaks to reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man convicted of making threats on Facebook, but dodged the free speech issues that had made the case intriguing to First Amendment advocates. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for seven justices, said it was not enough for prosecutors to show that the comments of Anthony Elonis would make a reasonable person feel threatened. But the court did not specify to lower courts exactly what the standard of proof should be. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the conviction of a Pennsylvania man prosecuted for making threats on Facebook, but dodged the free-speech issues that had made the case intriguing to First Amendment advocates.Chief Justice John Roberts said it was not enough for prosecutors to show that the comments of Anthony Elonis about killing his ex-wife and harming others would make a reasonable person feel threatened. But the high court sent the case back to the lower court without clarifying exactly what the standard of proof should be.The ruling was a narrow victory for civil liberties groups that had urged the court to make it tougher to convict people who make crude comments on social media that might be viewed as threatening.Yet the high court declined to lay out broad constitutional protections for such comments. “It is not necessary to consider any First Amendment issues,” Roberts wrote.Elonis, of Freemansburg, in eastern Pennsylvania, was prosecuted under a law that makes it a crime to threaten another person after he posted Facebook rants in the form of rap lyrics about killing his estranged wife, harming law enforcement officials and shooting up a school.One post about his wife said, “There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.”Elonis claimed the government had no right to prosecute him if he didn’t actually intend his comments to be threatening to others. He argued that his musings were protected by the First Amendment.But the government said it didn’t matter what Elonis intended. It argued that if the comments provoked enough fear and anxiety to make a reasonable person feel threatened, that was enough to prosecute it as a crime.Seven justices on the high court agreed that it was not necessary to reach First Amendment issues in reversing Elonis’ conviction. Roberts said the reasonable-person standard is “inconsistent with the conventional requirement for criminal conduct — awareness of some wrongdoing.”Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the outcome, but said he would have made clear that a person can violate the law if he disregards the risk that comments will be interpreted as a threat.Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he would have found Elonis’ posts to be “true threats” under the objective standard accepted by the vast majority of appeals courts prior to Monday’s ruling.Facebook was not a party in the case.Elonis had claimed his posts under the pseudonym “Tone Dougie” were a form of therapy that allowed him to cope with the breakup of his marriage and being fired from his job at an amusement park.His lawyers said the comments were heavily influenced by rap star Eminem, who has also fantasized in songs about killing his ex-wife. Elonis’ wife testified that the comments made her fear for her life and she persuaded a judge to issue a protective order.After his wife obtained a protective order, Elonis wrote on Facebook: “Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?”Those and other comments led to his arrest. A jury found Elonis guilty under a law barring interstate communications that contain “any threat to injure the person of another.” He was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison and was released last year.Elonis was arrested again in April for allegedly throwing a pot that hit his girlfriend’s mother in the head. Police charged him with simple assault and harassment.Steven Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the decision “recognizes that the law has for centuries required the government to prove criminal intent before putting someone in jail.”“While today’s decision insists on fairness, it is not a license to threaten, which remains illegal when properly proved,” Shapiro said.While the ruling was seen as a minor victory for First Amendment advocates, University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelmann said it was also “not much of a loss for people concerned about harassment and domestic violence.”Elonis’ attorney, John Elwood, said he is confident Elonis will be vindicated when lower courts reconsider his case, possibly at a new trial.“We’re pleased that the Supreme Court saw the case for what it was: A criminal conviction for a “crime” of speech based on only a showing of negligence,” Elwood said.The Justice Department says 63 people were indicted on federal charges of making illegal threats in the 2013 fiscal year, up from 53 cases the previous year.___Follow Sam Hananel on Twitter at http://twitter.com/SamHananelAP by Sam Hananel, The Associated Press Posted Jun 1, 2015 9:26 am MDT Last Updated Jun 1, 2015 at 2:40 pm MDT AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to RedditRedditShare to 電子郵件Email Supreme Court throws out conviction over threats posted on Facebook read more