Input: Following the conquest of the temple fort , later known as Jaromarsburg, on Arkona in 1168 by the Danes under King Valdemar I and Bishop Absalon of Roeskilde, the princes of Rugen had to recognise Danish suzerainty. On their accession to power, the Rugen princes were forced to confirm their allegiance to the Danish king and were obliged to provide military support to the Danes. In 1304 Vitslav III of Rugen gained sole lordship over the territory on the death of his brother, Sambor. Because he had no issue at that point in time, there existed the possibility that Rugen's princely house could become extinct. As a result, in 1310 he agreed a contract of inheritance at Ribnitz with the Danish king, Eric VI Menved, his feudal lord. The agreement was that in the event of Vitslav dying without issue, the fiefdom of Rugen would be returned to the Danish crown. At that time, Eric VI Menved was attempting to extend his power in the southern Baltic Sea region in order to reduce the influence of Hanseatic towns like Stralsund. To assist him, in addition to the princes of Rugen, the king also had Prince Henry II of Mecklenburg as a vassal. After the death of Eric VI Menved in 1319, the 1310 treaty lapsed and Vitslav III sought allies in the Pomeranian dukes. On 5 May 1321 dukes Otto I of Pomerania, Vartislav IV of Pomerania-Wolgast and Barnim II of Pomerania-Stettin agreed a mutual inheritance contract with Vitslav III of Rugen. But in an alliance agreement that had been previously concluded on 25 October 1315 between Vartislav IV, the son of Vitslav's sister, Margaret, and Eric's brother, Christopher of Halland, who later became King Christopher II of Denmark, Vartislav IV had already been promised the Rugen fiefdom.

Question: Who did Vitslav III ally with after Erik IV?

Input: Coming off their impressive win over the Redskins, the Eagles went home for a Week 11 NFC East duel with the New York Giants on Sunday night. Philadelphia delivered the game's opening strike with a 4-yard touchdown run from quarterback Michael Vick. The Giants answered in the second quarter with kicker Lawrence Tynes getting a 24-yard field goal, yet the Eagles replied with a 38-yard and a 24-yard field goal from kicker David Akers. Philadelphia added onto their lead in the third quarter with Akers' 28-yard field goal, yet New York replied with quarterback Eli Manning completed a 2-yard touchdown pass to tight end Travis Beckum. The Giants took the lead in the fourth quarter as Manning completed a 5-yard touchdown pass to wide receiver Derek Hagan, yet the Eagles struck back with a 50-yard touchdown run from running back LeSean McCoy (with Vick completing a 2-point conversion pass to wide receiver Jason Avant). Afterwards, Philadelphia pulled away with Akers' 50-yard field goal.

Question: Which players scored field goals longer than 20 yards?

Input: After a huge road win, the Bengals returned home for a game against the Bills. The Bengals would draw first blood in the first quarter when Andy Dalton found A.J. Green on a 77-yard pass to make it 7-0. The Bills scored a field goal later on in the quarter when Stephen Hauschka kicked a 31-yard field goal to make it 7-3. The Bengals moved up by a touchdown in the second quarter when Randy Bullock nailed a 30-yard field goal to make it 10-3. Though the Bills would tie it up later on in the quarter when Tyrod Taylor connected with Brandon Tate for a 12-yard pass making the score 10-10 at halftime. In the third quarter, the Bills moved into the lead with another field goal from Hauschka. This was from 38 yards out to make the score 13-10. In the fourth quarter, the Bengals retook the lead when Joe Mixon ran for a 5-yard touchdown making it 17-13. Hauschka got the Bills closer with a 28-yard field goal to make it 17-16. Though later on, Bullock kicked a 29-yard field goal making the score 20-16. This would be the eventual final score of the game. With the win, the Bengals went into their bye week at 2-3.

Question: How many more yards did Randy Bullock kick for field goals in the first half compared to the second half?

Input: On 26 August 1643, during the minority of the former chief, "the Estates of the Kingdom passed an Act for the Committees of War in the shires of Scotland", and among the Commissioners for the Sheriffdom of Sutherland and a par of Inverness-shire, occurs the name of "Sir Robert Munro, tutour of Foulles"; and again on 24 July 1644, in a commission for a similar purpose and for the same Sheriffdom is found the name of "Sir Robert Monro, Tutor of Foullis". In 1649, the Scottish Parliament separated from the Sherriffdom of Inverness-shire the "lands eastward of Altnalait, Knockravock and the Royal Burgh of Tain", erected the Sherriffdom of Ross, and appointed the Marquiss of Argyll the Sherriff-Principal. Afterwards the commission was granted to Sir Robert Munro, who had been elected Member of Parliament for Inverness-shire in 1649 and for his own County of Ross after it was separated from the County of Inverness, 1649-50, to be Sheriff-Principal of the County of Ross. In 1651 Robert succeeded to the head of his house, upon the death of his cousin Sir Hector Munro, 2nd Baronet of Foulis who died at just 17 years of age, as already mentioned. Robert took up his residence in Foulis Castle.

Question:
What happened second: commission being granted to Sir Robert or death of his cousin?