Warriors assistant banned, fined for Vegas journo clash
Warriors assistant coach Richard Agar has received a three-match ban and $10,000 fine for allegedly choking a journalist at the NRL's showpiece event in Las Vegas.
The NRL issued Agar with a breach notice on Monday following the incident that is alleged to have happened on game day at Allegiant Stadium on March 2.
Half of his fine will be suspended pending any further offences, with Agar unavailable to serve on Andrew Webster's coaching staff for upcoming clashes against the Sydney Roosters, Wests Tigers and Melbourne.
He has been barred from travelling with the Warriors to the second of those two matches in Australia.
Agar, who previously coached Super League sides Hull FC, Wakefield Trinity and Leeds Rhinos, will also be required to undertake "appropriate education and training".
The Englishman has five business days to respond to the breach notice
According to the reporter in question, Agar confronted him backstage at Allegiant Stadium, where the Warriors lost 30-8 to Canberra in the first game of the season.
Agar and the reporter are believed to have known each other from the coach's time working in England.
The English-based journalist had been on site to cover matches between Super League sides Wigan and Warrington, and the England women's team and Australia.
Agar previously worked with Webster on Samoa's coaching staff, and joined the NRL club for the Warriors head coach's first season at the helm in 2023.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox Sports
36 minutes ago
- Fox Sports
Keyshawn Johnson Returns to Los Angeles Roots in New Limited Series 'LA Legends'
Last November, FOX Sports' Keyshawn Johnson returned to Susan Miller Dorsey High School in Baldwin Hills alongside fellow South Central LA native Paul Pierce to relive their shared inner-city upbringings. Most notably, Johnson revealed how local gang members would intimidate rival high schools by shooting out the stadium lights — earning Dorsey's Jackie Robinson Field its infamous nickname, " The Terrordome ." This summer, Johnson, a USC alum, former No. 1 overall draft pick and 11-year NFL wide receiver, is diving deeper into his Los Angeles roots in a new limited series titled "LA Legends" on his digital show "All Facts No Brakes." Johnson sits down with legendary figures interconnected within the LA landscape and immerses himself in the fabric of the city by visiting landmarks such as California State Prison and Inglewood High School. Through storytelling with guests such as Baron Davis, Trevor Ariza, Candace Parker and Ice Cube, "LA Legends" captures the heartbeat of Los Angeles and how the city shaped each legend's career. Watch the series trailer and catch new episodes of the show weekly at 9 a.m. ET on "All Facts No Brakes." Episode 1: South Central Stars (ft. DeSean Jackson, Baron Davis and Paul Pierce) These four former pro athletes and LA natives sit down for an authentic conversation about how growing up here shaped their mentality and success. Episode 2: Women's Hoops Pioneers (ft. Candace Parker and Cheryl Miller) On the heels of her jersey retirement with the Sparks, Candace Parker joins up with her GOAT Cheryl Miller to discuss their impact on women's hoops. Episode 3: N.W.A Tribute (ft. Lil Eazy-E, DJ Yella and Arabian Prince) Founding members of N.W.A — DJ Yella and Arabian Prince — join Lil Eazy-E's son to pay tribute to the group's South Central LA roots and cultural impact. Episode 4: Ice Cube Sit-down Ice Cube sits down for a 1-on-1 conversation about delivering the Dodgers World Series trophy, playing street basketball and pivoting from local Compton celebrity to worldwide star. Episode 5: Rowley Park Hoops (ft. Brandon Jennings and Michael Cooper) Brandon Jennings returns to his hometown Compton basketball gym, where he has since rehabilitated, with a surprise appearance by childhood mentor Michael Cooper. Episode 6: Paul Pierce Returns to Inglewood Paul Pierce meets Keyshawn Johnson at his old stomping grounds at Inglewood High School and the two reflect on their shared roots in the heart of LA. Episode 7: Los Angeles Prison visit (ft. Trevor Ariza) In partnership with the LA-based non-profit "Between the Lines," Keyshawn Johnson heads to California State Prison in Los Angeles County with Lakers champion Trevor Ariza to play basketball with the incarcerated population. Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account and follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily! recommended Get more from National Football League Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more
44 minutes ago
Iranian leaders' religious decrees, legislation escalate legal crackdown
Two Iranian grand ayatollahs have issued separate fatwas, saying that any insult, threat or aggression against Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei coming from "a government or individual" will be seen as an "insult and aggression to the essence of Islam." Such action, based on these fatwas -- religious decrees issued on Sunday by Grand Ayatollah Hosein Noori Hamedani and Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi -- carry the ruling of "waging war against God." This is considered one of the most severe security crimes in Islamic Republic's sharia-based law, punishable by execution. However, Noori Hamedani's fatwa goes even further adding that "whoever provides assistance in this crime will carry the same guilt." While there is no mention of any specific individual or countries in the text of the fatwas, they were issued in response to inquiries about President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's comments on possible intentions to kill Khamenei amid the tensions between Israel and Iran. The fatwas were shared widely on Iranian media right after some details of a newly passed bill in the Iranian parliament were also published on Sunday. The bill introduced higher levels of criminal labels for activities that are interpreted as action against the Iranian government or national security. Coupled with the newly passed bill -- which still awaits a final confirmation before turning into a law -- the fatwas have created concern among lawyers and human rights activists in the country. They are unsure about the implications for legal cases, especially for the freedom of speech and any level of involvement in protesting against the regime. According to the new bill published by Iran's semi-official Tasnim News Agency, anyone involved in "any action or cooperation in carrying out political, cultural, media and propaganda activities, creating and reflecting artificial damage, or preparing or publishing false news or any type of content that typically causes public fear and terror, creating division or harming national security," might be guilty of "corruption of earth." This is punishable by execution. Otherwise, at the discretion of the court, the sentence may be 10 to 15 years of imprisonment. "It is really terrifying," a Tehran-based Iranian lawyer, who did not want to be named for security concerns, told ABC News. "The new bill keeps the interpretation of the crimes so widely open that any activity can now be easily labeled as 'corruption [of] earth,' while formerly the same actions would be ruled as softer crimes like 'propaganda against the regime' and had shorter imprisonment sentences," the lawyer added. "Neither the new law nor the fatwa is in favor of the defendants." In Shia Islam, a fatwa is usually given by a marja who is a high-ranking scholar and is able to make decisions within the confines of Islamic laws. But his decisions are observed by his own followers. Shia people can choose which marja to follow when they come to the age of religious maturity. The fatwas mostly guide followers on matters related to prayer, fasting, business or modern issues like praying upon traveling on an airplane. However, there is a track record of massive social and political effects from some fatwas. One such fatwa was the one issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the previous supreme leader, against author Salman Rushdie, who was stabbed multiple times at the Chautauqua Institution in southwestern New York in 2022. Authorities did not specifically say the attack was motivated by the fatwa, but did note that the New Jersey man convicted of attempted murder in the 2022 stabbing attack was "an individual with strong indicators of ideological support for the Iranian regime." The Iranian government denied that its officials were responsible for the attack. Elaborating on the role of the fatwas in Islamic Republic's judicial system, the lawyer noted that, based on the Iranian constitution, the judges are allowed to ask for a fatwa or issue sentences based on "credible fatwas" if the existing law upon trial has not specified a crime. "Now we see both the law and the fatwa are issued and it is deeply concerning how it will affect the future trials," the lawyer said.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Supreme Court to hear long-running copyright case involving Cox Communications
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a major copyright case involving Georgia-based Cox Communications and major record labels that could have profound implications for trademarked works, liability for infringement, as well as internet access. At issue is a 2018 lawsuit filed by Sony and other record labels asserting Cox should be held responsible for customers who allegedly committed copyright infringement a decade ago by illegally downloading music. A federal jury in Virginia in 2019 found in favor of Sony, Universal and other music publishers that claimed Cox, one of the nation's largest internet service providers, failed to adequately prevent its customers from illegally downloading and sharing music. In February 2024, a federal appeals court tossed the $1 billion jury verdict, saying the broadband provider did not profit from the actions of subscribers who allegedly pirated music. In that ruling, however, the appellate judges upheld another part of the verdict in which the original trial jury found Cox bore some responsibility for not safeguarding against illegal behavior by its broadband customers. The appeals court panel sent the case back to a lower court for a trial on damages. Last August, Cox sought Supreme Court review, contending the appellate court's ruling threatens internet access nationwide and carries huge ramifications for Americans and the economy because the company said service providers might be compelled to end internet access for some customers for a small number of cases of infringement. The case will be heard during the high court's next term, which begins in October. In seeking Supreme Court review, Cox told the justices that if the current appeals court panel ruling stands, imposing liability for the acts of customers means internet providers would need to terminate service to internet connections "previously used for infringement" or face huge monetary penalties if infringement happens again. "The question of who is responsible for online copyright infringement carries immense public implications, affecting the interests of rights owners, businesses and users on a pervasive scale," lawyers for Cox wrote in the petition for cert. At the same time, copyrighted work has extensive legal protections for content creators. A Supreme Court decision in the case could better define who bears liability for copyright infringement, how the owners of content are protected and how internet service providers police customers' activity online. "We are pleased the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to address these significant copyright issues that could jeopardize internet access for all Americans and fundamentally change how internet service providers manage their networks," Cox spokesman Todd Smith said Monday in a news release. "Today's development supports our goal of protecting consumers, preserving open internet access, and ensuring that broadband remains a reliable resource for the communities we serve. We look forward to presenting our arguments to the Court." An attorney for Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement, the Recording Industry Association of America said under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress gave internet providers immunity from financial liability "if they act with a modicum of responsibility - namely, that they impose real consequences on users who repeatedly violate creators' rights - an unprecedented approach by Congress intended to demonstrate its commitment to responsible technological innovation. Unfortunately, Cox breached its part of that bargain." "We are confident that on full review of the record, the Court - like the trial and appellate courts did before it - will find that Cox's willful failure to follow well-settled law contributed to massive infringement of the plaintiffs' copyrights and will return the case to the trial court for final determination of damages," the RIAA statement said. Cox Communications is owned by Cox Enterprises, which also owns The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In May, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court, urged the justices in a friend of the court brief to take up the case, specifically some of the questions raised by Cox. During the 2010s, the music industry sent thousands of notices to internet service providers such as Cox about suspected music piracy by its customers. Record companies ultimately filed several suits and won judgments, though substantially smaller than the initial Cox case, against internet providers, including Frontier Communications and Grande Communications. At the time of the initial litigation, record labels bet big on selling paid digital downloads, and fighting piracy was key to protecting that business. Since that time, however, music streaming services have emerged and now dominate the market for digital distribution. The record labels alleged Cox customers illegally downloaded more than 10,000 songs and accused the broadband company of not having adequate safeguards. Cox has defended its anti-piracy protocols as well as its customer privacy protections. If internet providers face such steep penalties for the actions of customers, it could lead to the loss of internet service to some customers, Cox has argued. The harm from potential loss of internet access is more acute in areas with fewer providers, the company contends. "Imposing liability on providers merely because they continue providing service after receiving allegations of infringement at a given IP address will have dangerous and drastic consequences," Cox said in its petition. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
