Neuigkeiten » unmanly act of diving.

On Tuesday, Oscar Pistorius will finally learn his fate when Judge Masipa sentences the former Olympian for the death of Reeve Steenkamp. Nike Tanjun Cheap . Pistorius was found guilty of culpable homicide, which means Judge Masipa concluded he acted negligently when he killed Steenkamp. So by passing on the more severe charge of murder, Judge Masipa was saying she believed the shooting was an accident. Prison Time: Culpable Homicide Under South African law, the legislation does not provide for specific prison time for culpable homicide. Rather, the sentencing is discretionary (varies from fines to prison time), although its not unusual to see prison time in South Africa of 5-10 years for this type of crime. Still, given its discretionary nature, it’s possible that Pistorius will not face any prison time. Last week, the sides were back in Court for the sentencing hearing. During the hearing, both sides called witnesses with a view to persuading Judge Masipa of an appropriate punishment for Pistorius. Remember, since there is no jury system in South Africa, Judge Masipa will decide the punishment. Correctional Supervision v. Prison Pistorius’ lawyer, Barry Roux, is calling for three years of correctional supervision. Correctional supervision is a community-based sentence which is served by the offender in the community under the control and supervision of correctional officials, subject to conditions which have been set by the court or the Commissioner of Correctional Services, in order to protect the community and to prevent relapse into crime. Under correctional supervision, Pistorius could serve initial time in prison and then be released to serve the balance of his sentence under house arrest. Alternatively, he could be released immediately without spending any time in prison and serve his sentence under house arrest. Gerrie Nel, lead counsel for the prosecution, is demanding 10 years in prison and has said that house arrest would be “shockingly inappropriate” given the circumstances. Sentencing Hearing: In Support of Pistorius During the sentencing hearing, Roux was attempting to convince Judge Masipa that Pistorius was a man of good character who was genuinely remorseful and contrite for killing Steenkamp. As well, Roux sought to establish that South African prisons were incapable of accommodating someone with a disability and that Pistorius was not a threat to the community at large. The evidence presented by Roux was designed to seek the mercy of the Court and leniency during sentencing. To that end, Roux called a number of witnesses that painted a positive, honorable picture of Pistorius, while describing prisons in very unfavourable terms. First up was Dr. Lore Hartzenberg, a psychologist who treated Pistorius in 2013 after the killing. She testified that Pistorius was a “broken man” who has lost his friends and career, as well as his professional and moral reputation. Here are some of the statements she made in Court: - Some therapy sessions were just Pistorius crying, weeping and me holding him - He often showed signs of grief or remorse; sessions often had to be re-scheduled because he was so grief-stricken - When recounting sensory perceptions of the event, he would retch, sweat, pace up and down - signs of trauma. - He hasnt reached a stage of healing and acceptance - Pistorius was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He will carry flashbacks with him forever. - His remorse and pain is genuine. - We are left with a broken man who has lost everything. The next witness called by Pistorius’ team was Joel Maringa, a social worker for the Department of Correctional Services. In place of prison, Maringa recommended that Pistorius serve three years of house arrest together with community service, including 16 hours of domestic cleaning. We are basically not saying that he should be destroyed because he will still be coming back into the community, Maringa told the court. Pistorius: An Inspirational Figure Roux then called Petrus van Zyl, Pistorius’s business manager. He described Pistorius as an inspirational figure who has done a lot of charity and volunteer work. Van Zyn also spoke of Pistorius’ work with children, the positive reaction that the children and charities have to the Olympian and the fact that he sometimes let kids beat him in races. Finally, Roux called probation officer Annette Vergeer. She thought it was “highly unlikely” Pistorius would reoffend. She also testified that the prison facilities could not accommodate a person with a disability. She also believed that Pistorius would be a target in prison as a result of his celebrity and was at risk of gang rape, AIDS, tuberculosis, beatings and drug use. Prison would break him as a person, she told the court. She also recommended three years of house arrest. On cross examination, she admitted that her conclusions regarding prison conditions were based on a speech made in 2005 by a government official. For that reason, during closing arguments Nel described Vergeer’s testimony as “sketchy”, “outdated” and “negatively biased”. Prosecution Calls Its Witnesses The prosecution called Kim Martin, Steenkamp’s cousin. The goal of her testimony was to show how Steenkamp’s death devastated her family and friends. Nel also called Zach Modise, acting head of South Africas Correctional Services. He painted a more positive picture of South African prisons and testified that they could achieve the goal of correction, reform and rehabilitation. These are key guiding sentencing principles for Judge Masipa. I carved out a lot of the testimony from the sentencing hearing and played it on my radio show Offside together with my commentary. Click here to listen. The Decision It’s difficult to predict Judge Masipa’s sentence because she made a grave error of law in not finding Pistorius guilty of murder. However, if precedent is to guide us, Pistorius should be sentenced to 5 to 10 years in prison – and closer to 7 years. If the sentence is considered light by the prosecution, expect to see an appeal. On the flip side, Pistorius will likely appeal any jail time. Going into tomorrow, the only certainty in Pretoria is uncertainty. Whatever the outcome, no one should be surprised and some will be disappointed. Nike Tanjun Clearance . This time, Tebow was in a groove the entire second half -- not just in the waning minutes -- and his teammates on defence were getting gobbled up. Cheap Nike Tanjun China . -- The Val-dOr Foreurs made it to the Memorial Cup semifinal thanks to their workhorse goaltender and their ability to hang around like a bad cold. http://www.cheapniketanjun.us/ . As for regular Olympic spectators, theyre being warned that most travel insurance policies wont cover acts of terrorism or war. The Games in southern Russia, which run from Feb. 7-23, are being staged amid unprecedented security and under global warnings of danger.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Hey Kerry, I was watching the NBC coverage of Sundays Canadiens-Rangers game, and Mike Milbury and Ed Olczyk went off on the Canadiens for over-selling and embellishing to sell calls. In the third period, Carl Hagelin hit Alexei Emelin with a high stick and Emelin went down like a ton of bricks. Embellishment? Probably, but it didnt change the fact that it was a high stick. Did the sell by Emelin negate the high stick and the official basically said, "play on?" Or was this just a missed call? Morgan,New York, NY Morgan: I believe the play that you are referring to occurred with 8:24 remaining in the third period and the score tied at two. Carl Hagelin attempted a dump-in shot from the centre red line. Alexei Emelin lowered his posture to execute an active stick sweep check and contacted the puck as Hegelin was in the act of shooting. Emelin was legitimately struck in the mouth area with the blade of Haglins stick on the follow-through of an attempted shot. Emelins reaction to rotate his body away from the stick contact, then fall and grab his mouth was reasonable and not an effort to embellish and draw a foul. A player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if committed in a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion. No penalty was warranted to Hagelin on this play. I concur with Mike Milbury and Eddie Os analysis with regard to obvious embellishment committed by PK Subban and Tomas Plekanec in the second period of Sunday nights game. Even though the stick of Rick Nash did catch Subban in the face the upward launch with both legs was not a natural reaction or fall from being struck in that manner. Plekanecs theatrical performance was the absolute worst when he threw his head back and grabbed at his face after the flat blade of Brian Boyles stick slapped nothing but shoulder pad! Even though Boyles stick did not quite fit the criteria of a "high stick (above the height of the opponents shoulders) it was used in a careless manner and could certainly result in a slashing pennalty. Nike Tanjun Wholesale. Plekanecs embellishment was also worthy of a penalty that should have resulted in an on-ice numerical strength of four aside. Given Plekanecs blatant overreaction it could even been deemed a stand alone embellishment penalty if the ref wanted to send a clear message but I doubt he would receive much support. Power plays and special teams can often be the difference in these games as we have seen. Once the referees are fooled into calling a penalty or fail to respond to efforts of embellishment on a play the floodgates can open up without so much as a splash on the frozen pond. In the first round of these current playoffs there were six diving/embellishment penalties assessed. None were a stand alone diving penalty but deemed to be embellishment that was committed following the initial infraction. The first two embellishment penalties were assessed in Game 2 against Mats Zuccarello and Derek Dorsett of the Rangers in their 4-2 loss to the Flyers. The Rangers management was not impressed with those penalty calls and expressed their displeasure to the series supervisor. I wonder if the Ranger brass is singing the same tune after Sunday night. Since joining TSN in January of 2011 I have stated on numerous occasions the need to clean up the unmanly act of diving. When uncalled, embellishment rewards cheaters. I am often asked how the ref can call both an initial penalty and a dive; isnt it one or the other? In reality, embellishment is most often committed after a player has been legitimately fouled. When that occurs both illegal acts should be penalized. Three years ago I suggested that a double minor penalty be assessed to the diver when he was legitimately fouled and the referee was calling a minor penalty. It would take some guts for the refs to impose a strict standard on a call like this but the game would be better for it. The referees also have to know their calls would receive the full support of management. Until players that embellish are penalized by the referees and held accountable by the League with published fines and suspensions as prescribed in rule 64.3, this illegal act will continue to plague the game. Its time for everyone involved to man-up. ' ' '