June 23, 2021
  • 5:29 am Gatland praises battle-hardened Wales
  • 5:29 am Connacht’s Keith Matthews to win 100th cap
  • 5:26 am Stuart Lancaster: An honest man who failed on the biggest stage
  • 5:26 am A week in the life of a Sale Sharks academy player, Part Three
  • 5:25 am Round Two: Six Nations Team of the Week

first_imgThe latest data regarding the outbreak would be available every day from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and the center would regularly hold press conferences, Juri went on to say.He added that updated information on 243 Indonesian citizens quarantined in Natuna, Riau Islands, would be among the information provided by the center.Read also: Indonesia readies plans for post-quarantine period: Health MinistryExecutive Office of the President undersecretary on human development Abetnego Tarigan expressed hope that the centralized distribution of information regarding the outbreak would avoid any stigmatization of the Wuhan evacuees quarantined in Natuna. The Executive Office of the President has opened an integrated information center to publish official data and information regarding the novel coronavirus at its office in the Bina Graha building in the Presidential Palace complex, Central Jakarta.The office’s undersecretary for political information and communication, Juri Ardiantoro, said on Friday that the information center would provide transparent data on a regular basis to avoid misinformation regarding the outbreak.“The information center will provide updates on the handling of the 2019-nCov in an integrated system [with input from] ministries, institutions and regional administrations,” Juri said at a press conference in Jakarta on Friday as quoted by news agency Antara. Meanwhile, the office’s undersecretary for politics, law, defense and human rights, Jaleswari Pramodhawardani, said she had met with the Natuna community and local officials during a visit on Thursday.She added that her team was assuring the local community that the government was actively handling the outbreak and would provide clear information to the public about what was happening there.“Unfortunately, we did not have direct contact with the evacuees being observed, because that is part of compliance with the WHO protocol,” she said, referring to the World Health Organization.Jaleswari said Natuna residents had accepted the government’s move to quarantine Wuhan evacuees on the island after receiving clear information from law enforcement authorities and government officials.The government’s decision to quarantine the evacuees there had previously been met with opposition from residents concerned about the coronavirus spreading in the region.“The government will always guarantee observation in accordance with health standards and protocols,” she said. (syk)Topics :last_img read more

READ MORE

first_imgThe home at 7 Watson St, Camp Hill.THIS character property has been transformed from a “rundown” house into a beautiful family home.Owners Jan and Lee Langford bought 7 Watson St as a project.“It was very rundown and very old,” Mr Langford said.“There were old newspapers under the lino, the kitchen was very old and the house wasn’t in a good state at all.” Inside 7 Watson St, Camp Hill.Mr Langford said they raised and extended the home to make it nearly four times the size.“The first thing we did was raise the house up as high as we were able to,” he said.“The original house had really high ceilings and we wanted the same downstairs. We also dug down so we could have a garage and media room.More from newsCrowd expected as mega estate goes under the hammer7 Aug 2020Hard work, resourcefulness and $17k bring old Ipswich home back to life20 Apr 2020“We made the most of the space available and we’re big believers of open plan living.”The four-bedroom home is on a 607sq m block with city and suburban views. Inside 7 Watson St, Camp Hill.The Langfords retained many of the original features of the house including ornate ceilings, leadlight windows and hardwood floors. On the basement level there is a double lockup garage, storage area and rumpus room.Internal stairs lead to the open-plan living, dining and kitchen area, which opens to the front porch and the alfresco entertaining area. The kitchen has stone benchtops, European appliances, breakfast bar and butler’s pantry.center_img The backyard at 7 Watson St, Camp Hill.There is also a master bedroom with built-in robe, walk-in robe and ensuite on this level, along with a laundry and powder room. On the top floor there are three more bedrooms, a family bathroom, sitting room and family room, opening to a balcony. Mr Langford said the home would suit a family chasing enough space for everyone to spread out and also come together.last_img read more

READ MORE

first_imgIt’s Selection Sunday week! Welcome to Edition 4.0 of Sporting News’ NCAA Tournament projections, known around these parts as the Field of 68.We’ll update these projections every morning this week. Even though seed lines might not drastically shift day-to-day, even minor movement seems monumental at this time of the year, and that’s worth updating, isn’t it? Newbies: Bradley, Cincinnati, Utah State, WinthropDropped out: Northern Iowa, Purdue, Radford, TulsaFirst four outN.C. State (19-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 51/54/44. vs. Q1: 4-5. vs. Q2: 4-5. vs. Q3/4: 11-2Richmond (24-7): NET/Pom/Sag: 37/46/53. vs. Q1: 3-4. vs. Q2: 3-2. vs. Q3/4: 18-1Wichita State (23-8): NET/Pom/Sag: 41/39/41. vs. Q1: 2-5. vs. Q2: 7-3. vs. Q3/4: 13-0Memphis (21-10): NET/Pom/Sag: 58/58/46. vs. Q1: 2-4. vs. Q2: 6-2. vs. Q3/4: 13-3Next four outMississippi State (20-11): NET/Pom/Sag: 50/47/45. vs. Q1: 2-7. vs. Q2: 6-2. vs. Q3/4: 12-2Purdue (16-15): NET/Pom/Sag: 33/24/23. vs. Q1: 4-10. vs. Q2: 5-4. vs. Q3/4: 7-1Northern Iowa (23-6): NET/Pom/KPI: 48/48/89. vs. Q1: 1-1. vs. Q2: 3-2. vs. Q3/4: 19-3Saint Louis (22-8): NET/Pom/Sag: 49/62/68. vs. Q1: 2-5. vs. Q2: 2-2. vs. Q3/4: 18-1 MARCH MADNESS BRACKET:Tracking the bids for 2020 NCAA TournamentOur goal is to give you a numbers snapshot for every team, and then maybe a note or two on most squads. This isn’t a projection of what the seed lines will look like on Selection Sunday, but rather an educated guess at how the bracket would look if the season ended yesterday. (Lots can happen between now and then, folks.) Our goal is to give you the information that will be used by the selection committee — a mix of statistics and other relevant facts for every single at-large team.As you know, even though numbers matter, they aren’t the only thing: The committee looks at an entire body of work, a process that includes many factors (injuries, etc.).Our Field of 68 automatic bids go to teams that fit these one of these three categories:Teams that have clinched their league’s tournament title (duh) are in italics.Teams that are the No. 1 seed in conference tournaments that have not yet started.Teams that are the highest remaining seed in tournaments that have started but not yet finished.Projected No. 1 seedsKansas (Big 12), Gonzaga (WCC), Dayton (A10), BaylorKansas (27-3): NET/Pom/Sag: 1/1/1. vs. Q1: 12-3. vs. Q2: 8-0. vs. Q3/4: 7-0Gonzaga (29-2): NET/Pom/Sag: 2/2/2. vs. Q1: 5-2. vs. Q2: 4-0. vs. Q3/4: 20-0Dayton (29-2): NET/Pom/Sag: 3/4/7. vs. Q1: 5-2. vs. Q2: 8-0. vs. Q3/4: 16-0Baylor (26-4): NET/Pom/Sag: 5/3/4. vs. Q1: 11-2. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Thoughts: Kansas, Gonzaga and Dayton are all No. 1 seeds, and it’s hard to imagine that changing, even if Dayton loses its A10 tournament opener to the winner of the UMass/VCU contest. If San Diego State had won the Mountain West tournament title instead of falling to Utah State, the Aztecs would have had a great case for a No. 1 seed — over Baylor, though, not over Dayton. The Bears have lost three of their past five games and have slipped from the top overall seed to the fourth overall seed. It would be surprising, but not stunning, to see the committee drop the Bears a seed, anyway.Projected No. 2 seedsSan Diego State, Florida State (ACC), Creighton (Big East), VillanovaSan Diego State (29-2): NET/Pom/Sag: 4/6/9. vs. Q1: 4-1. vs. Q2: 7-0. vs. Q3/4: 18-1Florida State (26-5): NET/Pom/Sag: 10/15/6. vs. Q1: 6-3. vs. Q2: 8-2. vs. Q3/4: 12-0Creighton (23-7): NET/Pom/Sag: 11/13/13. vs. Q1: 9-7. vs. Q2: 6-0. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Villanova (24-7): NET/Pom/Sag: 13/18/10. vs. Q1: 10-6. vs. Q2: 6-1. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Thoughts: There’s still fluidity and opportunity on the 2-seed line behind SDSU and Florida State. As many as nine different teams — the last two here, all four on the 3-seed line and everyone other than Wisconsin on the 4-seed line — could possibly wind up as a 2-seed with conference tournament titles. It’s not about the titles themselves, but runs to their respective conference titles for these nine schools (all power teams) would include multiple Q1 wins over high-quality teams; adding three of those in a week would be quite the resume boost. Remember, though, nothing happens in a vacuum, and the path to a 2-seed for some of the schools would require multiple other dominoes to fall, too.Projected No. 3 seedsMichigan State, Kentucky (SEC), Duke, Seton HallMichigan State (22-9): NET/Pom/Sag: 7/7/3. vs. Q1: 7-7. vs. Q2: 6-2. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Kentucky (25-6): NET/Pom/Sag: 21/28/11. vs. Q1: 9-3. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 11-1Duke (25-6): NET/Pom/Sag: 6/5/8. vs. Q1: 5-3. vs. Q2: 6-2. vs. Q3/4: 14-1Seton Hall (21-9): NET/Pom/Sag: 15/19/14. vs. Q1: 10-7. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 6-0Thoughts: It’s kind of amazing, the difference between the computer rankings for the teams currently on our 3-seed line. The metrics love Michigan State and Duke but hate Kentucky — almost as much as Louisville, Indiana or Tennessee fans — with Seton Hall snugly in the middle of the pack.Projected No. 4 seedsMaryland, Louisville, Oregon (Pac-12), Wisconsin (Big Ten)Maryland (24-7): NET/Pom/Sag: 18/11/20. vs. Q1: 7-7. vs. Q2: 7-0. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Louisville (24-7): NET/Pom/Sag: 8/9/18. vs. Q1: 4-6. vs. Q2: 6-1. vs. Q3/4: 14-0Oregon (24-7): NET/Pom/Sag: 12/17/17. vs. Q1: 8-5. vs. Q2: 6-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Wisconsin (21-10): NET/Pom/Sag: 24/22/12. vs. Q1: 9-8. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 8-1Thoughts: Louisville has the best metrics of this group — top 10 NET and KenPom — but by far the fewest Q1 victories, and that matters. (Heck, Oregon State and DePaul, two teams far outside the at-large conversation, have more Q1 wins than the Cardinals). This might be a little high for Wisconsin; the Badgers had an overwhelmingly “meh” nonconference showing but have been playing as well as anyone the past month or so. They’ve won eight in a row and, shockingly, captured the No. 1 seed in the Big Ten tournament despite at one point owning a 6-6 league mark.CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT BRACKETS:B1G | SEC | ACC | B12 | P-12 | Big EastProjected No. 5 seedsButler, Ohio State, BYU, VirginiaButler (22-9): NET/Pom/Sag: 19/25/25. vs. Q1: 10-6. vs. Q2: 5-3. vs. Q3/4: 7-0Ohio State (21-10): NET/Pom/Sag: 16/8/5. vs. Q1: 5-8. vs. Q2: 7-1. vs. Q3/4: 9-0BYU (23-7): NET/Pom/Sag: 9/12/16. vs. Q1: 3-4. vs. Q2: 5-3. vs. Q3/4: 15-0Virginia (23-7): NET/Pom/Sag: 42/44/22. vs. Q1: 5-3. vs. Q2: 7-3. vs. Q3/4: 11-1Thoughts: Speaking of “maybe too high,” Virginia doesn’t have impressive computer rankings by most metrics. But it has won 10 of 11, knocking off the ACC’s three heavyweights — Florida State, Duke and Louisville — in that stretch and rolling up to the No. 2 seed in the ACC Tournament. (That last part’s just an aside on how they’re playing, not a determining factor for the committee, by the way). Their resume is far from flawless, but with soooooo many teams checking in with 9, 10 or 11 losses heading into conference tournaments, the seven Ls the Cavaliers own starts to stand out.Projected No. 6 seedsAuburn, West Virginia, Illinois, IowaAuburn (25-6): NET/Pom/Sag: 27/34/24. vs. Q1: 7-3. vs. Q2: 7-2. vs. Q3/4: 12-1West Virginia (21-10): NET/Pom/Sag: 17/10/21. vs. Q1: 6-7. vs. Q2: 6-3. vs. Q3/4: 9-0Illinois (20-10): NET/Pom/Sag: 38/30/26. vs. Q1: 5-8. vs. Q2: 4-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-1Iowa (20-11): NET/Pom/Sag: 34/23/28. vs. Q1: 7-7. vs. Q2: 6-1. vs. Q3/4: 7-2Thoughts: Earlier this week, Auburn was 4-3 in Q1 contests and 9-2 in Q2 contests. Today, despite playing only one more game, the Tigers are 7-3 in Q1 and 7-2 in Q2. It’s not that the Tigers did anything, but multiple teams they’ve played reached the magic plateaus to jump up a level, and Auburn reaps that benefit, at least on the surface. Does that drastically change Auburn’s resume in the committee’s eyes? It will be interesting to see what it looks like in a couple of days. Remember how West Virginia was the No. 8 overall seed when the selection committee did its preview reveal in early February? Well, the Mountaineers lost six of their next eight games, with the only wins against teams outside the at-large conversation. That’s why their win against Baylor to close the regular season was so important; it was their first Q1 victory since mid-January.Projected No. 7 seedsPenn State, Colorado, Michigan, ArizonaPenn State (21-10): NET/Pom/Sag: 35/26/42. vs. Q1: 7-7. vs. Q2: 6-2. vs. Q3/4: 8-1Colorado (21-10): NET/Pom/Sag: 23/32/58. vs. Q1: 6-5. vs. Q2: 5-4. vs. Q3/4: 10-1Michigan (19-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 25/16/15. vs. Q1: 6-10. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Arizona (20-11): NET/Pom/Sag: 14/20/48. vs. Q1: 3-8. vs. Q2: 5-3. vs. Q3/4: 12-0Thoughts: Let’s talk for a moment about bad losses. Penn State had one to close the regular season, falling by double-digits to a Northwestern team that didn’t beat any Big Ten teams aside from Nebraska all year until the Nittany Lions came to town. Yikes. Same thing with Arizona, which lost its regular-season finale to a Washington squad that finished dead last in the Pac-12 standings (even win that win). And that happened in Arizona! Not a good look for a team that’s wildly overrated by most metrics — especially the NCAA’s own NET — and might be a big high here as a 7-seed.Projected No. 8 seedsSaint Mary’s, Houston, LSU, ProvidenceSaint Mary’s (24-7): NET/Pom/Sag: 31/37/39. vs. Q1: 2-4. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 17-2Houston (23-8): NET/Pom/Sag: 20/14/19. vs. Q1: 2-5. vs. Q2: 7-3. vs. Q3/4: 13-0LSU (21-10): NET/Pom/Sag: 29/36/36. vs. Q1: 4-8. vs. Q2: 7-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-1Providence (19-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 36/41/27. vs. Q1: 7-8. vs. Q2: 5-0. vs. Q3/4: 7-4Thoughts: I’m fascinated to see how the committee balances Providence’s plethora of Q1 wins with its barrage of Q3/4 losses. No other at-large team — or first four out team — has more than two Q3/4 losses, but the Friars have four. FOUR! Yes, they’ve been playing great lately, but if the full resume truly counts, as the NCAA has been telling us forever, it’s hard to see them above an 8-seed.MORE MARCH MADNESS:Last 10 games of season carry no significant weight in tournament selectionProjected No. 9 seedsOklahoma, Indiana, Rutgers, USCOklahoma (19-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 46/35/31. vs. Q1: 5-9. vs. Q2: 6-3. vs. Q3/4: 8-0Rutgers (19-11): NET/Pom/Sag: 32/27/30. vs. Q1: 4-9. vs. Q2: 5-1. vs. Q3/4: 10-1Indiana (19-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 60/40/35. vs. Q1: 4-10. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-0USC (22-9): NET/Pom/Sag: 45/54/49. vs. Q1: 5-7. vs. Q2: 6-1. vs. Q3/4: 11-1Thoughts: We were going to write this section earlier, but we were watching “Sesame Street.” Apologies. Indiana’s resume isn’t as bad as some folks seem to think. The Hoosiers have no bad losses (worst ones are to bubble teams Purdue and Arkansas) and five Q1 wins. That’s a solid bubble resume. Rutgers saved its chances with the wins against Maryland (home) and Purdue (road) to end the regular season. Big-time wins.Projected No. 10 seedsMarquette, Florida, Arizona State, Utah State (MWC)Marquette (18-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 26/31/40. vs. Q1: 5-10. vs. Q2: 6-2. vs. Q3/4: 7-0Florida (19-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 28/33/29. vs. Q1: 5-9. vs. Q2: 4-3. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Arizona State (20-11): NET/Pom/Sag: 52/64/65. vs. Q1: 5-9. vs. Q2: 5-2. vs. Q3/4: 10-0Thoughts: Selfishly, I was glad Utah State won the Mountain West auto bid, because then I didn’t have to lose sleep about its at-large status. The Aggies are in, and it wouldn’t shock me to see them make it through to the second weekend.Projected No. 11 seedsTexas Tech, UCLA, Xavier, Stanford, Texas, Cincinnati (AAC)Texas Tech (18-13): NET/Pom/Sag: 22/21/38. vs. Q1: 3-10. vs. Q2: 4-3. vs. Q3/4: 11-0*UCLA (18-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 76/77/57. vs. Q1: 6-7. vs. Q2: 3-3. vs. Q3/4: 9-2*Xavier (19-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 44/43/37. vs. Q1: 3-11. vs. Q2: 7-1. vs. Q3/4: 9-0*Stanford (20-11): NET/Pom/Sag: 30/38/62. vs. Q1: 5-7. vs. Q2: 2-3. vs. Q3/4: 13-1*Texas (19-12): NET/Pom/Sag: 69/61/47. vs. Q1: 5-8. vs. Q2: 2-4. vs. Q3/4: 12-0Thoughts: Four of the teams here had opportunities to close the regular season with statement wins, but Tech lost at home to Kansas, UCLA lost across town at USC, Xavier lost at home to Butler and Stanford lost at Oregon. Texas? The Longhorns went out and got smoked at Oklahoma State, snapping their five-game winning streak. It would be best to avoid going-one-and-done in the conference tournament.Projected Nos. 12-16 seedsNo. 12 seeds: ETSU (Southern), Stephen F. Austin (Southland), Liberty (Atlantic Sun), Yale (Ivy)No. 13 seeds: Bradley (MVC), North Texas (C-USA), Akron (MAC), Vermont (America East)No. 14 seeds: Belmont (Ohio Valley), Wright State (Horizon), UC Irvine (Big West), Colgate (Patriot)No. 15 seeds: New Mexico State (WAC), Winthrop (Big South), North Dakota State (Summit), Hofstra (Colonial)No. 16 seeds: Eastern Washington (Big Sky), Little Rock (Sun Belt), * Robert Morris (Northeast), *Siena (MAAC), *Prairie View A&M (SWAC), * North Carolina Central (MEAC)*First Four teamsTeams that have clinched automatic bids are in italics.last_img read more

READ MORE