England were made to wait to wrap up victory in the second Investec Test as Sri Lanka’s batsman put in a much-improved performance in their second innings at Durham. Nike Air Force 1 07 Soldes . Having been bowled out for 101 early on day three, Sri Lanka were invited to follow on, trailing by 397 runs, and frustrated England for the most part to close on 309-5.Angelo Mathews top-scored for the tourists with 80 with opener Kaushal Silva and No 6 Dinesh Chandimal also making half-centuries while James Anderson picked up 2-40 for England. Steven Finn admitted it was a hard day for England as Sri Lanka fought back to finish on 309-5 on day three of the second Test. Sri Lanka require another 88 to make England bat again with the hosts five wickets away from a series win.The visitors began the day on 91-8 in their first innings and England made short work of mopping up the tail - Stuart Broad had Suranga Lakmal caught behind in the first over of the day before Lahiru Thirimanne skied one to Nick Compton at point, attempting a big shot against Anderson in the fourth.After skittling Sri Lanka cheaply three times already in the series, England would have hoped for a similar result here as they enforced the follow on. However, there was hitherto unseen resilience shown by the Sri Lankan batsman in their second innings. England were made to wait to wrap up victory in the second Test as Sri Lanka’s batsman put in a much-improved performance in their second innings at Durham Dimuth Karunaratne (26) and Silva looked busy from the off and had patiently put on 38 for the first wicket before Chris Woakes found the formers edge with a ball angled across his body, Joe Root taking the catch at second slip.Kusal Mendis joined Silva and the pair saw their side through to lunch without any further damage.Mendis then took 14 runs from the first five balls of an Anderson over shortly after the break but was undone by the last - a brilliant delivery that nipped away off the pitch to take the edge and give Jonny Bairstow a straightforward catch behind the stumps.Thirimanne, promoted to No 4, was the next man in but he too was dismissed by a beauty, this time from Moeen Ali. The off-spinner turning the ball past the left-handers edge and knocking back his off stump. Watch this brilliant piece of bowling from Moeen Ali as he spins one past Lahiru Thirimanne and knocks back off his stump That brought Silva and Mathews together and the pair managed to frustrate England for the next 20 overs. Silva brought up his half-century from 111 balls while, after a steady start, Mathews began to take the attack to the England bowlers.A stand of 82 was eventually broken by Steven Finn. The Middlesex quick had looked out of sorts for much of the day and it was only when he got riled up that he began to look threatening.He seemed to gain a yard of pace and that was enough to find a leading edge from Silva (57); Bairstow taking the catch as the ball looped up.Mathews pushed on and went past 50 in 63 balls after tea, hitting six fours and a maximum in the process but he was eventually dismissed as Anderson returned and induced the edge with Bairstow diving to his right to take the catch.However, Sri Lanka refused to wilt and Chandimal (54 not out) and Milinda Siriwardana (35 not out) added another 82 to the total to keep England waiting, the former driving beautifully through the covers to bring up his fifty shortly before stumps.Watch day four of the second Investec Test from 10.30am, Monday, Sky Sports 2. Before then, you can catch highlights of day three (8pm), plus The Verdict (9pm) on Sky Sports 2 on Sunday night. Angelo Mathews top-scored with 80 for a much-improved Sri Lanka Air Force 1 Low Utility Pas Cher . Louis Blues brought in the premier unrestricted free agent centre, and did it without breaking the bank. Air Force 1 Soldes .com) - Graeme McDowell opened up with a first- round, 5-under 67 on Thursday and he holds a 2-shot lead at the WGC - HSBC Champions. http://www.siteairforce1pascher.fr/air-force-1-low-soldes/basket-basse-femme.html . The 36-year-old Colts receiver is going back to the playoffs as a division champion.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at email@example.com. Hey Ref, I am a Habs fan, but no one likes to see headshots or injuries. I dont think that Douglas Murray intended to concuss Mike Kostka, and I really hate the trend of punishment based on severity of injury instead of severity of the infraction. Murray deserves a suspension, but given inconsistency of supplementary discipline I have no idea what is appropriate. I see worse things get away with nothing and things that arent as bad might get 3 games. It just seems random. What Murray did was a lazy, stupid panic reaction to a player he knew he could not keep up with or slow down legally, and could reasonably have been foreseen as injurious but I dont think he intended that. He clearly meant to hit him, he clearly stuck out his elbow, but I dont think he intended to make it the sole or even primary point of contact. He is just big and slow enough that it was all he made contact with. I would probably give him 3-4 games but given inconsistency have no idea what to expect. Whatta we have to do to get consistency, and what does this deserve? PR Kerry, I read your post on a regular basis. My team is not on anyones radar, playoff-wise, so bias not an issue here. On Tuesday you commented on the Orpik hit - I totally agree on your view. I just happened to be channel surfing last night and saw the Douglas Murray hit which may not have been equal to but not unlike the Orpik hit except Murrays skates did not leave the ice but intensions were much the same with perhaps a bit more elbow and the refs threw the book at Murray -- match penalty. In your opinion, should the refs be more on the severe side in these cases like the Murray hit? Also, there seems to be real disconnect when these calls are made in different games with different teams. Just an opinion, but I think it would be better if the referees were more severe - more MATCH penalties in these situations. Intent to injure, which many of these hits are, should equal a match penalty. Murrays hit equals automatic suspension, Orpik equals 0 jb CLICK HERE to watch the play in question. PR and JB: I agree that Douglas Murray neither attempted nor intended to injure Mike Kostka on this play. At 63 and 240 lbs, Douglas Murray is a huge presence on the blue line but he is not regarded as a dirty player. Murray is a "straight ahead" type of player with somewhat limited lateral mobility. Given his size, whenever Murray contains or catches an opponent inside his personal space he can administer a punishing body check. On the play in question, it was this limited lateral mobility that caused Douglas Murray to make himself even bigger with a reflex elbow once Mike Kostka dished the puck offf in close quarters and was about to beat the Habs defenceman to the inside. Nike Air Force 1 07 Homme Pas Cher. A match penalty for attempting to or deliberately injuring an opponent is more typically imposed for a retaliatory attack on an opponent and/or when there is a larger gap in space and time that would indicate some premeditation. For example, if Douglas Murray had taken a run at Mike Kosta with his elbow in an extended prone position targeted at the head of his opponent, a match penalty should clearly result. While I am in no way condoning the poor and dangerous decision that Murray made to extend his elbow and contact the head of Kostka, it appeared to be a desperation, reflex move by Murray intended to stop his opponent and not in an attempt to deliberately injure Kostka. Under the current standard and interpretation, a 5 minute major and game misconduct would be the more expected penalty assessment on a play of this nature. The resulting time penalty (5 minutes) and expulsion from the game Murray incurred would have been the same with either assessment. To your point, JB, if there was any doubt in the refs mind whether to assess a major plus game misconduct or a match penalty he and the game would be better served by imposing the more severe penalty. The primary difference is that as a result of being assessed a match penalty, Douglas Murray was automatically suspended from further competition until the Commissioner (Players Safety Committee) has ruled on the issue as stipulated in Rule 21.2. If a major and game misconduct (or no penalty at all) had been assessed, the Players Safety Committee would, at their discretion, been able to review the hit and impose a suspension to Murray under Rule 28 - supplementary discipline if they deemed it worthy. Douglas Murray needs to be suspended for his decision and actions on this play. I wouldnt expect it to be more than three games but your guess is as good as mine. There is a big difference between Brooks Orpiks check that made contact through the body and the head of Jonathan Toews and Murrays elbow hit to the head of Mike Kostka. Orpiks hit is deemed to be entirely "legal" while Douglas Murray clearly violated Rule 45 - elbowing and/or Rule 48 - illegal check to the head. Orpik left his feet to increase velocity and impact through the hit on his opponents body and head while Murray kept his skates planted firmly on the ice when he extended an elbow that struck the head of Kostka and became the main point of contact. Brooks Orpik intended to inflict added punishment with the hit on Toews, who had placed himself in a vulnerable position, while Douglas Murrays illegal reflex elbow was intended to stop Mike Kosta from getting past him. As Ive outlined, there is a big difference in the two hits where contact to the head of an opponent resulted in varying degrees. ' ' '