About this app
About Dog House Play
“But after yesterday’s game, they’re going to draw a lot more support because they were pretty good underdogs (against the Chargers),” Scucci added.
Bettors had plenty of momentum after favorites dominated Week 1, but Sunday (Sept. 20) tilted back in the sportsbooks’ favor behind a wave of upsets. Several heavily backed teams failed to win or cover the spread.
The biggest wins for Boyd were the Eagles failing to cover (24-20 over the Titans), the Saints winning outright as large underdogs (24-17 over the Ravens), and the Browns topping the Bucs (23-19). For bettors looking to recoup losses, the afternoon slate offered relief, with the 49ers handling the Dolphins (35-13), the Seahawks routing the Cardinals (31-7), and the Cowboys topping the Commanders (37-20).
Sky Sports
About Dog House Play
We like Manchester City loanee Jack Harrison to get in amongst the goals in a win for The Whites and that’s at a very tasty price given Jack Grealish is likely to be out for six weeks and the Villains are also missing Matty Cash, who would have been man-marking Harrison if fit. In fact, this is our bet of the week.
Our tip: Jack Harrison to score and Leeds to win (4/1)
Chelsea vs. Manchester United (Sunday, 4.30pm GMT kick-off)
What is Dog House Play?
George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.
Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”
Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.
