Karen Allen continues acting, Kate Capshaw focuses on family and philanthropy, while Alison Doody takes occasional independent film roles

Derek Rosa, who allegedly stabbed his sleeping mother, Irena Garcia, 39, to death in their Hialeah apartment, has entered a plea of not guilty

Tesla Inc. stands to bring in as much as $3 billion by 2030 thanks to deals with Ford

European countries are among the least prepared in the world for more hot days in a 2C warmer

Denzel Washington wasn't comfortable with how his 'core audience' would respond to interracial scenes

Western-backed maritime forces in the Middle East have warned shippers traveling through the strategic Strait of Hormuz to stay as far away from Iranian territorial waters as possible to avoid being seized

Ukraine said Russian forces have blown up a giant dam in the country’s south, unleashing a torrent of

A new study has found that placenta abnormalities could be the reason for miscarriages. In the United States, there are approximately 5 million pregnancies per year with 1 million ending in a miscarriage and over 20,000 ending in stillbirth, according to a paper published in the journal Reproductive Sciences. “To have a pregnancy loss is a tragedy. To be told there is no explanation adds tremendous pain for these loss families,” said senior author of the paper and research scientist at Yale School of Medicine, Dr Harvey Kliman “Our goal was to expand the current classification systems to decrease the number of cases that remained unspecified.” For the study, researchers worked to create a classification system for miscarriages based on a test that examines a sample of the body’s tissues – known as pathologic examination. The team looked at a series of 1,527 single-child pregnancies that ended in miscarriage, and the data was then sent to Yale for evaluation. After excluding cases without adequate material for examination, 1,256 placentas from 922 patients were examined. Of these, 70 per cent were miscarriages and 30 per cent were stillbirths. By adding the explicit categories of “placenta with abnormal development” (dysmorphic placentas) and “small placenta” (a placenta less than the 10th percentile for gestational age) to other incidents such as cord accident, abruption, thrombotic, and infection – researchers were able to determine the results of 91.6 per cent of the pregnancies, including 88.5 per cent of the miscarriages and 98.7 per cent of the stillbirths. The most common results for unexplained miscarriages were dysmorphic placentas (placenta with abnormal development) which was around 86.2 per cent. For stillbirths, there was 33.9 per cent due to a small placenta. “This work suggests that the over 7,000 small placentas per year associated with stillbirths could have been detected in utero — flagging those pregnancies as high risk prior to the loss,” said Dr Kliman. “Likewise, the identification of dysmorphic placentas may be one way to potentially identify genetic abnormalities in the almost 1 million miscarriages that occur in our country every year.” He said having a definite explanation “for a pregnancy loss helps the family understand that their loss was not their fault, allows them to start the healing process, and, when possible, prevent similar losses — especially stillbirths — from occurring in the future.” When asked what the most effective way might be to prevent stillbirths, Dr Kliman responded, “Measure the placenta!” Read More 'Please, keep beating little heart': Man gives raw account of wife's miscarriage and fears for new unborn child Woman who had six miscarriages celebrates pregnancy with rainbow baby photoshoot Miscarriage: The loneliest grief of all Nearly a fifth of parents fear children will ignore health issues while at university Brits feel their mental health declining due to cost of living crisis How often should you wash your pyjamas?

By Suzanne McGee Fidelity launched a group of six new exchange-traded funds (ETFs) Monday and announced sharp reductions

It may have looked like merely a normal regular season game, but it was for so much more between the Denver Broncos and Chicago Bears.

Australia scrum-half Jake Gordon will join Toulon as cover during the Rugby World Cup, the French Top 14...

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