Chryst: Badgers must control big plays going forward

first_imgBig plays doomed the Badgers, and Wisconsin football head coach Paul Chryst wasn’t happy about it.No. 3 Alabama scored three of their five touchdowns from more than 37 yards away from the goal line in its 35-17 win over Wisconsin Saturday night.Crimson Tide running back Derrick Henry broke runs of 37 and 56 yards for touchdowns, and Kenyan Drake’s 43-yard touchdown run with 8:02 remaining in the game put Alabama ahead 35-10.Allowing big plays didn’t sit too well with Chryst.“That’s one of the first things you look at,” Chryst said during his news conference Monday. “There’s a couple times where we didn’t leverage the football so we didn’t contain it. There was a couple times where we’ve got a guy in the gap and then he thinks it’s going back out, so he slides out of it and now you’re short a gap.”In addition to some missed assignments, Chryst said the coaching staff counted 17 missed tackles.Henry’s first touchdown run came on a fourth down in the first quarter. A stop there would have turned the momentum and given the Badgers good field position. The timing made the mistakes harder to swallow, Chryst said.“When you look at the situations,” Chryst said, “that’s what makes it even a little bit more frustrating.”Henry finished the game with 147 rushing yards, averaging 11.3 yards per carry.But Chryst said the defense is self-aware enough to realize their mistakes.“They own it. They are not trying to duck from it. They want to get better. They see it, and like I said, they were disappointed after the game,” Chryst said. “So I think it’s a group that wants to take advantage of this opportunity to get better this week.”Joe Schobert had a game-high 13 tackles, including two sacks. The redshirt junior outside linebacker said the tackling was subpar because Alabama excelled in spreading the ball out and creating space for their playmakers to work with.Schobert added it was a full-unit breakdown that led to the long runs.“Everybody on the defense had mistakes the other night,” Schobert said. “It’s something to learn from. There’s a lot of encouraging things from everybody.”last_img read more

"Chryst: Badgers must control big plays going forward"

State Supreme Court Rejects Assault Weapons Ban

first_imgThe Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to ban possession of assault-style weapons in the state does not meet the requirements to go for a public vote.Supporters of the Ban Assault Weapons NOW initiative did not submit enough petition signatures to make it on this year’s ballot. In addition, they will need support from the Supreme Court in order to go before voters in 2022. The group began the initiative following the 2018 mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 people dead. Attorney General Ashley Moody, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation opposed the amendment at the Supreme Court, while national gun-control groups such as Brady and numerous South Florida cities supported it.The Supreme Court reviews initiatives to determine whether ballot titles and summaries meet legal requirements before getting on the ballot. However, the court does not decide on the merits of the initiatives.Thursday’s 4-1 decision focused on part of the ballot summary that read the initiative “exempts and requires registration of assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to this provision’s effective date.”The court majority, comprised of Chief Justice Charles Canady and justices Ricky Polston, Alan Lawson and Carlos Muniz, said that provision “affirmatively misleads voters regarding the exemption” due to a contradiction within the text of the proposed amendment.That contradiction revolves around whether the exemption would apply to weapons or to the people who possess those weapons. The distinction could be important in situations such as if a gun owner dies.“Specifically, the next to last sentence of the ballot summary informs voters that the initiative ‘exempts and requires registration of assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to this provision’s effective date’ when in fact the initiative does no such thing,” the majority opinion said. “Contrary to the ballot summary, the initiative’s text exempts only ‘the person’s,’ meaning the current owner’s, possession of that assault weapon.”The proposal “does not categorically exempt the assault weapon, only the current owner’s possession of that assault weapon,” the majority added.I’m heartbroken to report that today, in a 4-1 decision, Florida’s Supreme Court, rejected the Ban Assault Weapons Now ballot initiative. This is a stark reminder that elections have consequences. Here is our official statement: pic.twitter.com/Fvt3Ph8jKk— Gail Schwartz (@gailbarb1) June 4, 2020 The justices rejected arguments by supporters that voters would automatically understand that owners’ possession of the firearms, and not the weapon, would be exempt.However, during oral arguments last February, Jon Mills, an attorney for Ban Assault Weapons NOW, said the exemption would apply to people who have the guns.He said “possession is the continual issue. It does not make sense to say that a weapon lawfully possessed itself.”Still, the ballot proposal “misleads voters to believe that any lawfully possessed assault weapons will continue to remain lawful,” the majority wrote.“As the opponents argue, if an individual registers and attests to lawful possession of an assault weapon, and then lends, gifts, or leaves in a will that assault weapon to a family member or friend, then that family member or friend would be in criminal violation of the initiative — a felony offense,” Thursday’s ruling said.Justice Jorge Labarga disagreed with the majority, writing in his dissent that “the ballot summary clearly summarizes the content of the proposed amendment.”The language objected to by the majority “is not affirmatively misleading,” Labarga wrote.“In fact, the language is accurate, and the majority simply concludes that the language is insufficiently narrow,” he added. “The ballot title and summary provide fair notice and equip voters to educate themselves about the details of the initiative. Consequently, the initiative should be placed on the ballot.”Gail Schwartz, the chairwoman of the political committee that is behind the proposal, is the aunt of Parkland student and victim Alex Schachter.“The Supreme Court, now controlled by the NRA in the same way as our governor and our Legislature, has fundamentally failed the people of Florida,” Schwartz said in a prepared statement Thursday.The court’s rejection of the amendment “does not change our commitment to rid Florida of these killing machines,” Schwartz continued. “After striving for two years for a safer state for our families, we’re just getting started.On the other hand, George Levesque, an attorney for the NRA, praised the Supreme Court decision.“I think it is a huge victory for those who enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights,” Levesque sad. “But it is also a victory for the people of Florida, in terms of making sure that when they are asked to amend their Constitution, they are going to get an accurate description of what the amendment does.”last_img read more

"State Supreme Court Rejects Assault Weapons Ban"

Exclusive – Meulensteen: Man United should have promoted from within to replace Ferguson

first_imgFormer Manchester United first-team coach Rene Meulensteen believes the club were wrong to appoint David Moyes instead of turning to someone already at Old Trafford to lead the side into a new era after Sir Alex Ferguson.The Scot was effectively annointed by Ferguson as the new Red Devils manager last summer but did not last the season as the then Premier League champions finished a dismal seventh.Moyes was sacked with four games left of the season and Meulensteen claims United, who are now being led by Louis van Gaal, made a mistake in breaking the continuity and stability built up over 27 years by Ferguson.“Being there with him first hand, I always felt the biggest challenge for Manchester United was managing the time after Sir Alex Ferguson announced his retirement,” Meulensteen told Sunday Exclusive.“There were only two ways about it – to bring in someone from outside, which they did with David Moyes, or to try and build it from within, which I personally thought would have been the better option.“Manchester United is such a unique club and SIr Alex Ferguson has been so important in building that uniqueness. There’s been a lot of continuity and stability which are the two main parts for any club to be successful.“That would have been the key to make sure you maintain that. You maintain that continuity, the stability and the philosophy that has run through the club for so many years.”Moyes took a bold approach after succeeding Ferguson by completely rejigging his backroom team, but it was a decision many questioned and, ultimately, it was one which backfired the former Everton chief.But Meulensteen, who spent six seasons as coach at Old Trafford, believes the legendary Scot could not have pre-empted just how far United would fall under his compatriot’s leadership.“He had 27 years at the club and he made it the biggest club in the world, a unique club and unique brand,” the Dutchman added. “I’m 100 per cent sure he will be very disappointed. He will be surprised. He honestly though David Moyes was the right man to step into it.“I don’t think he never ever anticipated that David Moyes would get rid of his backroom staff. I think that is where the core of the problems started.”last_img read more

"Exclusive – Meulensteen: Man United should have promoted from within to replace Ferguson"