RIO DE JANEIRO -- The prospect of a samba-style Super Saturday is still alive for Britain. For a time on Friday, though, it felt more like a Super Scare.Heptathlete Jessica Ennis-Hill started her first day of the seven-discipline event and Greg Rutherfold had to qualify for the long jump on Friday, so they could join 10,000-meter champion Farah in a bid for another three-gold-in-one-evening bash for British athletes late Saturday.All three won gold on the same night in London four years ago, and are trying to repeat.Ennis-Hill? Leading after four of seven events in the heptathlon and very much in the driving seat to take in gold, particularly since her main pre-Olympic rival, Brianne Theisen-Eaton is floundering in sixth place.Rutherford? That was a scrape with disaster, when he fouled on his first two attempts in qualifying, and had one jump left to keep up his share of the bargain.It was a funny one, said Rutherford, known for keeping his cool in the toughest of circumstances. With his last attempt, he made overly sure not to overstep and his only legal jump -- 7.90 meters -- stood for 10th place when only 12 can reach the final. He made the cut by seven centimeters.Going into the final round I definitely wasnt as stressed as my family were at home, he said. For me its one of these where you draw on all the experiences that youve had.Since his gold in London in 2012, he has clinched a Grand Slam of titles -- Olympic, world, Commonwealth and European -- coming to Rio. He rarely excels for the entire season, but on any big night, he is tough to beat -- exactly because of the cool he showed Friday.Over halfway home, and Jessica Ennis-Hill is where she wants to be -- on top.With a blistering 200 meters, the defending champion overtook surprise early leader Nafissatou Thiam of Belgium to regain the momentum going into the final day. She wished her shot put and 200 could have been better, though.With a time of 23.49 seconds in the 200, Ennis-Hill pushed up her total to 4,057 points, the only woman to break the 4,000-mark. Thiam was in second spot with 3,985.The heptathlon was expected to be a duel between Ennis-Hill and Theisen-Eaton but the Canadian appeared to struggle throughout the day and was in sixth position with 3,871.Now everyone in Britain is counting on Farah to come through too.---Follow Raf Casert on Twitter at http://twitter.com/rcasert Air Max 720 Release . From filmmaker Nanette Burstein (On the Ropes), The Price of Gold revisits the saga that rocked the figure skating world ahead of the 1994 Lillehammer Olympic Winter Games: the assault on Nancy Kerrigan, and the plot that led its way back to her rival Tonya Harding. Nike Air Max Plus Clearance . The FA rejected Wilsheres appeal that the length of his punishment was "clearly excessive" and said Thursday his suspension begins with immediate effect. He will miss league matches against Chelsea on Monday and West Ham on Dec. http://www.airmax720wholesale.com/air-max-270-wholesale/air-max-270-bowfin.html .S. Open champion Justin Rose birdied the first hole with a blind shot he hit to a foot of the pin, and he stayed in front Tuesday until he completed a 4-under 67 for a two-shot lead over Jason Dufner in PGA Grand Slam of Golf. Air Max 270 Pink Womens . What general manager Dave Nonis called "short and productive" negotiations ended with Kessel signing a US$64-million, eight-year contract on Tuesday. Air Max 270 Flyknit Sale .ca looks back at the stories and moments that made the year memorable. As the latest chapter in the BCCIs entanglements with the Supreme Court continued to unfold, three doomsday scenarios were put out into the world as to what would happen if the Lodha committees recommendations were pushed through:The New Zealand team would go home and Indian cricket would be humiliated.The Ranji Trophy would be cancelled and Indian cricket would collapse.The India team would pull out of world events and naturally world cricket would implode.As of now, Kane Williamson and his men are still around for the ODI series starting Sunday, the Ranji Trophy made its quiet seasonal progress despite impending disaster, and when last heard, the BCCI was still in active engagement with the ICC. The boards officials at the ICCs Cape Town meetings are on a mission, it is reported, to challenge comrade-turned current bête noire, ICC chairman Shashank Manohar.What were the triple threats of impending cricketing apocalypse meant to do? Get the public out onto the streets protesting against judicial overreach, showing their support for the BCCI and burning a few effigies? While it is said that often judges enjoy playing to the gallery with amusing observations, and that their orders are full of references to mighty minds through history, it is safe to assume that public approval or disapproval does not register on their radar.The BCCIs latest move was to inform the Supreme Court, that apart from their own response to the recommendation - hardly conciliatory - it had proved hard to persuade their members, i.e. the state associations to agree to the proposed changes to their individual associations.Withholding funding, the BCCIs counsel Kapil Sibal argued, was not an option, because it would put the domestic season in jeopardy. Chief Justice TS Thakur replied, Season or no season… we dont care about your season. Transparency and fairness must be there. Everyone needs to co-operate with the Lodha panel.We dont care about your season is shiver-me-timbers stuff for Indian cricket. Chief Justice Thakur has no doubt heard many lawyers make many such apocalyptic prophecies, either as diversionary or delaying tactics, and his response carried a brutal message of its own.The truth is that the state associations in Indian cricket do not function hand to mouth: in the post-IPL world, 25 state associations (excluding Services, Railways, All India Universities, Cricket Club of India and National Cricket Club), have each received between Rs 25 and 30 crores every year. With the accumulated corpus growing over the last seven seasons, most of them could run their cricket for three or four seasons without a sneeze.The few associations that are cash-strapped have had their BCCI funding held back due to a failure to audit their accounts or supply the ruling body with satisfactory balance sheets. Like the Jammu & Kashmir Cricket Association or Goa Cricket Association, and the perpetually shambolic Delhi and Districts Cricket Association, which has not held elections for the last three years. The death of the Indian domestic season was therefore offered to the judge like a trial balloon, and it was duly shot down with the response indicating the direction the court was willing to take.The bogey of recalcitrant associations is not unfounded, but it does not include the entire house. Vidarbha and Tripura have adopted the Lodha recommendations and there is a possibility that a couple of states are contemplating the same but checking the climate before doing so.The BCCIs argument that they could adopt several Lodha recommendations if only the states acquiesced struck a bum note. The boards four most senior office-bearers - president Anurag Thakur, secretary Ajay Shirke, joint secretary Amitabh Choudhary and treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry - are key functionaries in their state associations - Thakur, Shirke and Choudhary are presidents of Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra and Jharkhand respectively, while Chaudhry is secretary of Haryana cricket.Inn a world of utopian super-governance, the best way to get state associations to start falling in line would be to have these four key office-bearers issue directives to their associations.dddddddddddd Except, one of the key Lodha recommendations is that no official should hold roles in both the BCCI and state associations at the same time. Effectively, asking them to push their state associations to approach the Lodha recommendations with an open mind is to expect four very powerful men - a member of parliament, a successful businessman, a retired senior police officer, and a lawyer from an influential political family - to sack themselves. Not going to happen. The four have played significant roles in their state associations. There are new top-quality venues in each of their four states, and they must be given credit for their part in the creation and development of them. They have used their imagination, wealth and influence in cricket to visible effect. Naturally any challenge to their position will only be resisted.It is also now being circulated that it would be impossible to replace the top office-bearers of the BCCI with equally capable stand-ins. To turn the many admirable qualities of the top officials in Indian cricket through history into proof of their cast-iron indispensability is both unsuccessful use of spin and a limited understanding of the dynamics of power.At the level of policy, tours, IPL contracts, relations with the ICC and so on, the BCCI currently is run by a very small group - the top four-office bearers, in this case, with the help of a few political heavyweights in nebulous vice-presidential roles. The BCCIs daily cricketing operations are carried out by a number of largely anonymous salaried individuals who keep the machine moving, without the direct involvement or supervision of the office-bearers.If Jagmohan Dalmiya pulled in the money and kept the BCCI running through his office in Kolkata, with a capable secretary, a typewriter and a fax machine, the post-2005 era of N Srinivasan and Lalit Modi was marked by a retention of centralised power but a decentralisation of operations. The post-Srinivasan era, under Shashank Manohar at first, and now Thakur, has witnessed a greater flow of information, and the arrival of a CEO and an ombudsman - the latter being the result of the courts involvement and interest in the BCCIs functioning.Were the Lodha panel recommendations to be pushed through, what possible disaster could wreck the BCCI, and Indian and world cricket? No one in Indian cricket can possibly be quoted on this subject, so lets go with this neutral assessment: it would cause some disruption at the top, two or three weeks of uncertainty, a period of adjustment, and then a new set of officials would step in. All the while, a well-functioning machine will keep moving, and Tests, ODIs and first-class games will continue to be played.In November 2014, when the Supreme Court was told of the enormous role played in the development of Indian cricket by the former BCCI president Srinivasan, its response was, Recognition comes when one lakh [100,000] people turn up at Eden Gardens to watch a match. That recognition is not because of Srinivasan. The benefit of doubt must go to the game rather than the individual.That position has not changed. The establishment of a more compact governance structure in Indian cricket is of greater priority to the court than its impact on those currently wielding authority. Between then and now, the individuals in charge at the BCCI have changed but their responses to ceding power have been identical. And so its back to another round of the courts, and no doubt to another round of filibustering by the BCCIs counsel.No matter what is offered in public however, the sky in Indian cricket, it must be said, is not about to fall. ' ' '