where is the saracens rugby union team based

Saracens Football Club /ˈsærəˌsənz/ are an English professional rugby union team based in London,[1] England. Established in 1876, they currently play in the English Premiership, the top level of domestic rugby union in England, and were the champions of the European Rugby Champions Cup, which they won twice consecutively, in 2016 and 2017. Since 2012, Saracens have played their home games at Allianz Park in Hendon; previous grounds have included Vicarage Road in Watford, and Bramley Road. The club's home playing colours are black and red.

Saracens F.C.

Saracens were founded in 1876 by the Old Boys of the Philological School in Marylebone, London (later to become St Marylebone Grammar School). The club's name is said to come from the "endurance, enthusiasm and perceived invincibility of Saladin's desert warriors of the 12th century". The fact that their local rivals were called the Crusaders may also have been a factor.[2] The Crescent and Star appearing in the club's emblem are reminiscent of those appearing on the flag of the Ottoman Empire.

Saracens amalgamated with neighbouring club Crusaders two years later. In 1892, Saracens moved from Crown Lane, Southgate, to Firs Farm, Winchmore Hill then played on nine different grounds before the move to Bramley Road[3] for the 1939â€“40 season (although the Second World War actually prevented them from playing there until 1945).

After their inaugural match against Blackheath, the Saracens had to wait another 9 years before Harlequins offered to include them on their fixture list. Saracens found it difficult to get games against first-class sides as the facilities at Bramley Road were so poor.

The club produced a number of internationals in pre-league era, such as hooker John Steeds who won five caps representing England from 1949 to 1950; Vic Harding, a lock also for England from 1961 to 1962; and George Sheriff, an England back-rower from 1966 to 1967.

The club enjoyed fixtures with the leading clubs for many years and enjoyed a particularly successful time in the 1970s when they reached the semi-finals of the National Cup. Special games played at Bramley Road during this period include the 1971 match against a select International XV. It was a fantastic occasion,[tone] as a 5,000 strong crowd (the largest ever to watch a rugby union game in North London at the time) came to watch a magnificent contest, ending Saracens 34 International XV 34.[citation needed]

This Saracens team also won the Middlesex Cup[4] beating rivals Wasps in the final.

After some bleak years in the early 1980s, the club responded to the challenge of the Courage Leagues, and with Floyd Steadman as captain and Tony Russ as coach, they won the second division in 1989 with a 100% record. The next year in the first division they surprised many by finishing fourth in the league behind Wasps, Gloucester and Bath. [5]

But within the space of two years, Saracens had lost Jason Leonard to Harlequins, Dean Ryan to Wasps and Ben Clarke to Bath and they were fast becoming a nursery for the more prestigious clubs. The 1992–93 season saw the leagues restructured with Saracens, along with three other clubs, being relegated to the second division. In 1993–94 Saracens finished third and narrowly missed out on promotion but the following year they finished as champions and were again back in the top flight. Former player David Wellman was given the task to re brand Saracens. He gave former player Mike Smith the remit to take Saracens professional. A benefactor was required in order to improve the ground and playing staff. Alas Saracens' seesaw existence over the nineties was about to continue in 1995–96 when they again found themselves at the wrong end of the table along with West Hartlepool but they were saved by their new CEO Mike Smith, who persuaded the RFU that there should be no relegation for the first season of professional rugby.

In November 1995 Saracens gained the financial backing of Nigel Wray and this enabled the club to recruit the likes of Michael Lynagh, Philippe Sella, Francois Pienaar and Kyran Bracken.[6] Saracens moved again to Enfield F.C.'s ground, Southbury Road,[7] and they started the new season with a victory over title favourites Leicester but only finished seventh just missing out on Heineken Cup qualification.

The 1997â€“98 season, was a landmark year. They began a ground share with Watford FC and their 22,000 all seater Vicarage Road Stadium. The agreement ran until February 2013, when Saracens relocated to Barnet Copthall.

The appointment of a Marketing Director saw Saracens splashed all over the broadsheets, tabloids, magazines and TV and with the help of a small band of be-fezzed followers that had been following the club for a number of years, "the year of the Fez"[clarification needed] began.

Close season signings like Danny Grewcock, Roberto Grau, Gavin Johnson and Ryan Constable joined forces with the home grown talent of Tony Diprose, Richard Hill and Steve Ravenscroft to form a side that would prove a significant force during the season losing only three games during the season to finish second in the Premiership, missing out narrowly to Newcastle, another club that had embraced the changes that the professional game had brought. Newcastle haven't repeated this success since.

Consolation for missing out on the league title came in the then principal domestic cup competition, the Tetley Bitter Cup. Saracens beat Wasps 48–18 in the cup final at Twickenham, in doing so equalling Bath's cup-final record score of 48 points. Their run had included a 59-point win over Blackheath, a 14–13 victory over Leicester, a quarter final 36–30 win over a Richmond, followed by a victory over Northampton. It was the first major silverware that Saracens had won in their 122-year history. The game was also notable for being the last competitive game for two legends of the sport, Lynagh and Sella; some years later these same two players became the inaugural members of Saracen's Hall of Fame.[8]

After a solid start to 1998â€“99 season, Saracens were rocked in December when they lost to third from bottom London Scottish in a shock defeat at home, but a win against Bedford and West Hartlepool and a draw with Wasps still saw them in touch with leaders Leicester. The second half of the season was a roller coaster ride with Saracens going from eighth and out of European contention after a run of four loses, to eventually finishing third as London's top club.

The 1999â€“00 season saw more big name players move to Vicarage Road with Mark Mapletoft, Thierry Lacroix, Scott Murray and Dan Luger joining the club along with Darragh O'Mahony and the up-and-coming Julian White. With the squad ravaged by World Cup duty and then injury the club's first attempt at the Heineken Cup was not a happy one. They lost three games by a couple of points in the last seconds of the game and didn't make the quarter finals.

With a few games left they were looking at a possible failure to qualify for Europe again, but Kyran Bracken returned from a ten-month injury to inspire Saracens into fourth place and Heineken Cup qualification.

2000–01 saw another difficult start to the season. By October Saracens had effectively crashed out of the Heineken Cup with back to back defeats to Cardiff and with the team shorn of internationals due to the Autumn Tests the final blow was dealt when Thomas Castaignède suffered an Achilles tendon injury.

The results went downhill fast and a fifth-place finish saw the club miss out on a Heineken Cup place.

The 2001–02 season brought many changes, with established players such as Luger, Grewcock, White, Wallace and, much to the consternation of his loyal fan club, Tony Diprose, all leaving the club. Further weakened with the news that Castaignède was likely to miss the whole of the coming season, Francois Pienaar, now in full control of coaching operations opted to make use of a crop of younger players coming through the club system.

After a reasonable start to the season Saracens found themselves in their by then accustomed top half of the table position but then the curse of the Autumn Internationals once again took its toll, and Saracens' performances weakened drastically. Entering the New Year Saracens were again flirting with relegation danger, and soon exited all cup competitions. With morale sinking Pienaar stepped down from his various roles with the club after a five-year stay.

Lacking a coach the senior players took charge, the morale problem seemed to have passed, but results remained sketchy and the Saracens ended up in a lowly 10th place.

All Black legend Wayne Shelford took over the coaching reins for the 2002â€“03 season, while the playing squad saw the arrival of the likes of Andy Goode, Christian Califano, Craig Quinnell amongst several signings of established players. In a repetition of the pattern of some of the preceding seasons, Saracens once again got off to a flying start, beating Bath and Bristol.

Once again though, sound defeats, this season administered by London rivals, Wasps and Irish, seemed to shatter the team's confidence, to such an extent that once again by early in the new year Saracens were once again uncomfortably close to the relegation zone, the only real success coming in an impressive run in the Parker Pen Cup.

The club once again rallied towards the tail end of the season, with victories over Bristol, and then high flying Sale securing a 5th place in the table that seemed unlikely at the turn of the year, and a place in the play off system for the remaining European Cup place. A comfortable win over fourth placed Leeds in the play off semi-final brought an astonishingly tight final against Leicester.

With temperatures soaring at Franklin's Gardens, 80 minutes was not enough to separate the teams, with a late rally by Saracens tying the scores at 20â€“20. Ultimately, a Neil Back try was to see Leicester through, but at least it appeared that Saracen's had rediscovered their fighting spirit.

The late rally was not enough to save Shelford, and he and most of the rest of the coaching staff paid the price for the weak season, being replaced by the experienced Australia and Leicester player, Rod Kafer, at that time a relative newcomer to a coaching roll, for the 2003–04 season. Key signings included Fijian Simon Raiwalui, former French captain Raphaël Ibañez, Springbok Cobus Visagie and All Black Taine Randell.

The club's finances were also diversified with Nigel Wray divesting himself of nearly 50% of his shares to spread the financial cost and risk of supporting Saracens. This led to the addition of five new members being appointed to the Saracens board.[9]

The change of faces did little to change the pattern of consistent inconsistency of previous seasons. Once again, the early rounds saw a false dawn as Saracens found themselves in the top three, and again the club coped badly with the international call-ups for the 2003 World Cup, once again finding themselves near the foot of the table. Only the long gap to bottom place Rotherham avoided any serious relegation danger. The victorious return of Richard Hill and Kyran Bracken from World Cup duty brought somewhat more upbeat performances for the second half of the season, but it still took a rare away victory at London Irish to claim the same 10th place of two seasons before.[10]

2004â€“05 saw a bold strengthening of the squad, for once eschewing their cosmopolitan recruitment policy and securing mainly English based players, possibly with one eye on the effect that international call-ups had had in previous seasons. In came Kevin Yates, Iain Fullarton, Alex Sanderson, Dan Scarbrough and Hugh Vyvyan, while Matt Cairns returned to the club and Steve Diamond arrived at the club as forwards coach. Another signing who was to become a prominent part of the Saracens line up was fly half Glen Jackson from New Zealand.

The season got off to the best off all possible starts with Saracens scoring a victory over reigning champions Wasps at the first ever London 'Double Header' at Twickenham. Once again, Saracen's winter malaise struck, and after inconsistent performances, Diamond took over the coaching duties from Kafer. The New Year brought a string of convincing performances, and a long unbeaten run saw the club finish the season in the top half of the table, in fifth place.

Once again in the wild card system for a European Cup place, Worcester were comfortably beaten, setting up the chance to end the season where it had begun, back at Twickenham. A late try secured victory over Gloucester and a place in the next season's Heineken Cup was ensured.

There was further shuffling of the coaching pack in 2005â€“06 with Diamond becoming Director of Rugby and defensive coach Mike Ford taking over the front line coaching role.[11] In a reversal of the previous season's outcome Saracens lost their opening double-header game against Wasps, but unlike some previous seasons, this did not immediately trigger a run of bad results, and indeed until December Saracens progressed well. The Christmas season saw the start of a calamitous dip in form and going into the final months of the season the prospect of ending up in another relegation scrap seemed very real.

Diamond parted company with the club, with Ford taking over full control of the team, assisted by future England coach Eddie Jones in a consulting role. Results improved, and an away win at Sale who were to be champions that season even brought the prospect of another Heineken cup place.[12]

A few disappointing results at the end of the season took some of the shine off the improved run of form, with Saracens ending the season in 10th place. The season's end also brought to a close the distinguished playing career of Kyran Bracken.

With Mike Ford being offered a role in the England set-up, former Leinster, Munster and Australia coach Alan Gaffney was appointed coach for the 2006 campaign.[13] Amongst the new signings was South African, Neil de Kock, a player who was influential in the club's best season since 2000. Once again, Saracens were narrowly defeated by Wasps in the London double-header.

This was to be followed by what turned out to be a good away draw at Bristol in the context of the excellent season that Bristol would go on to have, before a bonus point win was secured against the Newcastle Falcons. A morale-boosting run of results followed, losing only three times between October and the following March. No individual result could quite produce the reaction that the return of England's Richard Hill to top flight action, with supporters of both clubs giving Hill a huge ovation on his return to the pitch after 18 months of knee reconstruction, capping off his comeback with a try.

This period also saw the long-awaited arrival of former Great Britain Rugby League captain, Andy Farrell, initially at flanker, but later at centre, the position at which he went on to take his England debut.

With the prospect of a place in the Premiership play-offs becoming ever more real, Saracens were also progressing well in the European Challenge Cup. They qualified for the knockout stages as second seeds, with only an away draw at Glasgow spoiling their group stage progression. A further win at the quarter-final stage against Glasgow saw Saracens host Bath for the semi-final, only to lose to ultimate runners up of the competition.

Results in the Premiership went Saracens' way, leaving them with the possibility of ending up anywhere from second to fifth as the final round of matches approached. After a day of games almost all of which had significant consequences in terms of positions at the top, and at the foot of the table, Saracens found themselves in the Premiership playoffs for the first time, squeezing Wasps into a rare 5th-place position, out of playoff contention.[14]

The campaign was to end with a heavy defeat away at Gloucester, however, overall the season represented a significant advance on those of recent years. After the end of the season there was to be personal success for Glen Jackson, whose league topping 400 points for the season and consistent high-level performances almost every week saw him awarded the PRA Player of the Year Award by his fellow professionals. On a sadder note the mercurial Thomas CastaignÃ¨de, one of the most enduringly popular players at the club decided to bring his club rugby career to an end after providing many years of entertaining rugby at its best both for Saracens and France.[15]

Preparation for the 2007–08 seasons saw somewhat less activity in comings and goings from the squad, reflecting the relatively solid 2006–07 season. Among signings to date, specialist cover for Glen Jackson came in the form of Scotland fly half Gordon Ross, while South African utility back Brent Russell was highly regarded by many Springbok fans.

The most spectacular signing though was that of All Black second row Chris Jack, widely regarded as the world's best in his position, who joined Saracens after the 2007 World Cup. In addition to his all-round game, Saracens hoped that Jack would bring some solidity to a Saracens' line-out which was one of the areas where they were consistently pressured in the previous season. The estimated value of Jack's contract raised eyebrows with a three-year contract at a total value of Â£750,000.[16]

The loss of Glen Jackson and Brent Russell for the opening of the season due to pre-season injuries represented a significant blow to the club, but nonetheless the season began well with a return to winning ways against Wasps in the opening day London double-header. Defeat at the first home game by early pace setters Gloucester brought the team down to earth, before a solid away win at struggling Leeds, revenge for the previous season's home and away defeats away at Worcester, and a win back at Vicarage Road over Leicester. Defensive frailties saw Saracens go into the Autumn Premiership break for cup matches third in the table, but also with the third worst defensive record, after a defeat away at Sale.

The first round of cup competition saw Saracens win comfortably away at Leeds in the EDF Energy Cup, despite conceding four tries. Another bonus point win over Bristol back at Vicarage Road positioned Saracens well with maximum points ahead of a difficult away trip to Llanelli. Turning to Europe, Saracens' return to Heineken Cup action also saw the return of Glasgow Warriors to Vicarge Road. As in the two European Challenge Cup home games against the same team in the previous season, Saracens ran out bonus point winners, albeit not without defensive frailties causing anxious moments going into the final minutes of the game. The following weekend Saracens lost out by a single point against Biarritz Olympique being denied by a penalty scored from the half-way line in the dying moments of the match.

The brief return to Guinness Premiership action at the end of November saw Saracens come out top in a tight battle at home against London Irish, with the lead changing hands several times. Cup action in the form of the final round of EDF Energy Cup pool stage games, where Saracens failed once again to win away in Wales, but taking a losing bonus point and a try bonus too was enough to see them qualify for the semi-final stage for the first time in their Anglo-Welsh cup history, ahead of their opponents Llanelli Scarlets. Further progress was then made in the Heineken Cup in an impressive ten try to one defeat of Viadana at home in a game which saw the first team debuts for Chris Jack and Brent Russell. Viadana almost took their revenge in the return fixture the following week, where Saracens conceded a 26–3 half time lead to the Italians, before showing composure in the second half to score 31 unanswered points and take the win that would see them enter the New Year at the head of their Heineken Cup pool.

The return to premiership action over Christmas and the New Year began well for Saracens with a win away at London rivals Harlequins, however once again defensive weakness and coming out of the blocks slowly saw Saracens take only a losing bonus point from their final fixture of 2007 in the Premiership, though it was enough to see them go into the New Year in third place in the domestic league.

The buildup to the first game of 2008 was dominated by talk away from the field of play, with the news that former Wallaby coach Eddie Jones was to succeed Alan Gaffney at the top of the coaching subject with Gaffney adopting the same consulting role Jones had been providing, whilst rumours of substantial cash investment from South African rugby interests abounded. When the focus returned to on-field matters Saracens suffered a second successive defeat in the Premiership, this time away at Bristol, failing even to take a losing bonus point for the first time in any competition in the season and raising fears of the all too familiar Saracens' winter slump.

The arrival of Brendan Venter to the head coach role sparked major controversy. Shortly after arrival he triggered the culling of 18 players within 48 hours, known amongst fans as "the night of the long knives", this would then be followed up by the arrival of a number of South Africans to the squad. This caused the club to be strongly criticised as they were seen to be swaying away from being an English club. Some even began calling the club "Saffracens", due to their strong South African links (Saffa being slang for South African).[17]

This didn't stop Saracens going on a 10-match unbeaten run at the start of the domestic season which saw wins over London Irish (at Twickenham in the London Double Header), Northampton (at Wembley), London Wasps and Bath.

On 16 November a Derick Hougaard drop goal saw a one-point win over South Africa at Wembley. Viewed by some as a notable example of the South Africa excessive presence (Saracens fielded 9 South Africans), Saracens managed to overturn a 6–18 half time deficit to win 24–23.[18] Generating greater publicity than the actual game was Stuart Tinner managing to win £250,000 by kicking a ball to directly hit the crossbar of the posts. A question of his punting (kicking a falling ball) rather than kicking a drop goal was resolved in his favour leaving this unheard of success to be shown around the world.[19]

27 December saw Saracens lose away to London Irish, which was their first defeat of the domestic league competition, having had one draw and two losses in all competitions before this date. What followed was five defeats in the next six games; Leicester, Wasps, Bath and Leeds Carnegie all defeated Saracens, accompanied with being knocked out of the Amlin Challenge Cup despite losing only one match.

The post-Christmas slump in form for Saracens looked all too familiar. Yet a change in playing style and having found a new sense of attacking rugby, Sarries stopped the rot with a 58â€“15 drubbing of struggling Newcastle. From then on, they went on to win four out the five matches played, including impressive wins away to Sale, Northampton and table-topping Leicester Tigers.

This drastic change in form secured Saracens' Guinness Premiership Semi-Final spot in a respectable 3rd place and now faced Northampton Saints, the fifth time this season, away at Franklin's Gardens looking to end a streak of six semi-final losses in all competitions in the last three-years. Saracens defeated Northampton 21–19 in an all-mighty clash, with Glen Jackson ensuring that Sarries reached their first final since 1998 with a late kick, converting Schalk Brits's driving-maul try.

The 2010 Guinness Premiership Final at Twickenham, pitted Saracens against the eight-time and reigning English Champions, Leicester Tigers. In a pulsating game of rugby, Leicester sneaked Saracens to a 33â€“27 win with a late try to Dan Hipkiss providing the difference after Saracens flyhalf Glen Jackson had kicked what looked to be the winning penalty with only a few minutes left. Heartbreak for Sarries and their fans, but it just wasn't to be a fairy-tale ending for a remarkable season.[20]

The final also marked the last match for a number of players including Fabio Ongaro, Matías Agüero, former All Black Justin Marshall and loyal fly-half Glen Jackson.[21]

Saracens opened the 2010–11 season with a loss to London Irish in the opener of the London Double Header at Twickenham, Following the loss, their form improved as they ran off four wins in succession before a shock loss to Premiership new-comers Exeter Chiefs. They crashed out of the Heineken Cup in the pool stage, finishing bottom of a tough pool that featured Leinster, the ultimate Heineken Cup winners, and Clermont and Racing Métro, both of which made the French semi-finals. Saracens' domestic form, however, proved much stronger; they secured a home semi-final with one league match left, defeating Harlequins on the final day to complete a run of ten straight victories, including away at Northampton, Wasps, Exeter and Leicester Tigers. In the regular season Saracens won more games than any other side −18 in total – only missing out on top spot in the league because of the bonus point system. Gloucester awaited the Men in Black in the Semi-Final at Vicarage Road. A nervy finish and a late penalty from young flyhalf Owen Farrell gave Sarries the 12–10 win they wanted to reach their second successive Premiership Final.[22] In the Final, they again faced Leicester Tigers in a dramatic encounter.[23] Saracens dominated the first half, leading 16–9 at half-time thanks to a James Short try, and showed a strong defensive performance to keep out waves of Leicester attack. This culminated in a nine-minute period of extra time during which they defended over 30 phases of Leicester assault through the forwards while leading 22–18, finally being awarded a penalty to crown them English champions for the first time and get revenge against Leicester for the previous year's final. Schalk Brits, who set up James Short's try, was awarded Man of the Match.[24]

Saracens also had one major off-field development during the season. Their landlord Watford FC activated a break clause in their groundshare deal, which at the time meant that Saracens needed a new home for the 2011â€“12 season.[25] After looking at several venues in the area, Saracens announced on 10 November 2010 that it was in serious discussions with Barnet Borough Council about a move to the athletics stadium at the Barnet Copthall complex. Under the plan, Saracens would redevelop the stadium into a modern facility with 3,000 permanent seats and demountable stands to allow a rugby capacity of 10,000, and include the first artificial pitch in English rugby union.[26]

Because of delays in the Barnet Copthall project, Saracens eventually reached an agreement with Watford to extend the groundshare at Vicarage Road for the 2011â€“12 season; the agreement covered at least 10 home matches that season.[27]

Saracens started the 2014–15 with high-scoring victories against London rivals Wasps and Harlequins, and went on to finish the regular season in fourth place, qualifying for the play-offs. After beating first-placed Northampton 29–24 in the semi-final,[28] Saracens met Bath in the final. Saracens scored three unanswered tries in the first half, and went on to win the game 28–16, becoming the first team to become Premiership champions from a fourth-place finish.[29] They made it a double, with a 23–20 win against Exeter in the final of the Anglo-Welsh Cup, a last minute penalty from Ben Spencer claiming Saracen's second Cup win.[30]

In the first iteration of the European Rugby Champions Cup Saracens made it to the Semi-Finals before losing to ASM Clermont[31] In the boardroom, CEO Edward Griffiths departed and was replaced by Heath Harvey, a former director at Club Wembley.[32]

Following the Saracens tour of Japan, they have developed a relationship with Fukuoka Sanix Blues. They played Sanix at Global Arena at the start of Buck Shelford's reign as head coach and won comfortably, but they had a harder game on the same tour in Tokyo against Suntory Sungoliath.

In 2008–09, 50% of the club was bought by a South African consortium. Eddie Jones left mid-season and Brendan Venter was announced as the new Director of Rugby. Many players were 'culled' mid-season, to the outrage of the media. The changes in the club resulted in a dramatic turnaround in the club's fortunes, as they won their first eight games in the 2009–10 season, and finished 2009 on top of the Guinness Premiership. However, following a run of poor performances, they slipped to third finishing the season behind Leicester and Northampton.

Under the current ownership, Saracens have dramatically increased their international reach. They currently have established partner clubs in Georgia, Seattle, Timișoara, Abu Dhabi, Kuala Lumpur, Amman, Moscow, São Paulo, and Tonga. According to CEO Edward Griffiths, "We estimate we could have 40 Saracens players participating at the Rio Olympics under various national colours. And we have an advertising campaign running worldwide on CNBC."[33]

In the summer of 2013, Saracens played two international matches. They beat the South African Barbarians on 16 May at Artillery Ground.[34] They toured the Atlantic Ocean island Bermuda to promote rugby.[35] They visited a number of schools, ran coaching workshops and engaged in fundraising activities while on tour. To finish, they played a Bermuda International Select XV, which included Simon Taylor, Mike Scholz, Zach Pangelinan, Shaun Perry and Gcobani Bobo who are all Internationally capped. The side was coached by former England international Lewis Moody and captained by former Ireland player Geordan Murphy.[36]

On 12 March 2016, Saracens' away Premiership match against London Irish was held at the Red Bull Arena in the U.S. state of New Jersey. This was the first time a Premiership match had taken place overseas.[37] Saracens won by a score of 26â€“16.[38]

Saracens returned to the United States when they were hosted by the Newcastle Falcons on 16 September 2017 at the Talen Energy Stadium in Philadelphia. Saracens won by a score of 29â€“7.

The Saracens squad for the 2018–19 season is:[39]

Note: Flags indicate national union as has been defined under WR eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-WR nationality.

The Saracens academy squad is:[40]

Clem Booth
 Morne du Plessis
 Faffa Knoetze
 Nick Leslau
 Francois Pienaar
 Caroline Rupert
 Dominic Silvester
 Steve Thomas

The following players are members of 'The 100 Club', having played 100 or more games for Saracens in all competitions (number of matches played in brackets).[41]

The following players have been selected to represent the British and Irish Lions on tour whilst with the club:

South Africa 1997

New Zealand 2005

New Zealand 2017

The following players have been inducted into the Saracens Hall of Fame:[42]

The kit is currently supplied by BLK on a five-year contract, beginning at the start of the 2016â€“17 season. The new jersey was first presented on 23 July 2016.[43] Previously, the kit had been supplied by Nike.

In collaboration with The Drake Foundation, Saracens F.C., and University College London at the forefront of on-field concussion research

The Drake Foundation is funding a pioneering study in the UK to investigate the short-term and long-term consequences of concussion in a cohort of professional rugby union athletes. In collaboration with Saracens F.C. and leading experts at University College London (UCL), the study will involve detailed assessments of in-game exposure to head impact and investigate both the short- and long-term neurological consequences.

In January 2015, following an approach from James Drake of The Drake Foundation to set up a research project to study the effects of concussion, Saracens players began wearing impact sensors produced by X2 Bio-systems in Seattle which measure the force and direction of impact to the head. This ongoing concussion study will continue into the 2015/16 season with the use of blood samples for injury identification as the latest element of the ground breaking programme to determine the effects of concussion on rugby players.

The data will be collected by researchers at University College London under the guidance of leading neurologists Professor Huw Morris and Professor John Hardy and assisted by Professor Henrik Zetterberg who has studied the effects of concussion in ice hockey.

The study will measure a range of information that includes biomarker data, in-game accelerometric, video, and other performance data. In addition, neuroimaging data in a long-term cohort will also be assessed to give a comprehensive assessment into the effects of head impact in rugby players. It is hoped that the results will not only inform protocols for injury identification, but also increase scientific understanding of this complex subject that will be of benefit to current athletes. The study is proposed to run over the next three years.

James Drake, Chairman and Founder of The Drake Foundation, comments;

"We are excited to collaborate with Saracens F.C. and UCL in realizing our initial idea for this study and advance research in sports-related concussions. There is a pressing need to better understand the biology of head injuries, and we hope that the results will give evidence-based facts to improve measures for participant safety in contact sports."


who has been appointed the new chairman of cauvery water dispute tribunal

Central Water Commission chairman, S. Masood Hussain will head the CWMA and chief engineer of the  Central Water Commission, Navin Kumar will be the first chairman of the CWRC. While the CWMA is an umbrella body, the CWRC will monitor water management on a day-to-day basis, including the water level and inflow and outflow of reservoirs in all the basin states.

Kaveri River water dispute

The sharing of waters of the Kaveri River (also spelled as Cauvery) has been the source of a serious conflict between the two states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The genesis of this conflict rests in two agreements in 1892 and 1924 between the Madras Presidency and Kingdom of Mysore. The 802 kilometres (498 mi) Cauvery river has   44,000 km2 basin area in Tamil Nadu and 32,000 km2 basin area in Karnataka.[1]  The inflow from Karnataka is 425 TMCft whereas that from Tamil Nadu is 252 TMCft [2]

Based on the inflow Karnataka is demanding its due share of water from the river. It states that the pre-independence agreements are invalid and are skewed heavily in the favour of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on "equitable sharing of the waters". Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, pleads that it has already developed almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000Â km2) of land and as a result has come to depend very heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in the state.[3][4]

Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit. The Government of India then constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. After hearing arguments of all the parties involved for the next 16 years, the tribunal delivered its final verdict on 5 February 2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 TMC of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 TMC to Karnataka; 30 TMC of Cauvery river water to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu being the major shareholders, Karnataka was ordered to release 192 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu in a normal year from June to May.[5]

The dispute however, did not end there, as all four states decided to file review petitions seeking clarifications and possible renegotiation of the order.

The first agreement on sharing Cavery river water  dates back to 1892, between Madras Presidency and princely state of Mysuru

The British controlled both Mysore and Madras for a short period in the middle of the 19th century. During their regime, numerous plans were drawn up for the utilization of the Cauvery waters by both states. However, the drought and subsequent famine in the mid-1870s put a hold on the implementation of these plans. The plans were revived by Mysore in 1881, by which time Mysore was back in the hands of the Mysore kings, while present day Tamil Nadu continued to remain a part of the Madras Presidency.

Mysore's plans to revive the irrigation projects met with resistance from the Madras Presidency.  Mysore state made a representation to the Madras Presidency then British government; as a result of which, a conference was held in 1890 with the objective of agreeing "â€¦on the principles of a modus vivendi, which would on the one hand allow to Mysore in dealing with irrigation works, and on the other, give to Madras practical security against injury to  interests" and eventually the Agreement of 1892 was signed.

Things came to a head in 1910 when Mysore, under Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar as the king and Capt. Dawes[11] as Chief Engineer came up with a plan to construct a dam at Kannambadi village to hold up to 41.5 TMC of water.  The dam was planned to be built in two stages.  In the first stage a capacity of 11 TMC was envisioned, while in the second stage the full capacity was set to be realized.  Madras however, refused to give its consent for this move as it had its own plans to build a storage dam at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC.

After a reference to the Government of India, permission was accorded to Mysore, but for a reduced storage of 11TMC. During construction, however, the foundation was laid to suit the earlier desired full storage. This raised Madras' hackles and the dispute continued.  As a result, the then British Government of India referred the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892 Agreement.  The Cauvery dispute thus had come up for arbitration for the first time.

Sir H D Griffin was appointed arbitrator and M. Nethersole, the Inspector General of Irrigation in India, was made the Assessor. They entered into proceedings on 16 July 1913 and the Award was given on 12 May 1914.  The award upheld the earlier decision of the Government of India and allowed Mysore to go ahead with the construction of the dam up to 11 TMC.

Madras appealed against the award and negotiations continued.  Eventually an agreement was arrived at in 1924 and a couple of minor agreements were also signed in 1929 and 1933. The 1924 agreement was set to lapse after a run of 50 years.

In 1947, India attain independence from the British. Further in 1956, the reorganization of the states of India took place and state boundaries were redrawn based on linguistic demographics.  Kodagu or Coorg (the birthplace of the Cauvery), became a part of Mysore state[12]. Parts of Malabar which earlier formed part of Madras Presidency went to Kerala[13].  Puducherry had already become a de facto Union territory in 1954.

Redrawing of state boundaries caused parts of Kerala and Puducherry to be in the Cauvery River basin and therefore become stakeholders in the sharing of its waters. Kerala staked its claim as one of the major tributaries of the Cauvery since the Kabini River, now originated in Kerala. The Karaikal region of Puducherry at the tail end of the river demanded the waters that it claimed to have always been using for drinking and some minimal agriculture.  While these additional claims complicated matters greatly at a technical level, Mysore state and Tamil Nadu still remained the major parties to the dispute.

By the late 1960s, both states and the Central government began to realize the gravity of the situation as the 50-year run of the 1924 agreement was soon coming to an end.  Negotiations were started in right earnest and discussions continued for almost 10 years.

On 20 February 2013, based on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Indian Government notified the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing the waters of the Cauvery system among the basin States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala and Union territory of Puducherry. The "extraordinary" notification in the gazette dated 19 February 2013 says the order takes effect on the date of publication.[14] The Tribunal, in a unanimous decision in 2007, determined the total Cauvery basin water availability in a normal year as 740 TMC  at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site and Grand Anaicut, including 14 TMC for minimum environmental flows and unavoidable wastage to the sea. The final award makes an annual allocation of 419 TMC to Tamil Nadu in the entire Cauvery basin, 270 TMC to Karnataka, 30 TMC to Kerala and  7 TMC to Puducherry.[15][16][17] Utilisable water in Tamil Nadu is sum of beneficial water uses and the water going waste to sea in excess of 14 TMC at Lower Coleroon and Grand Anaicuts.

The water sharing criteria is based on two situations:

The 50% dependable water year is considered as normal water year whose total water availability in the basin is 740 TMC.[18]  All the unused water in the reservoirs (â‰¥ 3 TMC storage) at the beginning of water year in the basin are also considered for arriving the total available water in a water year to be shared by the riparian states. Tamil Nadu has to use 10 TMC for minimum environmental flows downstream of Lower Coleroon Anicut and supply 7 TMC to Puducherry out of the 192 TMC water released by Karnataka in a normal water year. Kerala can use 21 TMC from Kabini river basin, 6 TMC from Bhavani river basin and 3 TMC from Pambar river basin in a normal year. Water going waste to sea at Lower Coleroon Anicut in excess of 4 TMC (other than 10 TMC minimum environmental flows) in any water year forms part of utilisable water share of Tamil Nadu. The ambiguity in the verdict is that utilisable water (clauses IV and V) in the basin is allocated among the states but it has not defined how to measure the same. Instead clause XIV of final order defines how to measure the beneficial water uses which is not equal to the utilisable water.

According to verdict, monthly release of water from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu in TMCs would be: June 10, July 34, August 50, September  40, October 22, November 15, December 8, January 3, February 2.5, March 2.5, April 2.5, May 2.5.[19]

Karnataka can now use all the excess water available in its area after releasing 192 TMC applicable in a normal water year. Tamil Nadu can also use all the excess water available in its area (including flood water from Karnataka if any).

Karnataka has proposed a project to store excess water during good monsoon years at Mekedatu for drinking water needs of  Bengaluru city and en route, hydro power generation, etc. Tamil Nadu is raising objections to this project.[20][21]

When the total water availability is below 740 TMC (i.e. distress year), the allocated share of each state is reduced proportionately. Kerala (in Kabini basin) and Karnataka would use their reduced allocations and release rest of water below Billigundulu gauging station for use in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.[22] Karnataka has to release water to Tamil Nadu on monthly basis proportionate to the monthly figures indicated for a normal year.

Based on the river basin water data available from the year 1934 to 1971 (about 44 year old data), the tribunal estimated the average water yield in the total river basin as 767 TMC which corresponds to 47% dependability. The live storage capacity available in the river basin is nearly 310 TMC which is 40.5% of the average yield. The water used in the Cauvery delta in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is nearly 280 TMC which is the tail end water use in the river basin and its regenerated water either goes to sea or outside the Cauvery basin.[23] The total dissolved salt load generated in the basin is nearly 3.5 million metric tons per year. The estimated salinity or total dissolved salts (TDS) for the water available in Cauvery delta is 441 ppm which is close to the safe maximum permissible 500 ppm.[24][25][26] There is no limit imposed by the tribunal for the ground water use in the river basin. The tribunal has also permitted the basin states to use all the excess water available in above normal water years. Moreover, the river basin population has reached 40 million in the year 2015 and the increasing per capita inorganic salts used/consumed in industrial, agriculture and residential sectors are enhancing the salt export requirements.[4][27] When adequate salt export from the river basin is not taking place to the sea by forcing Cauvery delta to face water shortage, the water quality (salinity, pH, alkalinity, sodicity, etc.) available for Cauvery delta would deteriorate beyond the permissible limits impeding its sustainable productivity and its aquatic ecosystem conservation.[28][29][30] Ultimately salt export criteria is the limitation for the water resources development in a river basin.

In response to the Special Leave Petition (SLP) lodged by Tamil Nadu earlier, the Supreme Court on 10 May 2013 issued an interim direction to the Government of India (GoI) to establish an Interim Supervisory Committee to implement the Cauvery tribunal order till the constitution of "Cauvery Management Board" as stated in the tribunal order. GoI issued the gazette notification on 22 May 2013 establishing the said Supervisory Committee.[31] Interim Supervisory Committee is a stop gap arrangement when there is delay in getting its approval by the parliament per section 6A(7) of Interstate River Water Disputes Act. However, Interim Supervisory Committee established by GoI under Interstate River Water Disputes Act has full powers  {including suing and to be sued by riparian states/victims for damages / compensation per section 6A(3)} similar to an authority/ board established by parliament till parliament has not annulled the same.[32][33]

While discussions continued, a Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) was constituted.  The brief of the CFFC was to inspect the ground realities and come up with a report.  The CFFC came up with a preliminary report in 1972 and a final report in 1973.  Inter state discussions were held based on this report.  Finally in 1974, a draft agreement which also provided for the creation of a Cauvery Valley Authority was prepared by the Ministry of Irrigation.  This draft however, was not ratified.

In 1976, after a series of discussions between the two states and the Central government chaired by Jagjeevan Ram, the then Irrigation Minister, a final draft was prepared based on findings of the CFFC. This draft was accepted by all states and the Government also made an announcement to that effect in Parliament.

When Karnataka began construction of the Harangi dam at Kushalanagara in Kodagu, it was once again met with resistance from Tamil Nadu.  Tamil Nadu went to court demanding the constitution of a Tribunal under the Interstate River Water Disputes Act (ISWD) of 1956.  It also demanded the immediate stoppage of construction work at the dam site.

Later Tamil Nadu withdrew its case demanding the constitution of a tribunal and the two states started negotiating again.  Several rounds of discussions were held in the 1980s.  The result was still, a stalemate.
In 1986, a farmerâ€™s association from Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court demanding the constitution of a tribunal.  While this case was still pending, the two states continued many rounds of talks.  This continued till April 1990 and yet yielded no results.

The Supreme Court then directed the government headed by Prime Minister V. P. Singh to constitute a tribunal and refer all disputes to it.  A three-man tribunal was thus constituted on 2 June 1990.  The tribunal was headquartered at New Delhi and was to be headed by Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee.

The four states presented their demands to the tribunal as under

Soon after the tribunal was set up, Tamil Nadu demanded a mandatory injunction on Karnataka for the immediate release of water and other reliefs.  This was dismissed by the tribunal.  Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court which directed the tribunal to reconsider Tamil Naduâ€™s plea.

The tribunal reconsidered Tamil Nadu’s plea and gave an interim award on 25 June 1991.  In coming up with this award, the tribunal calculated the average inflows into Tamil Nadu over a period of 10 years between 1980–81 and 1989–90.  The extreme years were ignored for this calculation.  The average worked out to 205 TMC which Karnataka had to ensure reached Tamil Nadu in a water year.  The award also stipulated the weekly and monthly flows to be ensured by Karnataka for each month of the water year.  The tribunal further directed Karnataka not to increase its irrigated land area from the existing 1,120,000 acres (4,500 km2)

Karnataka deemed this extremely inimical to its interests and issued an ordinance seeking to annul the tribunal’s award.  The Supreme Court now stepped in at the President’s instance and struck down the Ordinance issued by Karnataka.  It upheld the tribunal’s award which was subsequently gazetted by the Government of India on 11 December 1991.

Karnataka was thus forced to accept the interim award and widespread demonstrations and violence broke out in parts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu following this. Thousands of Tamil families had to flee from Bangalore in fear of being attacked and lynched by pro-Kannada activists with the behest of the state government.[34]  The violence and show down, mostly centered in the Tamil populated parts of Bangalore, lasted for nearly a month and most schools and educational institutions in Bangalore remained closed during this period.

In 1995, the monsoons failed badly in Karnataka and the state found itself hard pressed to fulfill the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of at least 30 TMC.  The Supreme Court refused to entertain Tamil Nadu's petition and asked it to approach the tribunal.  The tribunal examined the case and recommended that Karnataka release 11 TMC.  Karnataka pleaded that 11 TMC was unimplementable in the circumstances that existed then.  Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court demanding that Karnataka be forced to obey the tribunal's order.  The Supreme Court this time recommended that the then Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao, intervene and find a political solution.  The Prime Minister convened a meeting with the Chief Ministers of the two states and recommended that Karnataka release 6 TMC instead of the 11 TMC that the tribunal ordered.  Karnataka complied with the decision of the Prime Minister and the issue blew over.

Karnataka had all through maintained that the interim award was not'scientific' and was inherently flawed.  It had, nevertheless, complied with the order except during 1995â€“96 when rains failed.  What complicated matters was that the Interim award was ambiguous on distress sharing and there was no clear cut formula that everyone agreed upon to share the waters in the case of failure of the monsoon.

In 1997, the Government proposed the setting up of a Cauvery River Authority which would be vested with far reaching powers to ensure the implementation of the Interim Order.  These powers included the power to take over the control of dams in the event of the Interim Order not being honoured.  Karnataka, which had always maintained that the interim order had no scientific basis and was intrinsically flawed, strongly protested the proposal to set up such an authority.

The Government then made several modifications to the powers of the Authority and came up with a new proposal.  The new proposal greatly reduced the executive powers of the Authority.  The power to take over control of dams was also done away with.  Under this new proposal, the Government set up two new bodies, viz., Cauvery River Authority and Cauvery Monitoring Committee.  The Cauvery River Authority would consist of the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of all four states (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Kerala) and was headquartered in New Delhi.  The Cauvery Monitoring Committee on the other hand, was an expert body which consisted of engineers, technocrats and other officers who would take stock of the 'ground realities' and report to the government.

In the summer of 2002, things once again came to a head as the monsoon failed in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Reservoirs in both states fell to record low levels and inevitably tempers rose. The sticking point yet again, as in 1995â€“96 was how the distress would be shared between the two states. The tribunal had overlooked this crucial point[35] when it gave the interim award and it had returned once again to haunt the situation.  Tamil Nadu demanded that Karnataka honour the interim award and release to Tamil Nadu its proportionate share.  Karnataka on the other hand stated that the water levels were hardly enough to meet its own demands and ruled out releasing any water in the circumstances that prevailed.[36]

A meeting of the Cauvery River Authority was called on 27 August 2002 but the Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha walked out of the meeting.  The focus now shifted to the Supreme Court which ordered Karnataka to release 1.25 TMC of water every day unless the Cauvery River Authority revised it.  Karnataka was forced to release water but pressed for another meeting of the Cauvery River Authority which was fixed for 8 September.  The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister this time boycotted the meet citing insufficient notice as the reason.  A minister from her cabinet, however represented Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery River Authority revised the Court's order from 1.25 TMC to 0.8 TMC per day.

This time however, the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the Cauvery River Authority, refused to release any water succumbing to the large scale protests that had mounted in the Cauvery districts of the state. Tamil Nadu aghast at the defiance, went back to the Supreme Court.  Karnataka now resumed the release of water for a few days, but stopped it again on 18 September as a Karnataka farmers and their protests threatened to take a dangerous turn. The centre now stepped in and asked Karnataka to release the water. The Supreme Court meanwhile, in response to Tamil Nadu's petition asked the Cauvery River Authority for details of the water release and water levels in the reservoirs.

The flare up had by now, well and truly taken an ugly turn and there were accusations and counter accusations being thrown all around in both states. The dispute had already spilled onto the streets in the Mandya district of Karnataka and was threatening to spread to other parts of the state too.  Precipitating the matters on the streets, the Supreme Court ordered Karnataka on 3 October to comply with the Cauvery River Authority and resume the release of water.

Karnataka once again refused to obey the orders of the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu filed another contempt petition on Karnataka and soon the issue degenerated into a 'free for all' with all and sundry from both states joining the protests. Soon, film actors and various other cross sections of society from both states were on the streets. Tamil TV channels and screening of Tamil films were blocked in Karnataka. Also all buses and vehicles from Tamil Nadu were barred from entering Karnataka.

The Karnataka Chief Minister, S. M. Krishna on the other hand, fearing that the situation might spiral out of control, embarked on a padayatra from Bangalore to Mandya.  While some saw this as merely a gimmick, some, like U R Ananthamurthy saw it as a good faith effort to soothe tempers and joined him in the yatra.

This period did not see any major flare up in the dispute even though the summer of 2003 saw a dry spell in both states. The monsoons in 2004, 2005 and 2006 was quite copious and this helped a great deal in keeping the tempers calm.  While the last 3 or 4 years have been relatively quiet as far as jingoistic voices are concerned, a flurry of development has been afoot in the courts.

The term of the tribunal was initially set to expire in August 2005.  However, in the light of the many arguments the court was yet to hear, the tribunal filed a request for extension of its term.  The extension was granted and the tribunal's term was extended for another year until September 2006.  Early in 2006, a major controversy erupted over the 'Assessor's report' that was apparently 'leaked' to the press.  The report had suggested a decision which Karnataka summarily rejected.  Another major controversy erupted when just a couple of months before the September 2006 deadline, the tribunal recommended the formation of another expert committee to study the 'ground realities' yet again.  This was unanimously and vehemently opposed by all the four states party to the dispute.  The states contended that this move would further delay a judgement which has already been 16 years in the making.

More than the disapproval of all the four states of the new expert committee that was proposed, the proposal turned out to be a major embarrassment for the tribunal.  This was because, not only were the four states opposed to it even the Chief Judge of the tribunal was opposed to it.  However the other two assistant judges on 3-man adjudication team, overruled the opinion of the main Judge.  And all this was done in a packed courtroom and this led to petty bickering and heated arguments between the three judges in the packed courtroom.  This left everyone in the courtroom shocked and the Tamil Nadu counsel was moved to remark that it was embarrassing that the judges probably needed help settling their own disputes before adjudicating on the dispute at hand.  Nonetheless, the new expert committee was formed and carried out further assessments.  Subsequently, the extended deadline of the tribunal also passed and the tribunal was given yet another extension.
,

The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007.[14] According to its verdict, Tamil Nadu gets 419 TMC of Cauvery water while Karnataka gets 270 TMC.  The actual release of water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu is to be 192 TMC annually. Further, Kerala will get 30 TMC and Puducherry 7 TMC.[37] Water to be released to Tamil Nadu according to monthly schedule as: June month (10 TMC), July (34), August (50), September (40), October (22), November (15), December (8), January (3), February (2.5), March (2.5), April (2.5) and May (2.5).[38] The  Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, unhappy with the decision, filed a revision petition before the tribunal seeking a review.[citation needed]

On 19 September 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is also the Chairman of the Cauvery River Authority, directed Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu at Biligundlu (the border) daily. But Karnataka felt that this was impractical due to the drought conditions prevailing because of the failed monsoon. Karnataka then walked out of the high-level meeting as a sign of protest.  On 21 September, Karnataka filed a petition before the Cauvery River Authority seeking review of its 19 September ruling.

On 24 September, Tamil Nadu's Chief minister directed  the officials to immediately file a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to Karnataka to release Tamil Nadu its due share of water.[39]

On 28 Sep 2012, the Supreme Court slammed the Karnataka government for failing to comply with the directive of the Cauvery River Authority.[40] Left with no other option, Karnataka started releasing water. This led to wide protests and violence in Karnataka.[41]

On 4 October 2012, the Karnataka government filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on its 28 September order directing it to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water everyday to Tamil Nadu, until 15 October.[42]

On 6 October 2012, several Kannada organisations, under the banner of "Kannada Okkoota", called a Karnataka bandh (close down) on 6 October in protest against the Cauvery water release.[43]  On 8 October, the Supreme Court of India announced the release of 9,000 cusecs had to be continued and it was up to the Cauvery River Authority's head, the Prime Minister, as a responsible person, to ensure this happened.  The Prime Minister ruled out a review of the Cauvery River Authorityâ€™s decision until 20 October, rejecting the plea by both the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders from Karnataka. Within a few hours, Karnataka stopped release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu.
[44]

On 9 October 2012, Tamil Nadu's chief minister directed authorities to immediately file a contempt petition against the Karnataka government for flouting the verdict of the Supreme Court by unilaterally stopping the release of water to Tamil Nadu.[45]  Tamil Nadu made a fresh plea in the Supreme Court on 17 October, reiterating its demand for appropriate directions to be issued to Karnataka to make good the shortfall of 48 TMC of water as per the distress sharing formula.[46]

On 15 November 2012, The Cauvery Monitoring Committee directed the Karnataka government to release 4.81 TMC to Tamil Nadu between 16 and 30 November.[47]

On 6 December, the supreme court directed Karnataka to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu. The court asked the union government to indicate the time frame within which the final decision of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, which was given in February 2007, was to be notified. This decision was given in the view of saving the standing crops of both the states.[clarification needed][48]

On 22 August 2016, Tamil Nadu approached Supreme Court, seeking direction to Karnataka to release 50.052 TMC ft Cauvery water from its reservoirs for its third samba cultivation, as mandated in the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 2007. Karnataka cited distress situation as Karnataka felt there was only enough water for drinking purposes [49] and declined to release water.

On 2 September 2016, Supreme Court asked Karnataka to consider Tamil Nadu's plea on humanitarian grounds and release water and advised both states to maintain harmony. The Court also asked Karnataka to revert by 5 September 2016 as to how much water it can release. On 5 September 2016 Karnataka informed the Supreme Court that it can release 10,000 cusecs per day, while Tamil Nadu demanded 20,000 cusecs per day. Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to release 15,000 cusecs per day to Tamil Nadu for next 10 days till 16 September 2016.

On 9 September 2016, the state of Karnataka observed a bandh and protested against the release of water to Tamil Nadu. Supreme Court was approached by Karnataka citing public unrest, seeking modification of the earlier order. On 12 September 2016, Supreme Court slammed Karnataka for citing law and order problem and modified the 5 September order, directing Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water till 20 September 2016. This decision by the Supreme Court lead to an unrest among the people of Karnataka as the water release limit was increased by extending the number of days and violence broke out in Bangalore, Mysore, Mandya and other parts of state.[50] Two people were killed[51][52][53] in the unrest and section 144 was imposed in Bangalore. Curfew was also imposed on few parts of Bangalore.

On 19 September 2016, the Cauvery Supervisory Committee, set up by Supreme Court, ordered Karnataka to release 3,000 cusecs per day from 21 September 2016 to 30 September 2016. On 20 September 2016, Supreme Court directed Karnataka to further release 6,000 cusecs of water from 21 September 2016 to 27 September 2016 and directed the Central Government to set up the Cauvery Management Board in order to provide a permanent solution for the dispute.[54][55] However, in a special session of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly held on 23 September, a resolution was passed not to release water to Tamil Nadu, hence defying the Supreme Court's order.[56] On 27 September, the Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to give 6000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu for 3 days [57] which was again not carried out.[58]

On 30 September, the Supreme Court gave Karnataka a "last chance" and ordered 6,000 cusecs of water to be released during the first 6 days of October. The Court asked the Central Government to set up the Cauvery Water Management Board by 4 October so that the Board can visit the Cauvery sites to check the ground realities. The apex court called for a report on 6 October, which would be the next date of hearing.[59] On 1 October 2016, Karnataka filed for review petition over Supreme Court's latest order to release 6,000 cusecs of Cauvery water from 1 to 6 October and also held a special session of the state legislature.[60][61][62] After another special legislature session on 3 October, the Karnataka government decided to release water for agricultural purposes, but it was not specified whether water would be released to farmers of Karnataka or Tamil Nadu.[63]
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 4 October directed Karnataka to release 2,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil Nadu from 7 to 18 October. The apex court had ordered the state to release 6,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day. The hearing of the case is adjourned to 18 October.[64]

Supreme Court (SC) on 9 January 2018 declared that it would pronounce its verdict clearing all the pending cases and the confusion within a month.[65] On 16 February 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced its verdict. Reduced 14.75 tmc water allocation to Tamilnadu and now Karnataka to release only 177 tmc of water to Tamilnadu for next 15 years. The verdict also mandated to formally constitute the Kavery river management board by the union government within 40 days for implementing strictly the tribunal award and its verdict.[9]

Karnataka is also not happy with setting up Cauvery Management Board for monitoring water availability and use as part of the SC verdict.[66] Union government is also not comfortable with the SC verdict to form the Cauvery management board with in the stipulated period.[67]

The reallocation of water by the three member SC bench among the both states Tamilnadu and Karnataka, is considered as deviation from earlier rulings given by bigger benches of SC in terms of changing the water allocations to a state by reviewing water allocations of a tribunal.[68][69] Per Article 262, the role of SC in an interstate water dispute is limited only to the interpretation and implementation of the tribunal order and to examine whether tribunal exceeded its limit by violating the constitution and the Interstate River Water Disputes Act.

The Ministry of Water Resources and River Development on Friday directed that the Cauvery Water Management Authority be published in the government gazette. With this, the authority, which will play a major role in sharing of the river's waters amongst three states and a Union Territory is finally official. Headquartered in Delhi, the Cauvery Management Authority will be the sole body to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award as modified by the SC. The Centre, as per reports, would have no say except for issuing administrative advisories to it.

The Authority will be assisted in the discharge of its functions by a Regulatory Committee. A bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has further directed the government to notify them before the monsoon season sets in June.

It took nearly three months after the Supreme Court order for the Centre to file the draft scheme in court. The NDA government had come under immense criticism for delaying the finalisation of the scheme because of the Karnataka election. The Government's counsel had even said in court that the cabinet was yet to approve of the scheme as Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other ministers were campaigning in Karnataka where election took place on May 12.

The Supreme Court on 16 February 2018 delivered its verdict in the decades-old Cauvery water dispute, allocating more water to the state of Karnataka. The top court ordered the Karnataka government to release 177.25 tmcft of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu from its inter-state Biligundlu dam. The judgment clarified that Karnataka will now have an enhanced share of 14.75 tmcft water per year while Tamil Nadu will get 404.25 tmcft, which will be 14.75 tmcft less than what was allotted by the tribunal in 2007. Earlier, in accordance with the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT), Karnataka had a share of 270 tmcft of Cauvery water. This will now increase to 284.75 tmcft.

The long-awaited judgment was pronounced by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, which had on September 20, 2017 reserved the verdict on the appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the 2007 award of the tribunal.[70]

Final allocation is as under[71]:-
Karnataka : 284.75 (270 + 14.75) TMC
Tamil Nadu : 404.25 (419 – 14.75) TMC
Kerala : 30 TMC
UT of Pondicherry : 7 TMC
Environmental Protection : 10 TMC
Inevitable escapagaes into sea : 4 TMC
Total : 740 TMC

Therefore, while increasing the share of Karnataka, it did not ignore the needs of Tamil Nadu as well. The Court was fair to both the states while giving its verdict.  However, the Court has not looked deep into the issue like deciding on a deficit formula for sharing of water, issue with respect to construction of a hydel power project in the common boundaries of the river by Karnataka (Mekedatu hydel project), allocation of surplus water and problems of climate change.

Moreover, a major drawback of the judgement is that unlike in cases of the coal mine scam or the iron ore mining case, the Court did not seek the assistance of atleast two technical experts as required under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. This can cause serious practical challenges in the future water sharing and disputes may still arise before it. [72]

The verdict of the Supreme Court on the Cauvery river waters sharing dispute can open a Pandora's box of
challenges. The verdict can have spillover effects on the various inter and Intrastate river disputes.
Vital observations from the Judgment:

The judgment reiterated the supremacy of the Supreme Court and its powers of judicial review. With
increasing number of river water disputes between the states, the applications before the Supreme
Court may Increase. The judgment will also impact various ongoing disputes like Mahadayi. The
important implications would beÂ :-

Inter-State river disputes have become a threat to the nationâ€™s unity and Integrity. The approach
towards river basin must be more of responsibility based rather than rights based approach. The
Supreme Court order is a welcome sign as it emphasizes for humanistic considerations not just factual
and legal matters in resolving the disputes.

As on 14th May 2018, after the conclusion of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Polls of 2018, Center submitted a draft scheme for implementation of the final decision on apportioning the Cauvery waters among the riparian States.[74] The draft, which gives no name for the authority it proposes to create to monitor implementation of the Cauvery Tribunal’s final award, as modified by the Supreme Court, has been largely drawn from the Tribunal’s directions. It will be a two-tier structure, with an apex body charged with the power to ensure compliance with the final award, and a regulation committee that will monitor the field situation and water flow. The powers and functions of the authority are fairly comprehensive. Its powers would extend to apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, supervision of operations of reservoirs and regulation of water releases. The draft makes the authority’s decisions final and binding. However, there is an ambiguous clause: if the authority finds that any one of the States is not cooperative, it can seek the Centre’s help, and the Centre’s decision will be final and binding. This can be seen either as an enabling clause to resolve the situation when there is a stand-off, or as one that gives scope to the Centre to intervene on behalf of one State.

The draft Cauvery Water Management Scheme, as prepared by the Union government and submitted to the Supreme Court in May 2018, is essentially based on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunalâ€™s final order of February 2007.[75][76] There are a few differences between the Cauvery Management Board envisaged by the Tribunal and the authority proposed in the scheme. The Tribunal favored the chairperson being an irrigation engineer with not less than 20 years of experience in water resources management, whereas the scheme says the chairperson could be a senior and eminent engineer with wide experience in water resources management or an officer in the rank of Secretary or Additional Secretary to the Union government. Similarly, the representatives from the four States would be administrators rather than engineers as proposed by the Tribunal.

Acting on the Supreme Court's direction, the Centre constituted a Cauvery Water Management Authority (CMA) on 1st June 2018 to address the dispute over sharing of river water among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry.

On February 16 2018, the apex court had directed the government to form the CMA within six weeks in a verdict that marginally increased Karnataka's share of Cauvery water, reduced the allocation for Tamil Nadu and sought to settle the protracted water dispute between the two southern states.

On June 22 2018, Despite opposition from Karnataka, the Central government constituted the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee as per the provisions in the Cauvery Management Scheme laid down by the Supreme Court.


which three religions have fought for control of jerusalem

The city of Jerusalem is significant in a number of religious traditions, including the Abrahamic religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which consider it a holy city. Some of the most sacred places for each of these religions are found in Jerusalem and the one shared between all three is the Temple Mount.[1]

Religious significance of Jerusalem

Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the ancestral and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE.[2] During classical antiquity, Jerusalem was considered the center of the world, where God resided.[3]

The city of Jerusalem is given special status in Jewish religious law. In particular, Jews outside Jerusalem pray facing its direction, and the maaser sheni, revai and First Fruits must be eaten in Jerusalem. Any expansion of the city for these purposes must be approved by the Sanhedrin.[citation needed] Also, when the Temple in Jerusalem was standing, Jerusalem observed special laws regarding the Four Species on Sukkot, and the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah.

Jerusalem has long been embedded into Jewish religious consciousness. Jews have studied and personalized the struggle by King David to capture Jerusalem and his desire to build the Jewish temple there, as described in the Book of Samuel and the Book of Psalms. Many of King David's yearnings about Jerusalem have been adapted into popular prayers and songs.

Jerusalem appears in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) appears 154 times. The first section, the Torah, only mentions Moriah, the mountain range believed to be the location of the binding of Isaac and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and in later parts of the Tanakh the city is written explicitly. The Tanakh (or Old Testament), is a text sacred to both Judaism and Christianity. In Judaism it is considered the Written Law, the basis for the Oral Law (Mishnah, Talmud and Shulkhan Arukh) studied, practiced and treasured by Jews and Judaism for three millennia.[4] The Talmud elaborates in great depth the Jewish connection with the city.

According to the Hebrew Bible, the First Temple, at the site known as the Temple Mount today, was built by King Solomon and finished in 950 BC,[5] and Mount Moriah is where Abraham almost sacrificed his son and talked to God. When the Babylonians captured the city in 580 BC, they destroyed the temple and sent the Jews into exile.[6] That is, all worshiping was practiced in the temple and only the temple. From the Babylonian capture, Judaism was codified.[7] The Tanakh (Old Testament) laid the foundation for both Christianity and Islam.

Jews worship at the Western Wall

In Christian tradition, Jerusalem's place in the life of Jesus gives it great importance, in addition to its place in the Old Testament. Jerusalem is the place where Jesus was brought as a child, to be "presented" at the Temple (Luke 2:22) and to attend festivals (Luke 2:41). According to the Gospels, Jesus preached and healed in Jerusalem, especially in the Temple courts. There is also an account of Jesus' "cleansing" of the Temple, chasing various traders out of the sacred precincts (Mark 11:15). At the end of each of the Gospels, there are accounts of Jesus' Last Supper in an "upper room" in Jerusalem, his arrest in Gethsemane, his trial, his crucifixion at Golgotha, his burial nearby and his resurrection and ascension.

The earliest Christians were outcast and used the fish symbol to recognize one another to avoid being killed or reprimanded for being Christian by Roman rule.[8] Christianity became more popular over time, but made a huge expansion when the Roman Emperor Constantine claimed Christianity as his religion and thus the religion of the Roman Empire.[9] Jerusalem is mostly important to Christianity because that is where Jesus Christ was brought to occasionally as a child, preached to the poor in his adult life, crucified in the end of his life, and resurrected by God. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is said to have been built over the location where Jesus was crucified and where the tomb was buried.[10]

In Christianity, the Jewish connection with the city is considered as the account of God's relationship with His chosen people—the original covenant—and the essential prelude to the events narrated in the New Testament, including both universal commandments (e.g. the Ten Commandments) and obsolete or Judaism-specific ones. In medieval times, Christians thought Jerusalem was the center of the world (Latin: umbilicus mundi, Greek: Omphalos), and was so represented in the so-called T and O maps. Byzantine hymns speak of the Cross being "planted in the center of the earth," and the imagery is tied to the concept of the Death and resurrection of Jesus being for the benefit of all mankind. Medieval maps of Europe usually placed the east ("orient")—Jerusalem—at the top, and this arrangement led to the use of the term "to orient" to mean to align a map with actual compass directions.

Main entrance to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

The Cenacle on Mount Zion, claimed to be the location of the Last Supper and Pentecost. Bargil Pixner[11] claims the original Church of the Apostles is located under the current structure.

Jerusalem is considered a sacred site in Islamic tradition, along with Mecca and Medina. Islamic tradition holds that previous prophets were associated with the city, and that the Islamic prophet Muhammad visited the city on a nocturnal journey (Isra and Mi'raj). Due to such significance, it was the first Qibla (direction of prayer) for Muslims and the prophet Muhammad designated the Al-Aqsa for pilgrimage.

Born in 570 AD, Muhammad is believed by Muslims to be a messenger for God.[12] He reformed the perspective that God should be worshiped through prayer, reciting God's messages and only worshiping God.[13] Muhammad declared himself to be the last prophet of the Judaic-Christian Religions and he founded a third Abrahamic religion: Islam. The Dome of the Rock is an Islamic sacred shrine in Jerusalem, built on the Temple Mount. This is where Muhammad ascended into heaven and was given the second pillar of Islam, to pray five times a day, from Allah, which is still used today.[14] The Dome of the Rock is influenced by Byzantine Christian architecture, being of a Central Dome Plan.

Muhammad is believed to have been taken by the miraculous steed Buraq to visit Jerusalem, where he prayed, and then to visit heaven, in a single night in the year 610. Jerusalem is not directly mentioned by name in the Qur'an, nor is it mentioned by its Arabic translation (Al Quds). However, the Qur'anic verse (17:1) is interpreted by Islamic tafsirs (commentaries) as referring to this journey, with the term "the farthest Mosque" (al-masjid al-Aqsa) referring to the Noble Sanctuary in Jerusalem, where the mosque stands. There he meets other prophets (in particular, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus).[19]

The Al-Aqsa Mosque is specified of being in Jerusalem as per numerous hadith:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: "Then he heard Allah's Apostle saying, "When the people of Quraish did not believe me (i.e. the story of my Night Journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr and Allah displayed Jerusalem in front of me, and I began describing Jerusalem to them while I was looking at it." Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 58, Number 226.[20]

Part of Jerusalem's significance and holiness to Muslims derives from its strong association with Abraham, David, Solomon, and Jesus. They are all regarded as Prophets of Islam and their stories are mentioned in the Qur'an.

Jerusalem served as the first qibla (direction of prayer) for Muslims. Whilst Muslims were in Mecca, and also for 17–18 months in Medina, Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem. Early mosques in Medina were built to face Jerusalem. In 625, the qibla was changed to the Kaaba in Mecca.[21][Quran 2:142–151]

After Muhammad, many of his Companions lived in Jerusalem, and upon their death they were buried there.[22]

In Mandaeism (an ancient Gnostic-like non-Christian religion, once significant in numbers but now a small group found primarily in parts of southern Iran and Iraq), Jerusalem is considered a city of wickedness, dedicated to the god of Judaism, whom they call Adunay (Adonai) or Yurba (possibly YHWH) and consider to be an evil spirit. According to Sidra d-Yahia 54, Jerusalem is "the stronghold that Adunay built... [he] brought to it falsehood in plenty, and it meant persecution against my tarmidia (Manda d-Hiia's disciples)." In the Ginza Rba (15.11), it is said to have come into being as a result of the incestuous union of the seven planets with their evil mother Ruha d-Qudsha, meaning Holy Spirit, who "left lewdness, perversion, and fornication in it. They said: 'Whoever lives in the city of Jerusalem will not mention the name of God.'" (Elsewhere, however, it more prosaically says the city was built by Solomon.) However, Yahya (John the Baptist), an important figure in the religion, is said to have been born there.


definition of walk in graph theory with examples

A path is a trail in which all vertices (except possibly the first and last) are distinct.
A trail is a walk in which all edges are distinct.
A walk of length

k

{\displaystyle k}

 in a graph is an alternating sequence of vertices and edges,

v

0

,

e

0

,

v

1

,

e

1

,

v

2

,
…
,

v

k
−
1

,

e

k
−
1

,

v

k

{\displaystyle v_{0},e_{0},v_{1},e_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{k-1},e_{k-1},v_{k}}

, which begins and ends with vertices.  If the graph is undirected, then the endpoints of

e

i

{\displaystyle e_{i}}

 are

v

i

{\displaystyle v_{i}}

 and

v

i
+
1

{\displaystyle v_{i+1}}

.  If the graph is directed, then

e

i

{\displaystyle e_{i}}

 is an arc from

v

i

{\displaystyle v_{i}}

 to

v

i
+
1

{\displaystyle v_{i+1}}

.  An infinite path is an alternating sequence of the same type described here, but with no first or last vertex, and a semi-infinite path (also ray) has a first vertex,

v

0

{\displaystyle v_{0}}

, but no last vertex.  Most authors require that all of the edges and vertices be distinct from one another.  However, some authors do not make this requirement, and instead use the term simple path to refer to a path which contains no repeated vertices.

Path (graph theory)

In graph theory, a path in a graph is a finite or infinite sequence of edges which connect a sequence of vertices which, by most definitions, are all distinct from one another.  In a directed graph, a directed path (sometimes called dipath[1]) is again a sequence of edges (or arcs) which connect a sequence of vertices, but with the added restriction that the edges all be directed in the same direction.

Paths are fundamental concepts of graph theory, described in the introductory sections of most graph theory texts. See e.g. Bondy and Murty (1976), Gibbons (1985), or Diestel (2005). Korte et al. (1990) cover more advanced algorithmic topics concerning paths in graphs.

A weighted graph associates a value (weight) with every edge in the graph. The weight of a path in a weighted graph is the sum of the weights of the traversed edges. Sometimes the words cost or length are used instead of weight.

Several algorithms exist to find shortest and longest paths in graphs, with the important distinction that the former problem is computationally much easier than the latter.

Dijkstra's algorithm produces a list of shortest paths from a source vertex to every other vertex in directed and undirected graphs with non-negative edge weights (or no edge weights), whilst the Bellman–Ford algorithm can be applied to directed graphs with negative edge weights.  The Floyd–Warshall algorithm can be used to find the shortest paths between all pairs of vertices in weighted directed graphs.


what is the movie black or white about

Elliot Anderson (Kevin Costner) is widowed after a car crash leads to the death of his wife. Elliot raises his granddaughter Eloise as he struggles with his grief by binge-drinking. Elliot's world is turned upside-down when the child's black grandmother, Rowena (Octavia Spencer), demands that Eloise be brought under the care of her father, Rowena's son, Reggie (Andre Holland), a drug addict whom Elliot blames for the negligence that led to the death of his own daughter. Elliot finds himself deeply entrenched in a custody battle and will stop at nothing to keep his granddaughter from coming under the watch of her reckless father.

Black or White (film)

Black or White is a 2014 American drama film directed and written by Mike Binder. The film stars Kevin Costner, Octavia Spencer, Gillian Jacobs, Jennifer Ehle, Anthony Mackie and Bill Burr. The film premiered at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival and was released in the United States on January 30, 2015.

On September 25, 2014, Open Road Films was in talks to acquire the US distribution rights to the film.[7] On October 17, Relativity Media acquired the US rights to the film.[8]

Principal photography of the film began on July 15, 2013 in New Orleans[9] with the filming lasting for five weeks.[10][11]

Relativity planned to release the film in time to qualify for the Oscar race,[8] starting with a limited release on December 3, 2014 then opening wide on January 30, 2015.[12] The limited release was scrapped, however, in favor of an immediate wide release.[citation needed]

Black or White was released on Blu-ray and DVD on May 5, 2015.[13]

Black or White grossed $21.6 million in North America against a budget of $9 million.[2]

In its opening weekend of January 30, 2015, the film made a gross of $2.3 million on Friday, $3 million on Saturday, and $986,312 on Sunday for a weekend total of $6.2 million, playing in 1,823 with a per-theater average of $3,408 and ranking #4.[14]

Black or White received mixed reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a 39% rating, based on 87 reviews, with an average rating of 5.3/10. The website's consensus reads: "Black or White has more on its mind than your average family drama, but the film's approach to its thought-provoking themes too often lives down to its title."[15] On Metacritic, the film has a score of 45 out of 100, based on 30 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[16] According to CinemaScore, audiences gave the film an average grade of "Aâˆ’" on an A+ to F scale.[17]


where is the calf of the leg located

The calf (Latin: sura) is the back portion of the lower leg in human anatomy. The muscles within the calf correspond to the posterior compartment of the leg. The two largest muscles within this compartment are known together as the calf muscle and attach to the heel via the Achilles tendon. Several other, smaller muscles attach to the knee, the ankle, and via long tendons to the toes.

Calf (leg)

The calf is composed of the muscles of the posterior compartment of the leg: The gastrocnemius and soleus (composing the triceps surae muscle) and the tibialis posterior. The sural nerve provides innervation.

Medical conditions that result in calf swelling among other symptoms include deep vein thrombosis[1] compartment syndrome,[2][3] Achilles tendon rupture, and varicose veins.

Idiopathic leg cramps are common and typically affect the calf muscles at night.[4] Edema also is common and in many cases idiopathic. In a small study of factory workers in good health, wearing compression garments helped to reduce edema and the pain associated with edema.[5] A small study of runners found that wearing knee-high compression stockings while running significantly improved performance.[6]

The circumference of the calf has been used to estimate selected health risks. In Spain, a study of 22,000 persons 65 or older found that a smaller calf circumference was associated with a higher risk of undernutrition.[7] In France, a study of 6265 persons 65 or older found an inverse correlation between calf circumference and carotid plaques.[8]

Calf augmentation and restoration is available, using a range of prosthesis devices and surgical techniques.

Calf raises are a method of exercising the gastrocnemius, tibialis posterior and soleus muscles of the lower leg. The movement performed is plantar flexion, a.k.a. ankle extension.

Calf and calf of the leg are documented in use in Middle English, respectively, circa 1350 and 1425.[9]

Historically, the absence of calf, meaning a lower leg without a prominent calf muscle, was regarded by some authors as a sign of inferiority: it is well known that monkeys have no calves, and still less do they exist among the lower orders of mammals.[10]