issues

Rams coach Sean McVay worked with Ben Kotwica for three NFL seasons in Washington when McVay was the team’s offensive coordinator and Kotwica was the special teams coordinator.

In the aftermath of McVay’s firing of special teams coordinator Chase Blackburn, Kotwica will oversee the unit, McVay said Monday during a videoconference with reporters.

“I know his capacity, I know the accountability, I know the core belief that he has,” McVay said of Kotwica, who has been a Rams assistant this season after working as the Denver Broncos defensive coordinator the previous two. “This late in the year, you’re not naive to, you’re going to keep a lot of the foundational things.

“But I think there’s some things that we want to have reflected in our style of play, and the way we go about our overall approach that I think will be improved.”

Ben Kotwica will oversee special teams for the Rams moving forward, coach Sean McVay said.

(Associated Press)

Matt Harper, the San Francisco 49ers’ assistant special teams coach from 2021 to 2024, will join the staff to assist Kotwica, McVay said.

Kotwica assumes a leadership role as the Rams (11-4) prepare to play the Atlanta Falcons (6-9) on Monday night at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta.

The Rams have clinched a playoff spot, but their 38-37 overtime defeat by the Seattle Seahawks on Thursday dropped them from the No. 1 seed in the NFC to No. 5.

Blackburn’s departure marked the first time in McVay’s nine seasons with the Rams that he fired a coach during the season.

McVay said he informed Blackburn of his decision Friday morning, the day after Rashid Shaheed of the Seahawks returned a fourth-quarter punt for a touchdown that sparked a comeback from a 16-point deficit and helped send the Rams to defeat.

It was the latest in a series of costly special teams miscues that included several blocked field-goal and extra-point attempts early in the season, which resulted in losses to the Philadelphia Eagles and the San Francisco 49ers.

In early November, the Rams signed kicker Harrison Mevis to replace Joshua Karty, who is on the Rams’ practice squad, and signed veteran snapper Jake McQuaide to replace Alex Ward. Mevis made his first eight field-goal attempts — including three against the Seahawks — before missing from 48 yards in Seattle.

McVay said that as head coach he was ultimately responsible for the special teams’ performance. But he made the move to change leadership for that unit.

“There’s been some things that we need to be better at in critical moments,” McVay said. “It was just what we thought was best for the collective. … As simple as it gets.”

After the Rams play the Falcons, they will conclude the regular season at home against the Arizona Cardinals.

“I do think this is an opportunity that gives us a chance to be able to use the last couple of weeks, and then leading into the playoffs, to be able to establish some of the things that we want,” McVay said of special teams.

Etc.

It would be “hard” for offensive lineman Kevin Dotson, who left the game against the Seahawks because of an ankle injury, to be ready for Monday night’s game, McVay said. Receiver Davante Adams (hamstring), who sat out against the Seahawks, is making progress toward returning but he will be monitored this week before determining his status for the game against the Falcons, McVay said. … Tight end Tyler Higbee and offensive lineman Rob Havenstein will remain on injured reserve this week, McVay said. “They’re not quite ready yet,” he said.

Thomas Skinner was said to be ‘suing’ the BBC over his early exit from Strictly and has claimed that the BBC ‘rigged’ the votes to orchestrate his elimination from the dance competition

Thomas Skinner has hit back at press attention of his rumoured feud with the BBC in furious statement made on Good Morning Britain. Ahead of the Strictly Come Dancing live final on 20 December, it was reported that Skinner was ‘suing’ the BBC as he believed they had ‘rigged’ the votes to ensure he would be eliminated first, which the BBC strongly denied. The broadcaster made clear that they had not received any legal paperwork and Skinner did not confirm that he was suing.

However, after refusing to appear in the live final, Skinner posted a statement to X where he said he “received an anonymous email claiming to be from a BBC exec with stats, saying I’d received far more votes than it appeared and it wasn’t right”. Following the statement, The Mirror exclusively revealed that Skinner’s voting figures may not be as high as he believes.

READ MORE: Thomas Skinner ‘dropped by agent’ after threatening to sue BBC over Strictly axeREAD MORE: Thomas Skinner’s true Strictly voting figures revealed leaving BBC fight in tatters

A source pointed to an independent exit poll of 125,000 viewers as “clear evidence of his unpopularity.” It showed how Skinner attracted just 1805 votes, which was the lowest of any contestant on the BBC programme. The source claimed: “The poll – which is larger than an exit poll for a general election – comprehensively shows that Skinner was the least popular contestant by a long way. There is no conspiracy. These are the cold, hard facts.”

Hitting back at the article in a statement shared on Good Morning Britain, Skinner said he was “struggling to understand” why his words on X were getting so much attention. He said: “I don’t hate the BBC – they gave me my big break on The Apprentice. I had discussions with my representatives on Wednesday evening which I believed to be private and confidential and I spoke openly with them in confidence.

“I was obviously gutted when I received the email on the evening I left the show, and at first I didn’t believe it was true. When I raised this in conversation, I was advised by the BBC to seek legal advice. I’ve had a difficult year with the press attention I didn’t seek, and I’m honestly struggling to understand why this continues to escalate. “

Similarly, when approached by The Mirror, Skinner said he did not believe the low voting figures were accurate but refused to reveal how he was able to verify the “anonymous email” his information came from.

He said: “Regarding the anonymous email and verification process, I don’t wish to comment further at this time or release anything publicly. As for the voting figures, I know for a fact that the information you have is not accurate. That said, it doesn’t materially matter to me now, and I’m not looking to contest this publicly.”

Despite “not looking to contest this publicly”, Skinner made a lengthy public statement on X where he insisted his elimination was “unfair” and that a BBC exec had told him that the broadcaster was angry over his friendship with JD Vance.

He wrote: “On the night I left the show, I received an anonymous email claiming to be from a BBC exec with stats, saying I’d received far more votes than it appeared and it wasn’t right. I’ve since had the email independently verified.”

“That same email mentioned the BBC was very angry an nervous simply because I had met JD Vance (USA VICE PRESIDENT). Let me be clear, I’m not a political bloke. Never have been. I just love my country and am patriotic. I’ve been made out by the press to be this political figure. If anyone was to get an opportunity like what I did, they would have taken it. I still think it is mad that a man like me who sells mattresses out of a van can call someone that senior in the world ’s politics a friend now.”

“I have asked to see the official voting figures to back up the ones I was sent in the email but was told they couldn’t be shown to me. And have never been shown in the history of the show. I have spoke about the email I had received to senior people and the BBC welfare team, who btw I genuinely respect. And they was the ones who advised me to get legal advice because of how unfair it all was. (This was not my idea).”

However, a BBC spokesperson said Skinner never shared the email he referenced. They told the Mirror: “”In response to Tom’s latest statement, the BBC said: “Strictly Come Dancing’s public vote is independently overseen and verified to ensure complete accuracy every week. Any claims to the contrary are entirely without foundation. Unfortunately, despite requests for it, Mr Skinner is yet to share the email he references with anyone from the BBC so we are unable to comment on it.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

DENVER — Just in time for the holidays, President Trump has issued another of his dubious pardons. Or rather, make that a “pardon.”

This one comes on behalf of a former Colorado elections official serving a nine-year sentence for election fraud.

“Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure our elections were fair and honest,” Trump said in a typically gaseous, dissembling post on social media.

“Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections,” the president went on. “Today I am granting Tina a full pardon for her attempts to expose voter fraud in the rigged 2020 Presidential Election.”

Actually, Peters’ crime was conspiring to let an unauthorized person access voting equipment as part of a nutty scheme to “prove” the November 2020 balloting was bogus, then lying and covering up her illegal actions.

And she’s not likely to leave jail anytime soon.

That’s because Trump has precisely zero say over Peters’ fate, given the former Mesa County elections chief was convicted on state charges. The president’s pardon power — which Trump has twisted to a snapping point — extends only to federal cases. If we’re going to play make-believe, then perhaps Foo-Foo the Snoo can personally escort Peters from prison and crown her Queen of the Rockies.

That’s not to suggest, however, that Trump’s empty gesture was harmless. (Apologies to Foo-Foo and Dr. Seuss.)

Some extremists, ever ready to do Trump’s malevolent bidding, have taken up Peters’ cause, using the same belligerent language that foreshadowed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. In fact, threats have come from some of the very same thugs whom Trump pardoned in one of the first shameless acts of his presidency.

“WE THE PEOPLE ARE COMING TO BREAK TINA PETERS OUT OF PRISON IN 45 DAYS,” Jake Lang, a rioter who was charged with attacking police with an aluminum baseball bat, said on social media. “If Tina M. Peters is not released from La Vista Prison in Colorado to Federal Authorities by January 31st, 2026; US MARSHALS & JANUARY 6ERS PATRIOTS WILL BE STORMING IN TO FREE TINA!!”’

(Capitalization and random punctuation are apparently the way to show fervency as well as prove one’s MAGA bona fides.)

Enrique Tarrio, the former head of the Proud Boys extremist group whom Trump also pardoned, shared a screenshot of the president’s social media post. “A battle,” Tarrio said, “is coming.”

Trump’s pretend pardon is not the first intervention on Peters’ behalf.

In March, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to free her from prison, saying there were “reasonable concerns” about the length of Peters’ sentence. The judge declined.

In November, the administration wrote the Colorado Department of Corrections and asked that Peters be transferred to federal custody, which would presumably allow for her release. No go.

Earlier this month, apparently looking to up the pressure, the Justice Department announced an investigation of the state’s prison system. (Perhaps Peters was denied the special “magnetic mattress” she requested at her sentencing, to help deal with sleep issues.)

Like any child, when Trump doesn’t get his way he calls people names. On Monday, he set his sights on Colorado’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis — “a weak and pathetic man” — for refusing to spring Peters from state prison.

“The criminals from Venezuela took over sections of Colorado,” Trump said, “and he was afraid to do anything, but he puts Tina in jail for nine years because she caught people cheating.”

The only true part of that statement is that Colorado does, in fact, exist.

While Trump portrays Peters as a martyr, she is nothing of the sort.

As Polis noted in response to Trump’s “pardon,” she was prosecuted by a Republican district attorney and convicted by a jury of her peers — a jury, it should be noted, that was drawn from the citizenry of Mesa County. The place is no liberal playpen. Voters in the rugged enclave on Colorado’s Western Slope backed Trump all three times he ran for president, by margins approaching 2-to-1.

If Peters’ sentence seems harsh — which it does — hear what the judge had to say.

Peters was motivated not by principle or a search for the truth but rather, he suggested, vanity and personal aggrandizement. She betrayed the public trust and eroded faith in an honestly run election to ingratiate herself with Trump and others grifting off his Big Lie.

“You are as privileged as they come and you used that privilege to obtain power, a following and fame,” Judge Matthew Barrett told Peters in a lacerating lecture. “You’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”

Peters remains unrepentant.

In petitioning Trump for a pardon, her attorney submitted nine pages of cockamamie claims, asserting that Peters was the victim of a conspiracy involving, among others, voting-machine vendors, Colorado’s secretary of state and the Venezuelan government.

To her credit, Peters has rejected calls for violence to set her free.

“Tina categorically DENOUNCES and REJECTS any statements or OPERATIONS, public or private, involving a ‘prison break’ or use of force against La Vista or any other CDOC facility in any way,” a post on social media stated, again with the random capitalization.

Perhaps the parole board will take note of those sentiments when the 70-year-old Peters becomes eligible for conditional release in January 2029, a date that just happens to coincide with the end of Trump’s term.

Which seems fitting.

Keep Peters locked up until then, serving as an example and deterrent to others who might consider emulating her by vandalizing the truth and attacking our democracy.