SOUTH WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. -- Little League rules impose a limit of 85 pitches, a number that can make it tough to throw a no-hitter. Grant Holman of Chula Vista, Calif., didnt have any problems Friday. Holman struck out 13 and became the first player to toss a no-hitter in the Little League World Series since the rule was put in place in 2007, leading Chula Vista into the second round with a 3-0 victory over Grosse Pointe, Mich. With his seven innings of work, Holman also became the first pitcher since 1979 to throw an extra-inning no-hitter in the LLWS. Standing 6-foot-4 and weighing 166 pounds, the 13-year-old Holman outdueled Grosse Pointes Chad Lorkowski -- another stout young pitcher at 6-3 and 219 pounds. The 12-year-old Lorkowski struck out 12 in six innings but exhausted his 85-pitch allotment. He walked two batters and hit another. Grosse Pointe manager Tom Mazzola praised both pitchers. "That kid throws hard," Mazzola said about Holman. "Hes 6-foot-4, he has a nice curveball and he hits his spots. We havent quite faced a pitcher like that, but the same goes for our big fella. Chad for his size and weight is remarkable." Each pitcher was clocked throwing fastballs in the low-to-mid 70s. "He was going out there. He was dealing," Chula Vista coach Rick Tibbett said about Lorkowski. "And we knew they had to bring someone else in and we knew we were going to hit him." Chula Vista ended a scoreless tie against Grosse Pointe reliever Antonio Moceri with three runs in the top of the seventh. Micah Pietila-Wiggs drove in the third run with the fourth hit of the inning and his second hit of the game. Holman narrowly missed a perfect game with only one walk and got some help from his defence to enter the seventh with eight pitches to spare before he reached the limit. Holman said one of his teammates "accidentally" said something about his no-hit bid in the dugout. "And I walked the next batter," the pitcher said with a laugh. On Sunday, Chula Vista will face Newark, Del., which beat Urbandale, Iowa, 6-3. Grosse Pointe will take on Urbandale on Saturday in the losers bracket. In the international bracket, Tokyo beat Brno, Czech Republic, 7-3, and Taoyuan, Taiwan, routed Ottawa, Ontario, 10-2. Taiwan and Japan will face each other Sunday, while the Canadians will take on the Czechs on Saturday. DELAWARE 6, IOWA 3 Joseph Davis allowed one hit in 4 2-3 innings and Newark held on to win after scoring five times in the first inning. The Mid-Atlantic champions had six hits in the first, including for straight by Nathan Hardcastle, Davis, Eric Ludman and Jack Hardcastle. Jared Owens added a two-run single and Ryan Miller followed with a run-scoring triple. Brady Roberts and Sam Petrillo had Iowas only two hits. Roberts drove in Brock Heinen in the first. Iowa scored its other runs on a passed ball in the second and a wild pitch in the seventh. Davis and Nathan Hardcastle, who pitched 1 1-3 innings in relief, each had two hits for Newark. JAPAN 7, CZECH REPUBLIC 3 Kazuki Ishida hit a two-run homer and Kyousuke Kobayashi drove in a pair of runs with a double to lead Tokyo. Shou Miyao singled home a run in the first and Kobayashi added his double later in the inning. The Japanese champions made it 6-0 in the second on Ishidas homer and an RBI double by Shunpei Takagi. Six pitchers combined on a two-hitter for Japan in the first LLWS game for a team from the Czech Republic. The Czechs broke through in the third on Daniel Stoudeks two-run homer. The Europe and Africa champions cut it to 6-3 in the top of the fifth on a pair of errors by Japan before Ryusei Hirookas RBI single in the bottom half provided the final margin. TAIWAN 10, CANADA 2 Chou Shih-Che, Lan Huai-Chien and Yeh Tung-Jua homered to lead Taiwan. Chou had a three-run shot in the first inning, Lan added a two-run homer in the second to make it 5-0 and Yeh had a two-run homer in the fourth. Yeh allowed just one hit in three innings -- retiring the first eight hitters of the game -- to get the win. He struck out four and didnt walk a batter. Angus Adams homered in the fourth for the Canadians. Floyd Bannister Jersey . -- Hal Steinbrenner says Alex Rodriguez is "a great player" and "obviously an asset," but the New York Yankees managing general partner wouldnt discuss the third basemans possible return to the team following a season-long suspension. Lou Piniella Mariners Jersey . - Jayden Hart scored once and set up two more as the Prince Albert Raiders downed the host Red Deer Rebels 5-3 on Tuesday to clinch the final Western Hockey League playoff berth. https://www.cheapmariners.com/385k-richie-zisk-jersey-mariners.html . "Im going to send Webbie a six-pack (of beer) tonight," she said. Webb wasnt sure that would help. "Ill probably drink one and go to sleep," the Australian veteran said. The two players set up a Sunday showdown between former HSBC champions after finishing off their third rounds with identical birdies over three of the last five holes Saturday to separate themselves slightly from the rest of the crowded leaderboard. Dylan Moore Mariners Jersey . MacArthur scored two goals, and the Senators outlasted Detroit in a testy third period to beat the Red Wings 4-2 on Saturday night. Mariners Jerseys 2019 . PETERSBURG, Fla.The Oscar Pistorius murder trial is underway. On the first day of trial, Michelle Burger, a neighbour of Pistorius, took the stand and set the stage for the prosecutions case. She testified that she heard Reeva Steenkamp cry for help. "I was sitting in bed and I heard her screams," Burger testified. "She screamed terribly and she yelled for help. I heard the screams again. It was worse. It was more intense. Just after her screams, I heard four shots. Four gun-shots... You could hear it was blood curdling screams. You cant translate it into words. The anxiousness in her voice, and fear. It leaves you cold. She screamed terribly and she yelled for help." We know that Pistorius has admitted to killing Steenkamp. The issue being determined at trial is whether he killed her intentionally, or as Pistorius alleges, he killed her by accident. This is his version: "During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony. I had shortly before spoken to Reeva who was in bed beside me. Unbeknown to me, Reeva must have gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time I brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains. I heard the bathroom window sliding open, I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window which was not fitted with burglar bars. I approached the bathroom armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At that time I believed Reeva was still in the bed. The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet which I, in my fearful state, knowing I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically believed to be the intruder or intruders coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me." So lets address some of the more important parts of the trial. Understanding the Charges The key charge against Pistorius is premeditated murder. Premeditated murder requires an intent to murder plus planning the murder. Based upon what we know, expect the prosecution to have a tough time establishing premeditated murder. As support for the charge, the prosecution will argue that the act was planned (or premeditated) since he took the time to put on his prosthetic legs before walking to the bathroom and firing four deadly shots. However, that by itself wont likely be enough to establish the requisite planning element. Premeditation is reserved for more robust planning and generally doesnt capture an intent that materialized right before a crime was committed. For those that like precedents, in the case of State v. Raath, a South African Court ruled that a father forcing his son to remove a firearm from the safe to kill the sons mother was not sufficient to constitute premeditated murder. However, that doesnt mean Pistorius walks. Not even close. Even if the prosecution cant make out premeditated murder, it can still get Pistorius on the lesser charge of murder. In order establish murder, they only need to show that he intended to kill Steenkamp (no planning element needed). Should the prosecution fail on murder, there is another lesser charge that could come into play: culpable homicide. This charge means that Pistorius negligently killed Steenkamp (or that the killing was an accident). And this is what Pistorius is alleging - he killed Steenkamp by accident. He thought she was an intruder. Prison Time Premeditated murder would get Pistorius a compulsory life sentence, while murder would result in a compulsory sentence of 15 years. For culpable homicide, the sentencing is discretionary (varies from fines to prison time), although its not unusual to see prison time in South Africa of 5-10 years for this type of crime. No Jury System & Judge Masipa South Africa does not have a jury sysstem.dddddddddddd Juries at times render unexpected or unusual decisions. They can also be swayed by public sentiment and emotion, while also potentially distracted by celebrity and irrelevant facts. A judge, however, is more likely to focus on the facts and make a ruling based upon those facts. The judge is charged with ensuring a just result and on that basis, will carefully review and consider all the facts of a case. Judge Thokozile Masipa is presiding over the trial. Masipa has a reputation for being tough on cases that involve crimes against women. In May 2013, Masipa ordered serial rapist Shepherd Moyo to serve a jail sentence of 252 year sentence. She hoped the sentence would serve as a "deterrent." Given her intolerance for violence against women, Judge Masipa is perhaps not the ideal judge for Pistorius. South Africa, by the way, has the highest reported rate globally of females murdered by shooting in a country not engaged in war. Thats another reason this case matters. The Case The trial has only just begun. More witnesses will testify and further evidence will be presented. So its tough to know how this will end for Pistorius. Still, there are a number of improbabilities with Pistorius version of the events. How did he not know Steenkamp was not in bed when he walked right by her? Wouldnt Steenkamp have yelled in the bathroom after the first shot was discharged? As well, witnesses have reported seeing the lights on, contradicting Pistorius account that it was pitch dark in his room. As well, Steenkamps wounds suggest she was not sitting on toilet on left hand side of bathroom but rather on right side of bathroom. This suggests she was hiding from Pistorius. Also key is whether Pistorius and Steenkamp argued that night. The prosecution has already produced witnesses who testified that they heard shouting and screaming. This helps the prosecutions argument that this was a quarrel that tragically escalated to murder. As well, the couples mobile phone records could provide helpful insight as to what happened that night. Steenkamp is said to have had her phone with her in the bathroom when she was shot. Was she contacting the authorities or friends for help as an enraged Pistorius charged toward her? It is unusual for someone to take their phone to the bathroom in the middle of the night (unless they feel threatened) and the prosecution will undoubtedly raise that. There is more. Pistorius told authorities he could not remember the password to his own cell phone. As a result, authorities took the phone to Apple headquarters to have it unlocked. This raises the possibility that Pistorius may have been hiding incriminating messages. Forensic evidence will also be presented, which can be quite effective in piecing together what really happened that night. For example, each drop of blood in the bathroom can help determine if Steenkamp was sitting, standing or moving at the time she was shot. Pistorius rage issues will also come into play. As for the defence, they will argue that the shooting was a tragic mistake - but a mistake nonetheless. They will also focus on contradictions and inconsistencies in statements made by witnesses to police and their answers in court. In fact they have started challenging witnesses, attacking not only their recollection of events, but also the plausibility of their claims that they could hear the couple argue from their homes. Pistorius claims lack believability and veracity. Ultimately, it would not be a surprise to see Pistorius convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years in jail, particularly with a Judge like Masipa presiding over the trial. That being said, there is still a lot of track to cover and much evidence to consider. Still, Pistorius is facing an uphill battle. ' ' '