LeBron James did not take facing elimination lightly, leading the Lakers with a historic first half performance in Game 4 against the Nuggets.LeBron James has spent 20 seasons in the NBA trying to prove that he's the greatest of all time. Now 38 years old and facing elimination at the hands...

Manchester United were drawing 0-0 with West Ham in January 2022 when, with the minutes ticking down, Ralf Rangnick brought on Edinson Cavani and Anthony Martial. It proved a fine double change, with each involved in Marcus Rashford’s injury-time winner. Its significance now, however, is rather different. Mason Greenwood was one of those removed: now his 129th United appearance will prove his last. What should have been a glittering career at Old Trafford in effect ended a few months after his 20th birthday. For now, he is still under contract, but in limbo. A six-month investigation has brought the conclusion that Greenwood will not play for United again. He may be sold or loaned out. His contract could be paid up. He has not been sacked, which United say they would have done had they determined he was guilty of attempted rape, assault or coercive and controlling behaviour, the charges first levelled and then dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service. But in January 2022, a week after Greenwood’s last game, pictures emerged of a bruised, bleeding woman, audio of a man seemingly threatening to rape her. That remains impossible to forget; to forgive, for many. Greenwood will not play for United again and nor should he. And so it is possible they reached the right decision, perhaps in the wrong way, possibly for the wrong reasons. There were plans to bring Greenwood back – though United insist they simply considered a variety of scenarios – and perhaps the most telling phrase in chief executive Richard Arnold’s statement was: “Further, this case has provoked strong opinions, and it is my responsibility to minimise any distraction to the unity we are seeking within the club.” Had Greenwood played again, it would have been Manchester Divided, not United. There were protests before Monday’s game against Wolves; there would have been far more were he to return to the team. The television presenter Rachel Riley said she would have stopped supporting United had Greenwood represented them again. She would not have been alone in that, either. The Manchester United Supporters Trust backed the decision not to bring him back, though not the lack of consultation for fans. There were staff at Old Trafford who felt it would be wrong to recall him, some of whom would not have wanted to encounter Greenwood in their line of work, maybe some who would have considered quitting their jobs. Perhaps United originally underestimated the strength of feeling. Perhaps, too, there were commercial considerations; the club’s image would have suffered considerable damage if he played, and has already been tainted. Because there is a tendency – often a wish – to celebrate footballers. But could United fans have cheered if Greenwood scored for them again? Would they have been in the awkward position of loving the shirt, hating the man wearing it? Footballers are imperfect people, as we all are, and some more than most, but there is a matter of character. The word is often used in football – when a team gets a late equaliser, when a player makes a comeback from injury – but there is a deeper meaning. If there is a moral test, Greenwood has failed it. Those who have been convicted of criminal offences have a right to work, let alone those who have not, but playing for Manchester United is not merely a job: it is a privilege. And if that invites questions as to at which level of football, if any, that stops being true and there is no definitive answer as to where Greenwood should be allowed to play, there could be a similar reaction at other clubs in England, should they try and sign him; it is still harder to imagine a scenario where he adds to his one cap for England. None of which makes him the victim. United argue they conducted a thorough investigation, showing concern for the woman in question, who has lifelong anonymity for legal reasons, speaking to her mother, showing her their findings, as well as a duty of care to Greenwood. Arnold said he was “satisfied that Mason did not commit the acts he was charged with”. None of which necessarily makes Greenwood innocent in the court of public opinion; as he accepted himself, his behaviour was wrong. “I fully accept I made mistakes, and I take my share of responsibility for the situations which led to the social media post,” he said. Yet if time is required to see if he does, as he has pledged to do, lead a better life and if there are reasons to keep some of the detail confidential, it would help to know if he has, for instance, spoken to a counsellor, or to victims of rape and domestic abuse, or donated to suitable charities. And if not, why not; these would not be automatically be admissions of guilt, but they would be a recognition he took the issues seriously. His other concern may seem trivial in comparison, though football can be a juxtaposition of the relevant and the irrelevant. But he has to find a club, with United pledging their help to do so. If his prime responsibility is to be a better partner and a good father, as he vowed, he may have a duty to himself to try and rescue his career and realise some of his potential. The teenage prodigy – the man Ole Gunnar Solskjaer deemed the best finisher at Old Trafford – had the talent to be a United great; he has not been found guilty of a crime or sacked by United, but it is still his fault he never will be. Read More Mason Greenwood will not play for Manchester United again, club announce Mason Greenwood speaks out on Manchester United exit: ‘I made mistakes’ Mason Greenwood timeline: How the Manchester United star fell from grace

There were some significant changes in Premier League points tallies when the 2021/22 season was compared to the freshly concluded 2022/23 campaign

Max Verstappen shrugged off set-up problems with his Red Bull car to blitz to pole position and set up another assault on the record books in Saturday’s hectic qualifying for...

Manchester United manager Erik ten Hag has praised Harry Maguire for "taking his chance" to get back into the team and put the onus onto Raphael Varane to reclaim his place.

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — Isaac Paredes and Yandy Díaz homered as the Tampa Bay Rays snapped a season-high, seven-game skid with a 10-4 win over the Atlanta Braves on Sunday in a matchup of teams with the best records in baseball.

Ben Lam became the latest player to see a yellow card upgraded to a red following a review from the TMO bunker during the Japan vs Samoa match at the Rugby World Cup. In the second half of the Pool D contest, Samoan winger Lam’s shoulder connected with the head of Japan back row Lappies Labuschagne while making a tackle, who went off for a HIA. Referee Jaco Peyper initially sent the flyer to the sin-bin but, using the bunker system, that was upgraded to a red card soon after, with the foul play review officer ruling that it was a shoulder direct to head with significant force and not enough mitigation to remain a yellow card. Lam’s dismissal was the seventh red card of the World Cup and is one of a number of disciplinary incidents which have shone a light on the consistency of officiating in this tournament. Arguably the most high-profile moment came on the opening weekend when an England player was shown a red card for the fourth time this year, as Tom Curry was sent off early in his side’s win over Argentina, following a head-on-head collision with Juan Cruz Mallia. However, apparent inconsistency among officials irked many, especially on social media, with other incidents of head contact across the opening weekend not being punished as severely. Later in that same match, Santiago Carreras only received a yellow card despite his leap in attempting to charge down a George Ford kick seeing his hip make contact with the England No 10’s head. During South Africa’s impressive 18-3 win over Scotland, Jesse Kriel’s tackle on Jack Dempsey in which his head clattered into that of his Scottish opponent wasn’t even reviewed by the TMO and wasn’t subsequently cited, while Chile captain Martin Sigren was only sin-binned despite a head-on-head collision while tackling a Japanese attacker. In the second round of action, New Zealand’s Ethan de Groot was sent off for his high hit during the clash with Namibia. But what are the laws around head contact and high tackles that referees are following and how do they decide on the punishment? Here’s everything you need to know: What are World Rugby’s laws on head contact? Head-on-head contact in the tackle comes under Law 9 of the Laws of Rugby Union, which covers foul play. Law 9.11 dictates “Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others, including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler” and Law 9.13 goes on to say “A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.” If a player breaks these laws and the act is deemed to be reckless or dangerous, then the referee is entitled to issue a yellow or red card. World Rugby also clarify the intent of the laws, stating in their guidelines that: “ Player welfare drives World Rugby’s decision making for zero tolerance of foul play, especially where head contact occurs. The focus must be on the actions of those involved, not the injury – the need for an HIA [a Head Injury Assessment] does not necessarily mean that there has been illegal head contact.” What are the punishments for head-on-head contact? Ok, this is where things get technical and debates start to occur. In March 2023, World Rugby issued their latest ‘head contact process law application guidelines’ to guide referees on whether foul play has occurred and how it should be punished. The referee has to go through a four-step process (detailed below) to determine the extent of the foul play and the sanction. The four steps are: Has head contact occurred? Was there any foul play? What was the degree of danger? Is there any mitigation? Step 1 (has head contact occurred?) is relatively straightforward, with head contact including the head and the face as well as the neck and throat area. If any head contact is made at all, we move on to Step 2. Step 2 (was there foul play?) is a touch more complex. The referees are told to consider whether the head contact was either intentional, reckless or avoidable – e.g. the defender is always upright. If it was, the tackler will be penalised and they move on to Step 3. However, if the head contact was deemed not to be foul play, the game continues. Step 3 (what was the degree of danger?) – judged from high to low – determines the initial punishment. A degree of high danger is judged on any of: direct contact rather than indirect, a high-force impact, a lack of control from the tackler, the incident occurring at high speed, the tackler leading with the head/shoulder/elbow/forearm or the tackle being reckless. If the referee judges there to be a high degree of danger, a red card will be shown. Meanwhile, low danger is judged as indirect contact, low force, low speed or no leading head/shoulder/forearm/swinging arm and a yellow card or even just a penalty to the opposition may be awarded. The final step, Step 4 (is there any mitigation?) determines whether the punishment can be reduced by one grade (i.e red card down to yellow card or yellow card down to just a penalty). Mitigation includes a sudden or significant drop in height or change in direction from ball carrier, a late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact area, a clear effort from the tackler to reduce their height or the tackler having no time to adjust. However, mitigation will never apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play. What about the Foul Play Review Officer/Bunker review? Introduced for this World Cup was the Bunker review system. This allows the referee to issue a yellow card to a player, sending them to the sin-bin while play goes on, where a Foul Play Review Official (FPRO) will then take another look at the incident and determine if the yellow card should be upgraded to red, allowing the game to continue rather than a long stoppage to debate this. This is what happened to Curry against Argentina. The referee crosses their arms to indicate a Bunker review will take place. Once a player is in the sin-bin, the FPRO has up to eight minutes to review the decision and decide if it warrants upgrading to a red card. If not, the player will return to the field after their 10 minutes in the sin-bin has elapsed. Read More Steve Borthwick questions World Rugby’s silence on red card inconsistency Ethan De Groot red card: Why was All Blacks star sent off at Rugby World Cup? ‘Ruining this World Cup’: TV presenter slams ‘grotesque’ refereeing as Wales beat Fiji Japan v Samoa LIVE: Rugby World Cup 2023 latest updates Scotland make sweeping changes for must-win Romania clash Australia coach says Wallabies can’t handle pressure as Rugby World Cup exit looms

Rangers have confirmed the appointment of Philippe Clement as their new manager. The 49-year-old arrives at Ibrox following the departure of Michael Beale at the start of the month. After playing at Genk and Club Brugge, Clement has won the Belgian Pro League as a manager with both teams and had Champions League experience with Brugge.

Australia has won the toss for the first time this series and opted to bowl in the fifth and final Ashes test against England

Blake Snell pitched six strong innings and Trent Grisham homered with four RBIs as the San Diego Padres cooled off the red-hot Houston Astros in an 11-2 win Friday night

As the Steelers look to make the leap in the 2023 season, these three players might not make it through the end of training camp with Pittsburgh.There are never not high hopes for the Pittsburgh Steelers based on the track record of head coach Mike Tomlin since he took over patrolling the sideli...

Warren Gatland faces a monumental task in his bid to take Wales to a third Rugby World Cup semi-final under his watch, but the Kiwi coach insists his team...