Thread - With their legacy & millions of fans Mohun Bagan & East Bengal have seen several iconic personnel over the years. This list includes players, officials...and groundsmen. Popularly known as "mali" two such groundsmen became legends in their own rights. #IndianFootball
More from Sport
Over 70 former professional rugby players are preparing for legal action against the sport’s governing bodies according to this report.
The group litigation seems to be in its early stages, but World Rugby & Unions will be starting to get twitchy.
THREAD on the key issues 👇🏼
1) Duty of care
Do the governing bodies (World Rugby, RFU, WRU etc) owe players a duty of care in respect of their health and safety? The answer is almost certainly yes (see for example Watson v BBBoC).
2) Breach of duty
Have the governing bodies breached this duty? This is the first of the major hurdles for any litigation.
The question is essentially whether they acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Did they know about the dangers of concussion and fail to act?
Or should they have done more to discover the dangers of concussion but failed to do so?
The NFL case was based on the fact that the NFL knew of the dangers and covered them up. I’d suggest that’s unlikely here. However, it may be that WR/Unions should have done more sooner.
Much will depend upon the state of medical/scientific understanding of concussion at the relevant times.
For example, in the early 80s it may be that there was no indication that concussion might cause long-term complications but, by the early 2000s, there was.
The group litigation seems to be in its early stages, but World Rugby & Unions will be starting to get twitchy.
THREAD on the key issues 👇🏼
Exclusive: Rugby faces group litigation action on concussion | @danscho1 reportshttps://t.co/i246r0c9IS
— Telegraph Rugby (@TelegraphRugby) December 7, 2020
1) Duty of care
Do the governing bodies (World Rugby, RFU, WRU etc) owe players a duty of care in respect of their health and safety? The answer is almost certainly yes (see for example Watson v BBBoC).
2) Breach of duty
Have the governing bodies breached this duty? This is the first of the major hurdles for any litigation.
The question is essentially whether they acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Did they know about the dangers of concussion and fail to act?
Or should they have done more to discover the dangers of concussion but failed to do so?
The NFL case was based on the fact that the NFL knew of the dangers and covered them up. I’d suggest that’s unlikely here. However, it may be that WR/Unions should have done more sooner.
Much will depend upon the state of medical/scientific understanding of concussion at the relevant times.
For example, in the early 80s it may be that there was no indication that concussion might cause long-term complications but, by the early 2000s, there was.
#swfc are finally back in league action tonight 8pm GMT away to Coventry #pusb
A relegation six pointer to kick off our second half of the season with 7 points separating us in 23rd and them in 16th.
A look of our numbers and theirs below and what they can tell us.
[thread]
I looked at the survival prognosis for teams in our position yesterday (https://t.co/rmVT8b5sFl).
Thankfully a prognosis is not a prediction, but it does bear out just how important tonight's game is.
Can we quantify match importance then?
Well, @FiveThirtyEight have given it a right good go and how they've done it is explained here: https://t.co/ObjB079Fjw
Their match importance rating ranges from 0 to 100 for a team.
In a game with a high match importance vs. a team with low match importance, a team's likelihood of winning increases: All else being equal, if match importance is 100 for the home team and 0 for the away team, the home team's odds of winning drop from Evens (50%) to 8/11 (58%).
If we look at the combined match importance ratings for both teams, tonight's game ranks 14th of the 317 matches with match importance ratings. Pretty important then!
Of our matches only the win against Bournemouth had a higher combined match importance than tonight's match:
A relegation six pointer to kick off our second half of the season with 7 points separating us in 23rd and them in 16th.
A look of our numbers and theirs below and what they can tell us.
[thread]
I looked at the survival prognosis for teams in our position yesterday (https://t.co/rmVT8b5sFl).
Thankfully a prognosis is not a prediction, but it does bear out just how important tonight's game is.
#swfc Derby's latest win over QPR leaves Wednesday six points adrift of 21st and safety with two matches in hand.
— Peter A. L\xf8hmann (@ploehmann) January 27, 2021
How have teams in those circumstances done in the previous 22 seasons?
[thread] pic.twitter.com/LxENys45wC
Can we quantify match importance then?
Well, @FiveThirtyEight have given it a right good go and how they've done it is explained here: https://t.co/ObjB079Fjw
Their match importance rating ranges from 0 to 100 for a team.
In a game with a high match importance vs. a team with low match importance, a team's likelihood of winning increases: All else being equal, if match importance is 100 for the home team and 0 for the away team, the home team's odds of winning drop from Evens (50%) to 8/11 (58%).
If we look at the combined match importance ratings for both teams, tonight's game ranks 14th of the 317 matches with match importance ratings. Pretty important then!
Of our matches only the win against Bournemouth had a higher combined match importance than tonight's match:
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
