MELBOURNE, Australia - Tennis fans learned two things about Rafael Nadal. Minkah Fitzpatrick Jersey . He doesnt like sleep or math.The 14-time Grand Slam winner advanced Friday to the fourth round of the Australian Open, beating Dudi Sela in straight sets. He expended much less time and energy than he had in his 5-set, third-round match that lasted over four hours.On-court interviewer Jim Courier asked Nadal if he had done anything special to recover between the two rounds.Sleep? Nadal replied, prompting Courier to ask if he normally doesnt sleep between matches.Seriously, I dont like to sleep a lot. I feel that when I am sleeping that I am losing time, Nadal said.Ahead of the tournament, the 28-year-old Spaniard insisted he was not match fit in the wake of a right wrist injury and appendix surgery that sidelined him for much of the last half of 2014.Courier tried to get Nadal to quantify how he feels, asking him on a scale of 0 to 100 per cent how does he feel physically? Courier, who won four Grand Slams before retiring, waited as Nadal gave a long response that didnt answer the questions. He pressed him again.I want a number, Courier said.The crowd laughed, and Nadal did, too.I was never very good at mathematics, Nadal said.By Jocelyn Gecker -- http://twitter.com/jgecker___LAUGH IT OFF: When youre getting trounced by Rafael Nadal and you cant even get a call to go your way, sometimes you just need to laugh at the situation.Dudi Sela was trailing 6-1, 4-0 in his third-round match against Nadal at Rod Laver Arena when he hit a beautiful running forehand passing shot that appeared to clip the line. Nadal challenged the call, however, and the video review showed it was out.Stunned, Sela smiled and held up his arms in disbelief. He then appealed to Nadals generosity and held up a finger as if to say, Cmon just give me one?Nadal smiled and the crowd began to laugh. The point, however, went to the Spaniard.For the crowd, they paid money and I dont want them to go after 45 minutes, so I tried to do something, Sela said. Tried a little bit to entertain.By Justin Bergman -- https://twitter.com/justinb3rg___POKER FACE: Some players cheer themselves on after great shots or vent frustration at the bad ones. Not Maria Sharapova.The No. 2-ranked Sharapova keeps a poker face, which was on display Friday as she cruised to a 6-1, 6-1 win over Zarina Diyas in the third round. The match lasted a mere 61 minutes.Afterwards, on-court interviewer Rennae Stubbs, a retired Australian player, joked that she wanted Sharapova on her poker team.That would be a terrible decision, Rennae, because Im terrible at poker, Sharapova laughed.The only thing Ive ever played was blackjack. And Im terrible at that, too, she added.The five-time Grand Slam winner faces Chinas Peng Shuai on Sunday in the fourth round. The No. 21-ranked player from China plays with two hands on both forehand and backhand, yielding flat, deep shots.Shes a bit of an untraditional player with two hands on both sides. Thats a little tricky, Sharapova said. Yeah, I look forward to a good match-up.By Jocelyn Gecker -- http://twitter.com/jgecker___BATTLING THE GREEKS: Was it a third-round mens singles match at the Australian Open or a football match between Greece and Bulgaria?With the amount of noise coming from Court 3, where Bulgarian Grigor Dimitrov played Greek-Cypriot Marcos Baghdatis, it was hard to tell.Baghdatis, the 2006 Australian Open finalist, has long drawn vocal support from Melbournes large Greek community over the years, and his fans were out in force Friday, chanting, serenading and clapping vigorously for him.Dimitrovs fans, clad in the green, white and red colours of Bulgarias flag, were drowned out at times, but their man didnt need as much help. No. 10-seeded Dimitrov rallied from a set down to beat an inspired Baghdatis 4-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 6-3.Marcos has always been a favourite guy out here, Dimitrov said. I like it when the atmosphere is like that. Actually fills me up with positive thoughts. At the same time, its nice to prove (the crowd) wrong.By Justin Bergman -- https://twitter.com/justinb3rg___Australian Open Scene follows tennis Grand Slam tournament in Melbourne as seen by journalists from The Associated Press. It is updated throughout the day. Mike Gesicki Dolphins Jersey .Mila Kunis was a guest on Kimmel last night and revealed a surprising side of herself that comes out when she watches sports. It turns out screaming something vulgar at professional athletes is therapeutic for Kunis. Robert Quinn Dolphins Jersey . Mesoraco hurt his hamstring while scoring from second in Friday nights 5-4 loss at Atlanta. Chapman was hit by a line drive during an exhibition game on March 19, breaking his nose and a bone above his left eye. The left-hander looked strong while throwing 43 pitches in batting practice before Saturday nights game against the Braves. http://www.dolphinsauthoritystore.com/Authentic-Josh-Sitton-Dolphins-Jersey/ . The Blue Jays lost to the New York Yankees 3-1 Tuesday night, their seventh defeat in 10 games. Rasmus was put on the 15-day DL on May 15 because of a sore right hamstring. Hes hitting .222 with nine home runs and 19 RBIs.In the Predators/Habs game Saturday night, Montreals second, go-ahead goal was ultimately disallowed after review (I believe the ref stated that after all four officials determined that the puck had not crossed the line). Now, correct me if Im wrong but I saw one official distinctly pointing at the net indicating a good goal but after an inconclusive review they overturned the goal. Shouldnt the ruling on the ice (good goal) stand after an inconclusive review? Why was this overturned? James Veaudry Pembroke, ON -- Hey Kerry, Youll get a lot of these, but why was the Montreal goal against Nashville Saturday night overturned? Eller puts the puck on net and the on ice ruling from the ref behind the net is a Montreal goal. After much delay, the same ref announces that after a review with all on ice officials, the ruling is the puck never crossed the goal line. How is this possible? Ive always believed that if the video review is inconclusive, which it obviously was, then the call on ice stands. How is the other ref from the blue line supposed to tell if a puck crosses the line? Let alone be able to overrule the ref inches away. The ref simply changed his mind after the play. Is that allowed? Sounds pretty shady to me. Thanks, Dave -- Hi Kerry! Last night I was bouncing out of my chair with excitement when the red light came on, Lars Eller celebrated and the referee pointed indicating a goal in the third period. Then suddenly the referees decided to review the play as there was question about whether the puck had actually crossed the line. After watching the replays myself, it was unclear whether the puck made it over the line or not because it was hidden under Rinnes body. Seeing this, I was all but sure that the goal had to stand, because from my understanding the referees needed undeniable evidence to over-turn an on-ice call. But that wasnt the case. The referee announced that "The four referees agree that the puck did not enter the net" which indicated to this viewer that, they too were unsure but had a chat about it, and I suppose used their judgment, to deicide the puck had never crossed the line. What I dont understand is how they can make this new judgment with inconclusive evidence? Moreover, how a referee can clearly call a goal a goal, and then change his opinion moments later? Could you clear up my confusion with the rules on this matter? Thanks! Rob -- To All Disappointed Habs Fans: Upon further information gathering from all vantage points on the ice by the officiating crew, including a seemingly definitive confirmation from the situation room video review, the referee on the goal line changed his initial quick reaction decision and correctly determined that the puck did not cross the goal line - no goal! At no time do we see the puck cross the goal line on thiis play. A.J. Derby Jersey. The official statement found on the Situation Room blog posting at NHL.com is as follows; “Video review determined that Montreal Canadiens forward Lars Ellers shot did not cross the goal line. No goal Montreal.” (See Situation Room review here. Having witnessed referee Chris Rooney point to the net to signal a goal I trust it is the referees announcement that is causing you confusion (“The call on the ice by the four officials that the puck did not cross the goal line and that is confirmed (by video review)…”) and not the correct final decision that was ultimately rendered. All confusion would have been eliminated had the announcement by the referee simply been; “Video review has confirmed that the puck did not cross the goal line, the initial call on the ice is overturned - no goal.” Let me explain the protocol and how the process most likely worked in this situation. In the event that video review returns an “inconclusive” verdict the referees are required to make a decision (communicated with a point into the net or washout signal) from their vantage point when it appears the puck has entered the net. Sometimes the “vantage point” a referee has in that moment is not always the best one. For this reason, the four officials on the ice are required to conference and provide input from their respective vantage points as an added ‘safety check. This is in addition to video review that takes place. Through the conference process considerable doubt must have been created in referee Rooneys mind and caused him to change his initial reaction to the play. The obvious answer is the referee needs to see the puck cross the line before pointing to the net. In real time other factors can complicate this decision. In fairness on this play, the referees approach to the net was from the opposite corner from behind the goal line. This route caused an obstructed view looking through the net and the back of Predators sprawled goalie Pekka Rinne. The refs focus was also split between a penalty that he signaled to David Legwand for cross-checking Eller just as the Montreal forward flipped the puck toward Rinne. With Rinnes body position sprawled deep into the net and across the goal line, Rooneys gut reaction and instinct told him the puck had crossed the line from his vantage point. As required, the ref made his initial decision but once a consultation took place with the other crew members Rooney correctly changed his opinion on the play. It would have been less confusing and more efficient had the ref not communicated the result of the Officiating Crews ‘internal process that caused him to change his initial decision on the play. In the end the right decision was rendered. Sometimes the less said the better! Jerseys NFL Cheap Wholesale Jerseys China Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Camo Cheap NFL T-shirts Cheap NFL Black Jerseys Cheap Jerseys 2020 ' ' '