Latest News

Devine denies Delhi Capitals once again in final over

Published

3 weeks ago

2026/01/28

Priyan

Sophie Devine defended eight in the final over [BCCI]

It felt like deja vu for Delhi Capitals. On January 11, Sophie Devine defended six in the final over to help Gujarat Giants secure their second win. Sixteen days later, she was once again tasked with defending a small total – eight runs – in the final over in DC’s chase of 175, after conceding 23 in her previous. Devine delivered once again, removing Niki Prasad and Sneh Rana, to give GG a three-run win. It took them to second place on the points table and a big step towards the knockouts.

Before that dramatic finish, DC had looked dangerous, thanks to late cameos from Prasad and Rana. From 100 for 6, the duo put on a 70 off just 31 balls to almost pull off a miracle.

Anushka Sharma walked in at 1 for 19 after Devine fell to Marizanne Kapp in the third over and, in a brief but decisive stay, wrested momentum from DC. Nervy at first, she soon settled, trusting her bottom hand and playing the ball rather than the bowler. A backfoot punch past mid-off off Nandani Sharma brought her first boundary, followed by a wristy clip through midwicket that underlined her control.

Kapp, with the best powerplay economy in this WPL at under five, bore the brunt in the fifth over as Anushka opened her shoulders for three fours, driving and whipping through square leg with minimal fuss. She struck eight fours in all and looked set for a big score, but after being dropped by Chinelle Henry at mid-off off Shree Charani, she attempted a slog sweep the next ball and was caught by Minnu Mani at deep midwicket for 39, leaving GG 73 for 2 in the ninth over.

Mooney held the innings with a composed knock. She was 16 off 18 balls when Anushka departed and had managed just one boundary until then. At the halfway stage, GG were 80 for 2. Jemimah Rodrigues’ decision to bowl out Kapp in the 11th over, however, worked in Mooney’s favour as she smashed three fours off her. Having found her rhythm, Mooney hit two more boundaries to backward point to bring up her first fifty of this WPL, off 40 balls. Mooney’s stay was cut short in the 17th over by Nandani’s slower ball.

The innings then unravelled, with GG losing wickets in a cluster between the 15th and 18th overs, including Georgia Wareham, Bharti Fulmali, Kanika Ahuja, and Kashvee Gautam, as Charani struck twice in an over.

Just as DC seemed to pull the game back, Tanuja Kanwar – who had missed the previous game – lifted GG to a competitive 174 with an 11-ball 21. She capped it 15 runs off Henry in the final over, smoking a six over the bowler’s head after hitting two fours. Charani finished as DC’s best bowler, returning figures of 4 for 31.

DC made a brisk start to the chase, reaching 41 for 1 at the end of five overs. But Devine removed Lizelle Lee off the final ball of the powerplay with a slower delivery. From the seventh over onwards, Kanwar and Ash Gardner bowled tight lines to Laura Wolvaardt and Rodrigues, conceding just 15 runs across three overs.

Although Georgia Wareham was taken for 12 in the tenth, it prompted the captain to bring Devine back – and she struck immediately, rattling Rodrigues’ stumps as the batter attempted a scoop. Two balls later, Gardner removed Kapp, and by the end of 12 overs, DC’s required run rate had climbed to 11.37. Wolvaardt soon fell to Gayakwad, leaving DC 85 for 5, and it became 100 for 6 with 75 needed from 33 balls.

But Devine struck in the final over, removing Rana and Prasad. Despite a tense two-run attempt and frantic running between the wickets, Devine’s slower deliveries and smart field placements saw both batters caught in the deep, allowing GG to hold on for a dramatic win.

Brief scores:
Gujarat Giants Women 174 for 9 in 20 overs (Beth Mooney 58, Sophie Devine 13, Anushka Sharma 39, Georgia Wareham 11,Tanuja Kanwar 21; Marizanne Kapp 1-34, Chinell Henry 2-38, Nandani Sharma 1-26, Shree Charani 4-31, Minnu Mani 1-23) beat Delhi Capitals Women 171 for 8 (Shafali Verma 14, Lizelle Lee 11, Laura Wolvaardt 24, Jemimah Rodrigues 16, Niki Prasad 47, Sneh Rana 29; Sophie Devine 4-37, Rajeshwari Gayakwad 3-20,Ashleigh Gardner 1-37) by three runs

[Cricinfo]

All News Advertisement

Latest News

Ranaweera’s four-for leads Sri Lanka to tense win over West Indies

Published

2 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

Inoka Ranaweera returned figures of 4 for 44 [Cricinfo]

Sri Lanka took a 1-0 lead in the ODI series with a tense ten-run win over West Indies, thanks largely to a match-defining performance from Inoka Ranaweera.

After being asked to bat, Sri Lanka posted 240 for 6, built on half-centuries from Hasini Perera (61 off 86) and Harshitha Samarawickrema (66 off 105). Captain Chamari Athapaththu made 27, while useful middle-order contributions from Nilakshika Silva and Kavisha Dilhari kept the innings moving at a controlled rate. A late cameo from Dewmi Vihanga, who struck 14 off six balls, ensured Sri Lanka pushed towards a competitive total in St George’s in Grenada.

But it was Ranaweera who tilted the contest. The experienced left-arm spinner returned figures of 4 for 44 from her ten overs. She removed the No. 3 Shemaine Campbelle cheaply, dismissed Chinelle Henry soon after, and then returned to break the dangerous stand of 89 between Stefanie Taylor and Jannillea Glasgow in the 40th over, just as West Indies were threatening to surge ahead. Ranaweera also accounted for Shawnisha Hector at the death.

Taylor’s 66 off 83 balls and Glasgow’s 50 off 67 had revived West Indies from early setbacks, and with Aaliyah Alleyne in the middle, the chase remained alive deep into the game. West Indies needed 18 from the last two overs, and 12 from the last six balls. However, Sri Lanka’s spinners held firm, with Dilhari finishing with three wickets, including two in the final over, to complement Ranaweera’s starring role.

West Indies were eventually bowled out for 230 in 49.4 overs. Sri Lanka have now won four of their last five ODIs against West Indies since 2017.

Brief scores:
Sri Lanka Women 240 for 6 in 50 overs (Harshitha Samarawickrama 66, Hasini Perera 61; Hayley Matthews 2-46, Karishma Ramharak 2-57) beat West Indies Women 230 in 49.4 overs (Stefanie Taylor 66, Jannillea Glasgow 50; Inoka Ranaweera 4-44, Kavish Dilhari 3-49) by ten runs

[Cricinfo]

Latest News

Trump brings in new 10% tariff as Supreme Court rejects his global import taxes

Published

7 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

US President Donald Trump has imposed a new 10% global tariff to replace ones struck down by the Supreme Court, calling the ruling “terrible” and lambasting the justices who rejected his trade policy as “fools”.

The president unveiled the plan shortly after the justices outlawed most of the global tariffs the White House announced last year.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the president had overstepped his powers.

The decision was a major victory for businesses and US states that had challenged the duties, opening the door to potentially billions of dollars in tariff refunds, while also injecting new uncertainty into the global trade landscape.

Speaking from the White House on Friday, Trump indicated that refunds would not come without a legal battle, saying he expected the matter to be tied up in court for years.

He also said he would turn to other laws to press ahead with his tariffs, which he has argued encourage investment and manufacturing in the US.

“We have alternatives – great alternatives and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” he said.

The court battle was focused on import taxes that Trump unveiled last year on goods from nearly every country in the world.

The tariffs initially targeted Mexico, Canada and China, before expanding dramatically to dozens of trade partners on what the president billed as “Liberation Day” last April.

The White House had cited a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president power to “regulate” trade in response to an emergency.

But the measures sparked outcry at home and abroad from firms facing an abrupt rise in taxes on shipments entering the US, and fuelled worries that the levies would lead to higher prices.

Arguing before the court last year, lawyers for the challenging states and small businesses said that the law used by the president to impose the levies made no mention of the word “tariffs”.

They said that Congress did not intend to hand off its power to tax or give the president an “open-ended power to junk” other existing trade deals and tariff rules.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with that view.

“When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits,” he wrote.

“Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”

The decision to strike down the tariffs was joined by the court’s three liberal justices, as well as two justices nominated by Trump: Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.

Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, dissented.

At the White House, Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of the Republican appointees on the court who voted against his trade policy.

He said they were “just being fools and lap dogs” and were “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution”.

Shares on Wall Street rose after the announcement, with the S&P 500 closing up about 0.7%, as businesses across the US cautiously welcomed the ruling.

“I feel… like a thousand-pound weight has been lifted off my chest,” said Beth Benike, the owner of Busy Baby products in Minnesota, which manufactures products in China.

Nik Holm, chief executive of Terry Precision Cycling, one of the small businesses involved in the case, called the ruling a “relief”.

“Though it will be many months before our supply chain is back up and running as normal, we look forward to the government’s refund of these improperly-collected duties,” he said.

The anticipated refunds and relief from tariff costs may prove elusive, however.

On Friday, Trump imposed the new 10% tariff under a never-used law known as Section 122, which gives the power to put in place tariffs up to 15% for 150 days, at which point Congress must step in.

Analysts expect the White House to consider other tools, such as Section 232 and Section 301, which allow import taxes to address national security risks and unfair trade practices.

Trump has previously used those tools for tariffs, including some announced last year on sectors such as steel, aluminium and cars. Those were untouched by the court ruling.

A White House official said countries that struck trade deals with the US, including the UK, India and the EU, will now face the global 10% tariff under Section 122 rather than the tariff rate they had previously negotiated.

The Trump administration expects those countries to keep abiding by the concessions they had agreed to under the trade deals, the official added.

“Things have only gotten more complicated and more messy today,” said Geoffrey Gertz, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

Reaction by major trade partners was relatively muted.

“We take note of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill wrote on social media.

The US has already collected at least $130bn in tariffs using the IEEPA law, according to the most recent government data.

In recent weeks, hundreds of firms, including retailer Costco, aluminium giant Alcoa and food importers like tuna fish brand Bumble Bee, have filed lawsuits contesting the tariffs, in a bid to get in line for a refund.

But the decision by the majority does not directly mention refunds, likely handing back the question of how that process might work to the Court of International Trade.

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the situation would be a “mess”.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG US, warned that the cost of litigation could make recouping funds difficult for smaller firms.

“Unfortunately, I’d say curb your enthusiasm, although I understand the desire for relief,” she said.

Steve Becker, head of the law firm Pillsbury, said the “best thing” for businesses would be if the government created a procedure that did not require filing a lawsuit.

[BBC]

“I think companies can be fairly confident that they’ll get their money back eventually,” he added. “How long it will take really is up to the government.”

Latest News

Tariffs ruling is major blow to Trump’s second-term agenda

Published

13 hours ago

2026/02/20

Priyan

[pic BBC]

Donald Trump had been warning for months that a Supreme Court decision like this would be catastrophic.

If the court curtailed his ability to impose these tariffs, he had said, it would be an “economic and national security disaster”.

A six-justice majority of the Supreme Court, in ruling against the president on Friday, didn’t care much about his concerns.

Congress, not the president, has the power to impose tariffs, the justices ruled. And nothing in the law that the president based his tariffs on, the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, delegated such sweeping powers to Trump.

The court’s decision represents a rare check on this president’s broad use of executive authority.

A majority of the justices over the past year have shown a willingness to allow Trump to press ahead with his agenda, particularly on immigration and reshaping the federal government, even as legal challenges work their way through the court system.

This case, which was fast-tracked through the court system as an emergency, slams the door on one such expansive use of presidential authority.

With several other major cases involving controversial uses of executive power, such as efforts to end birthright citizenship and to dismiss a Federal Reserve governor based on alleged improprieties, this may not be Trump’s only setback in the coming months.

At the very least, this decision weakens Trump’s hand when trying to force other nations to make concessions to the US and tarnishes his veneer of invincibility.

Weakness begets weakness, and America’s trading partners may be emboldened to take a tougher line with the US now that the president’s tariff powers have been curtailed.

It also opens up the possibility that the Trump administration may have to give back much of the tariff revenue it collected over the past year.

While the justices left this thorny issue to be decided by a lower court, Brett Kavanaugh in his dissent warned that the process is likely to be a “mess”.

The Trump administration had plenty of time to prepare for Friday’s decision.

Supreme Court precedent, and the attitude of many of the justices when the case was argued in court last November, indicated that an adverse outcome for the president was quite possible.

Jamieson Greer, Trump’s top trade adviser, said last month that the White House has “a lot of different options” on how to proceed if the tariffs were struck down.

“The reality,” he said, “is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward.”

The other options that could be at Trump’s disposal are more limited, however.

They require government agencies to produce detailed reports to justify imposing tariffs, and they have limits on their scope and duration.

Gone are the days when the president could threaten, or enact, triple-digit tariffs with the wave of a pen or the click of a Truth Social post.