Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.
Air Jordan 4 Cheap Canada.ca. Kerry, I appreciate your earlier comments on Torontos handling of the Vanek goal, and Im sure youve seen the Howie Rose-Kris King interview by now. Im still left with some basic questions about what the actual NHL rules are at this point, and was hoping you could provide some insight. 1. Does the situation room still need clear, incontrovertible evidence to overturn calls made on the ice? Every NHL announcer seems to think so, but Kris King clearly indicates that while that logic held in many cases there was a specific subset of calls (including kicking motion) where the situation room could take the on-ice call as purely advisory and didnt have to find incontrovertible video evidence in order to overturn. Is Kings view backed up by formal statements/rule changes? Do NHL refs uniformly understand that Toronto needs clear evidence to overturn in some cases but not in others? 2. Kings comments seemed contradictory in that he said the rules regarding kicking were defined so that neither refs or the situation room needed to make any judgment as to the players intent (i.e goals scored by kicking should be disallowed even if they could be considered unintentional or inadvertent), but also raised the point that "foot dragging" could be defined as "kicking" in this context. First of all, Rule 38.4 which you quoted in your initial comment does not mention foot dragging, and the "pendulum" motion it prohibits would seem to explicitly exclude the possibility of disallowing goals based on foot dragging. Has there been an internal memo or formal rule change that all NHL refs would be aware of that expands Rule 38.4 to include foot dragging? Secondly, outside of extraordinarily blatant cases, how could anyone disallow a goal on foot dragging grounds without judging the players intentions? Hundreds of goals go off skates where there has been no "pendulum" type kicking motion. How could anyone distinguish good from bad goals without determining whether they thought the player was trying to intentionally redirect a puck, as opposed to simply position themselves near the goal mouth where lucky bounces sometimes occur? We all understand that no set of rules can ever be perfect. The issue here is that you and most fans that saw the Vanek video believed the rule to be applied in that situation was one thing, and King may have implied (but never clearly said), no - the rule to be applied in that situation is different. If the rules are 100 per cent clear to refs and everyone in the league, it would still be useful to communicate changes more clearly so that announcers and journalists arent confusing the fans. Of course, if situation room personnel think they can establish rule interpretations that the on-ice staff isnt in sync with, that would raise a different set of issues. Hoping you can clarify what the real situation is. Hubert Horan Hubert: I truly believe that each person who staffs the Situation Room on a nightly basis in Toronto is a man of integrity and cares deeply about the game. They do not take the huge responsibility handed to them lightly and they do strive to get every call right through video review to the best of their ability. When a play, subject to review, is taken over by the Situation Room their judgment is independent of the referees and any decision rendered through video review is final. The only exception is when video review returns an "inconclusive verdict" at which time the call reverts back to the referee on the ice. In almost every case the referees initial call will then stand. The referees make the call from their vantage point in real time based on the rules as written and with the direction and expected standard of enforcement they are handed from their superiors. The refs recognize that their decision on the ice can be overturned for any reason, whether they agree or even like it! It would appear, at least from the perception of the personnel conducting the video review, that clear and incontrovertible evidence is present for them to overturn a referees call on the ice. That perception and ultimate decision is always subject to debate and scrutiny from the hockey community. While I cant ever recall Kris King agreeing with a penalty I assessed against him during his 14 season NHL career I know him to be a very good, honest and charitable person. As a former player that was most often cheered by adoring fans, Kris and his colleagues in the Situation Room can sometimes find their decisions challenged rather vehemently by various members of the hockey community. No differently than a referee experiences throughout his career, it goes with the territory! This might explain some of Kris apparent defensiveness during the interview with Howie Rose. What Kris didnt explain, but only alluded to, were instructions provided them by the general managers how to ascertain a "distinct kicking motion" beyond the definition provided in rule 38.4 (iv). If such instructions include a skate drag or worse yet, unintended contact with a players skate resulting from physical contact by an opponent, these new criteria should be clearly communicated to the rest of the hockey world. That I believe is the question that Howie Rose and the rest of us would like a clear answer to. I would be most curious to know if Isles GM Garth Snow and Habs GM Marc Bergevin (following Brendan Gallaghers disallowed goal) among others have signed off on the instructions Kris King alluded to. A referee often factors in "player intent" when imposing his judgment on infractions and calls. To suggest otherwise is illogical. At the present time a vast majority of the hockey community, including current and former officials, current and former players, broadcasters and fans cant logically understand decisions to disallow goals like the one that went into the net off the skate of Thomas Vanek. The answer to that question has to come clearly and definitively from Colin Campbell, current Executive Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations who holds the keys to the Kingdom. Finally, the integrity and accuracy of the video review process would be greatly enhanced if the NHL were to employ former referees to provide their specialized expertise and INDEPENDENT judgment in these matters no differently than the other major professional sports leagues have recognized is necessary.
Air Jordan 4 Canada . - The Cleveland Indians will place centerfielder Michael Bourn on the disabled list before their opener at Oakland on March 31.
Air Jordan 4 Canada Free Shipping . -- Kurt Buschs Sunday at Martinsville Speedway, in some ways, was like his career wrapped into one afternoon.The San Jose Sharks are out for revenge in the opening round of the playoffs, as they attempt to knock out the team that eliminated them from last springs postseason. The Sharks have home-ice advantage this time against the Los Angeles Kings, who are visiting the SAP Center for Thursdays Game 1 battle between the Pacific Division rivals. This marks the third all-time playoff meeting between these clubs and second in a row. The Kings gutted out a low-scoring seven-game victory in last seasons second round, one that left the franchise spent ahead of a five-game loss to the Chicago Blackhawks in the conference finals. San Jose lost the first two games of last years playoff matchup versus Los Angeles before rallying to get back into the set. The Sharks defeated L.A. in six games in the 2011 conference quarterfinals. That was the last time the Kings, who won the franchises first Stanley Cup title in 2012, were knocked out in the first round. These California rivals played a close five-game season series in 2013-14, with the Kings owning a 3-1-1 edge. The teams combined for just 21 goals and skated in four games decided by a single goal. Kings netminder Jonathan Quick won both of his games this season versus the Sharks, giving up just three goals, and is 11-4-5 versus them in the regular season lifetime as well as 6-7 in the playoffs with a 2.25 goals against average and three shutouts. Quick, the 2012 Conn Smythe winner, has excellent career playoff numbers, going 29-21 with a .929 save percentage and 2.03 in 50 lifetime postseason appearances. Like Quick, the Sharks boast a goaltender with a Stanley Cup-winning resume in Antti Niemi, who won a title with the Chicago Blackhawks in 2010. However, the 30-year-old Finn was less impressive in his first two appearances in the playoffs with the Sharks before a solid run in 2013. Niemi went 7-4 with a 1.87 goals against average and .930 save percentage lasts spring as the Sharks swept their first-round series before a tight sevenn-game loss to the Kings.
Cheap Air Jordan 4 Canada Sale. San Joses No. 1 has had his struggles down the stretch this season, perhaps the result of having played in 64 games, and hell have backup Alex Stalock hovering over his shoulder. Niemi went 2-1-1 with a 2.67 GAA in this seasons series, while Stalock lost his only start despite giving up just one goal. Niemi is 6-6 in the playoffs against the Kings with a 2.74 GAA and .897 save percentage. Although Sharks head coach Todd McLellan would not officially reveal his starter for Game 1, all signs point to Niemi getting the call over Stalock. Both the Kings and Sharks are deep at both ends of the ice, but L.A. uses its depth more for defense than offense. The Kings allowed an NHL-best 2.05 goals per game this season, but were ranked 26th in offense (2.42 gpg). San Jose had a balanced attack, placing fifth in the league with 2.35 goals against per contest while tying St. Louis for sixth in scoring (2.92 gpg). Both teams enter this playoff battle without many injuries to note. Kings No. 1 defenseman Drew Doughty is dealing with a bruised left shoulder, but he expects to play in Game 1. The Sharks, meanwhile, saw forward Tomas Hertl return late in the regular season from a knee injury. Hertl missed over three months of action and 45 games after L.A. captain Dustin Brown delivered a knee-on-knee hit on the Czech rookie. Hertl had 15 goals and 10 assists in 37 games this season and is hoping to prove himself in his first NHL postseason. San Jose was 29-7-5 as the home team this season and will host Game 2 on Sunday. The Kings were 23-14-4 as the visiting club in 2013-14. Projected Kings Lines Gaborik - Kopitar - WilliamsKing - Richards - CarterToffoli - Stoll - BrownClifford - Lewis - Nolan Muzzin - DoughtyRegehr - VoynovMitchell - Martinez Projected Sharks Lines Pavelski - Thornton - BurnsMarleau - Couture - NietoHertl - Sheppard - WingelsTorres - Desjardins - Havlat Vlasic - DemersStuart - BraunHannan - Boyle
Wholesale China Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Authentic Jerseys Nike NFL Jerseys China Wholesale Nike Basketball Jerseys Hockey Jerseys China Supply Baseball Jerseys Football Jerseys Sale Authentic College Jerseys MLB Jerseys China Stitched Soccer Jerseys Cheap Jerseys From China Cheap Nike Jerseys ' ' '
