Jumat, 08 Juni 2012

tugas 3 bahasa inggris 2 (passive voice)

NAMA : YUNITA TRISYANI

NPM : 24209995

KELAS : 3EB11

Head Injuries in Football

Jim Davis/The Boston Globe

Updated: Oct. 21, 2010

Head injuries, including concussions, particularly in the game of American football, have become a subject of deep concern, much study and even Congressional hearings in the United States.

Concussions

Contrary to popular belief, a concussion is not a bruise to the brain caused by hitting a hard surface. Indeed, no physical swelling or bleeding is usually seen on radiological scans. The injury generally occurs when the head either accelerates rapidly and then is stopped, or is spun rapidly.

This violent shaking causes the brain cells to become depolarized and fire all their neurotransmitters at once in an unhealthy cascade, flooding the brain with chemicals and deadening certain receptors linked to learning and memory. The results often include confusion, blurred vision, memory loss, nausea and, sometimes, unconsciousness.

Neurologists say once a person suffers a concussion, he is as much as four times more likely to sustain a second one. Moreover, after several concussions, it takes less of a blow to cause the injury and requires more time to recover.

Studies on Head Injuries

A 2000 study surveyed 1,090 former N.F.L. players and found more than 60 percent had suffered at least one concussion in their careers and 26 percent had had three or more. Those who had had concussions reported more problems with memory, concentration, speech impediments, headaches and other neurological problems than those who had not, the survey found.

A 2007 study conducted by the University of North Carolina's Center for the Study of Retired Athletes found that of the 595 retired N.F.L. players who recalled sustaining three or more concussions on the football field, 20.2 percent said they had been found to have depression. That is three times the rate of players who have not sustained concussions.

As scrutiny of brain injuries in football players has escalated in the past few years, with prominent professionals reporting cognitive problems and academic studies supporting a link more generally, the N.F.L. and its medical committee on concussions have steadfastly denied the existence of reliable data on the issue.

But in September 2009, a study commissioned by the N.F.L. reported that Alzheimer's disease or similar memory-related diseases appear to have been diagnosed in the league's former players vastly more often than in the national population — including a rate of 19 times the normal rate for men ages 30 through 49.

The study, which was conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, has not been peer-reviewed, but the findings fall into step with several recent independent studies regarding N.F.L. players and the effects of their occupational head injuries.

Congressional Hearing

After the study results were reported, Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, held a hearing on the impact of head injuries sustained by N.F.L. players.

The league and Commissioner Roger Goodell had insisted that the N.F.L.'s policies were safe and that no third-party involvement was necessary, pointing to research by its committee on concussions as proof. But after an embarrassing hearing on the issue before the House Judiciary Committee in which the league was compared to the tobacco industry, the doctors leading the league's committee resigned.

In December 2009, the league announced that it would impose its most stringent rules to date on managing concussions, requiring players who exhibit any significant sign of concussion to be removed from a game or practice and be barred from returning the same day.

Several members of Congress portrayed Mr. Goodell and the league as impeding proper player care and obfuscating the long-term effects of concussions. The league and a former co-chairman of its committee on brain injuries, Dr. Ira Casson, have consistently played down studies and anecdotal evidence linking retired N.F.L. players to brain damage commonly associated with boxers and dementia rates several times that of the national population.

The N.F.L. Players Association called for the removal of Dr. Casson, saying that he is too biased to lead the research and policy group.

On Nov. 24, 2009, Dr. Casson and Dr. David Viano, co-chairmen of the committee, resigned from the group.

In a memo to all teams in which he outlined several measures regarding concussions, Commissioner Goodell said that Dr. Casson and Dr. Viano would "continue to assist the committee," but offered no details of any future relationship.

Several doctors testified to links they have found between sports head trauma and later cognitive degeneration. Dr. Ann McKee, who has studied the brains of football players after death, testified that she believed the connection was clear and called for immediate changes to the game and concussion treatment.

Changes in N.F.L. Rules

The National Football League on Dec. 3, 2009, announced that it would impose its most stringent rules to date on managing concussions, requiring players who exhibit any significant sign of concussion to be removed from a game or practice and be barred from returning the same day.

The league's former practice of allowing players to return when their concussion symptoms subside has been criticized for putting its players at risk. It is widely known that symptoms of a concussion can reappear hours or days after the injury, indicating that the player had not healed from the initial blow.

Symptoms that require immediate removal include amnesia, poor balance and an abnormal neurological examination, whether or not those symptoms quickly subside. For symptoms like dizziness and headache, however, a player can return to the field unless they are "persistent," the statement said.

In July 2010, the N.F.L. asserted greater risks of head injury and toughened warnings by producing a poster that bluntly alerts its players to the long-term effects of concussions, using words like "depression" and "early onset of dementia."

Limited Standard for Helmets

Football helmets are made in a largely unmonitored world.

The one helmet standard was written by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, or Nocsae, a volunteer consortium that includes, and is largely financed by, the helmet makers themselves. Nocsae accepts no role in ensuring that helmets, either new or old, meet even its limited requirement. The standard has not changed meaningfully since it was written in 1973, despite rising concussion rates in youth football.

Moreover, used helmets worn by the vast majority of young players encountered stark lapses in the industry’s few safety procedures. Some of the businesses that recondition helmets ignored testing rules, performed the tests incorrectly or returned helmets that were still in poor condition. More than 100,000 children are wearing helmets too old to provide adequate protection — and perhaps half a million more are wearing potentially unsafe helmets that require critical examination, according to interviews with experts and industry data.

Awareness of head injuries in football was heightened in October 2010 when helmet-first collisions caused the paralysis of a Rutgers University player, a concussion to Philadelphia Eagles receiver DeSean Jackson and injuries to three other N.F.L. players. Although some injuries are unavoidable results of football physics, helmet standards have not kept up with modern football, industry insiders said.

After more than 100 high school and college football players in the 1960s were killed by skull fractures and acute brain bleeding, Nocsae was formed to protect players against the extreme forces that caused those injuries. The resulting standard, phased in by all levels of football through the 1970s, requires helmets to withstand a 60-inch free fall without allowing too much force to reach the skull.

This standard has accomplished its intent: skull fractures in football have essentially disappeared, and the three or four football-related deaths each year among players under 18 are caused by hits following a concussion that has not healed (known as second-impact syndrome) rather than by a single fatal blow.But as the size and speed of players have increased since the full adoption of the Nocsae standard in 1980, concussion rates have as well.

While bicycle helmets are designed to withstand only one large impact before being replaced, football helmets can encounter potentially concussive forces hundreds of times a season. Helmets cannot get too large or heavy, so helmet designers say they face a trade-off: make helmets stiff enough to withstand high impacts and allow less violent forces to cause concussions, or more softly cushion against concussive-type forces while allowing large impacts to crack the skull. The helmet industry has essentially chosen the former.

ARTICLE 2

Rutgers Football: Are Recruits Being Taken for a Ride or to Be Applauded?

There was no question that when Greg Schiano suddenly resigned from coaching RU, and RU was jilted by Mario Cristobal during negotiations to be RU's head coach, new head coach Kyle Flood inherited a situation at a major crossroads.
Not only did the Scarlet Knights face high expectations this fall, finishing a game out of a tie for first place in the Big East and returning the majority of their key players, but they were set to welcome in the best recruiting class in the history of the program.
With just days to signing day, rival coaches were set to poach RU's class, and it seemed that was an inevitability.
However, that didn't happen.
With glue and tape, Kyle Flood, with the rest of his coaching staff in a state of flux, held this impressive class together.
How did he do it?
Last month, Philadelphia columnist Mike Kern of PhillyNews.com reported that sources were telling him RU had been telling recruits it was planning on moving to the Big Ten "sooner than later."
Rutgers has yet to comment on that report.
So is RU coach Kyle Flood one hell of a salesman or is this just a baseless rumor?

Will RU ever be in the Big Ten?

Let's deal with the second part first.
Clearly, without a named source, this is hard to prove. However, it's a little strange to make this up, particularly with the way Rutgers has flirted with the Big Ten over the last four or five years.
Second, let's look at the language—"plans on moving to the Big Ten." I am planning on being a millionaire. It may not happen.
That sort of equivocating language allows someone to say anything without really lying.
I will believe this Big Ten thing when the contracts are being signed. It seems every other school who has wanted to switch conference allegiances these past few years have been able to do it and for some reason, Rutgers has been left in the cold.
So while it is admirable that these recruits held firm to their commitments to Rutgers, if they were banking on the Big Ten, they may be taken for a ride.

PASSIVE VOICE	SENTENCES	TRANSLATE
Past tense	- The one helmet standard was written by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment	Sebuah helm standar ditulis oleh Komite Operasi Nasional Standar Peralatan Athletic
Past tense	- After more than 100 high school and college football players in the 1960s were killed by skull fractures and acute brain bleeding	Setelah lebih dari 100 sekolah tinggi dan pemain sepak bola perguruan tinggi pada tahun 1960 dibunuh oleh patah tulang tengkorak dan pendarahan otak akut
Present tense	- a volunteer consortium that includes, and is largely financed by, the helmet makers themselves	Konsorsium sukarela yang mencakup, dan sebagian besar dibiayai oleh, helm pembuat sendiri
Present tense	- the three or four football-related deaths each year among players under 18 are caused by hits following a concussion that has not healed (known as second-impact syndrome) rather than by a single fatal blow	Tiga atau empat berhubungan dengan sepak bola kematian setiap tahun di antara pemain di bawah 18 disebabkan oleh hits setelah gegar otak yang belum sembuh (dikenal sebagai sindrom dampak kedua) bukan oleh pukulan fatal tunggal
Present perfect	- similar memory-related diseases appear to have been diagnosed in the league's former players vastly more often than in the national population	Mirip memori penyakit terkait tampaknya telah didiagnosis pada mantan pemain liga jauh lebih sering daripada populasi nasional
Present perfect	- The league's former practice of allowing players to return when their concussion symptoms subside has been criticized for putting its players at risk	Praktek Yang pertama liga yang memungkinkan pemain untuk kembali ketika gegar otak mereka gejala mereda telah dikritik karena menempatkan pemainnya pada risiko
Present Continous	Rutgers Football: Are Recruits Being Taken for a Ride or to Be Applauded?	Rutgers Sepakbola: Apakah Merekrut Menjadi diambil untuk naik atau harus bertepuk tangan?
Present Continous	I will believe this Big Ten thing when the contracts are being signed	Saya akan percaya hal Sepuluh Besar ketika kontrak ditandatangani

tugas bahasa inggris 3 (passive voice)

NAMA : YUNITA TRISYANI

NPM : 24209995

KELAS : 3EB11

Head Injuries in Football

Jim Davis/The Boston Globe

Updated: Oct. 21, 2010

Head injuries, including concussions, particularly in the game of American football, have become a subject of deep concern, much study and even Congressional hearings in the United States.

Concussions

Studies on Head Injuries

Congressional Hearing

The N.F.L. Players Association called for the removal of Dr. Casson, saying that he is too biased to lead the research and policy group.

On Nov. 24, 2009, Dr. Casson and Dr. David Viano, co-chairmen of the committee, resigned from the group.

Changes in N.F.L. Rules

Limited Standard for Helmets

Football helmets are made in a largely unmonitored world.

ARTICLE 2

Rutgers Football: Are Recruits Being Taken for a Ride or to Be Applauded?

Will RU ever be in the Big Ten?

Minggu, 08 April 2012

The Litigation Football: Where Shall1 We Play, and Whose Rules Apply?

The Litigation Football: Where Shall¹ We Play, and Whose Rules Apply?

If a lawsuit was like a football game and there was a coin flip just before the case began, we wouldn’t choose whether to receive the kickoff or defend a goal. We might instead² be deciding what state’s law should apply³ to the case and where the case should be litigated.

There is no coin flip at the outset of a lawsuit, but many times we do nonetheless have an opportunity to make those exact choices. And to the surprise of many people, deciding where to litigate and what state’s law to apply, are two different decisions.

Choice of Law

It’s not unusual for business disputes to involve parties in two or more different jurisdictions. When that happens and the case ends up in court, the judge must determine⁴ what law to apply. State laws sometimes vary significantly. The outcome of a case may sometimes⁵ depend on which state’s law applies to a critical issue in the litigation.

In the absence of a contractual provision saying what law will apply⁶, a court will use⁷ conflicts of law principles in determining what law should be used when two or more different laws might be applicable. Even conflicts of law principles may vary from one⁸ state to another.

To provide a greater level of certainty and to remove a potential conflict between parties, they will often⁹ state in the contract what state’s law will apply. Parties in California and New York, for example, might choose¹⁰ when entering a contract to agree that in the event of a dispute, California law will apply.

They need to be careful, however Depending on the facts, it is possible that California’s conflicts of law principles would state¹¹ that New York law should apply in a given case. So many parties will specify that a given state’s law will apply regardless of that state’s conflicts of law principles. In other words, if the contract says California law will apply, then California law really will apply and there will be no opportunity for someone to argue that California’s conflicts of law principles actually call for New York law to apply.

A note of caution: if the case is heard in one state and the law of another state is supposed to apply, a court may nonetheless¹² refuse to apply the other jurisdiction’s law if that law conflicts with a key public policy of the state where the case is being heard.

Choice of Venue

While choice of law is a very common term in contracts, choice of venue does not seem to be quite as prevalent. And some people are not aware that just because you say that one state’s law applies, that does not mean the case has to be heard in that state.

A New York court, for example, can certainly apply California law in deciding a case. A court may be most comfortable applying the law of its own state, but courts are sometimes called upon to apply the law of another state. Suppose that in our example the two parties specify that California law is to apply, without regard to conflicts of law principles. But the party domiciled in New York files suit first – in New York. If jurisdiction is proper in New York, that court might well¹³ end up hearing the case but in accordance with California law pursuant to the choice of law term in the contract.

So parties frequently also specify where a case will be heard. Sometimes they even specify that the courts in a specific county will hear the case, rather than just saying the case will be heard somewhere in the state. It’s a good practice for that provision to also state that both parties agree to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the chosen court. That’s to prevent the California party, for example, from arguing that the New York court has no jurisdiction over it.

Many years of casual observation suggest that, historically at least, companies would more often include a choice of law provision than they would use a choice of venue provision. We think that’s a curious choice, and both should be used when possible.

Advantages

If one knows at the time they are negotiating a contract what some future dispute might be about and if one researched the law of all states whose law might potentially apply to see how they would treat that dispute and the facts involved, then choosing what law applies could be very helpful. You could knowingly predict the issue and influence the outcome by choosing what law applies. But absent that prescient knowledge, it would seem the primary benefit of a choice of law provision is to remove an issue about which parties in litigation might fight. It might save them time and legal fees to avoid that fight, but it would not give them particular comfort that they would have an advantage over the other party in the litigation.

Selection of venue, on the other hand, offers additional advantages. Similar to a choice of law provision, it can avoid the time and cost of a fight over where the case should be heard. The bonus is that the party that is able to prevail in negotiations over a choice of venue term can give itself a better chance that the case will be heard in their chosen location. Usually, that will be at the site of their home office or the location of a branch office that is involved in the case.

Lawyers talk of the “hometown” effect. If you’re a New York company, what judge and jury would you like to hear your case: one in New York? Or one in Texas, Louisiana, California or many other jurisdictions, some of which are considered by some observers as being poor places to litigate.

And where would you like the trial to take place: in the location where your records and witnesses are located? And where your usual corporate lawyers are based? Or would you want to have to transport witnesses and engage counsel you’ve never worked with before in a distant jurisdiction? Or even use two firms, one at the distant case plus your normal firm, with the attendant cost?

There seem to be many potential benefits flowing form a venue selection provision. If your client is able to swing the negotiation their way, it’s a great term to have in the contract. If your client doesn’t have the negotiating whack to get their choice, maybe it’s best not to bring it up as long as the other side doesn’t; if they do bring it up, maybe your client can get the provision dropped altogether.

Explanation :

The Litigation Football: Where Shall We Play, and Whose Rules Apply?

Shall we play = polite question to make a suggestion

We might instead² be deciding what state’s law should apply³ to the case and where the case should be litigated.

Might instead = less than 50% certainly

We might instead² be deciding what state’s law should apply³ to the case and where the case should be litigated.

Should apply = advisability

When that happens and the case ends up in court, the judge must determine⁴ what law to apply

Must determine = 95 % certainty

The outcome of a case may sometimes⁵ depend on which state’s law applies to a critical issue in the litigation.

May sometimes = less than 50% certainly

In the absence of a contractual provision saying what law will apply⁶, a court will use⁷ conflicts of law principles in determining what law should be used when two or more different laws might be applicable

Will apply = polite request

Will use = 100% certainty

Might be applicable = less than 50% certainty

nittambul

Jumat, 08 Juni 2012

tugas 3 bahasa inggris 2 (passive voice)

Rutgers Football: Are Recruits Being Taken for a Ride or to Be Applauded?

Will RU ever be in the Big Ten?

Will RU ever be in the Big Ten?

·Yes

·No

Rutgers Football: Are Recruits Being Taken for a Ride or to Be Applauded?

tugas bahasa inggris 3 (passive voice)

Rutgers Football: Are Recruits Being Taken for a Ride or to Be Applauded?

Will RU ever be in the Big Ten?

Will RU ever be in the Big Ten?

·Yes

Minggu, 08 April 2012

The Litigation Football: Where Shall1 We Play, and Whose Rules Apply?