Hilfe zum Forum » rry, I think theres a significant flaw in t

WASHINGTON - Washington Wizards forward Nene was scratched from Monday nights game against the Boston Celtics because of a sore right knee, according to the team.Nene was due to play his third game after missing five with plantar fasciitis in his right foot.Since his return, hes scored 13 points and grabbed 14 rebounds in two games while averaging 17 minutes off the bench.On the season, Nene is averaging 10 points and 5.1 rebounds per game. Wholesale Custom Jerseys . The club was unable to retain hitting coach Kevin Seitzer, who is bound for Atlanta. Seitzer replaces Greg Walker, who was assisted by Scott Fletcher this season as the Braves finished 79-83. Cheap Custom Jerseys From China . 5 Trade Deadline is drawing closer and teams will be deciding on whether to buy or sell while figuring out which players can make the biggest difference and hold the greatest value. http://www.customjerseyschina.com/. The 20-year-old Pelicans big man glanced up and smiled widely at the well-wishers -- a fitting end to a day he wont soon forget. Davis responded to his selection earlier in the day as a Western Conference All-Star with 26 points and 10 rebounds, and the New Orleans Pelicans overcame a 10-point fourth-quarter deficit to defeat the Minnesota Timberwolves 98-91 on Friday night. Custom Football Jerseys China . LOUIS -- The St. Sale Custom Jerseys . A player confirmed to TSN on the condition of anonymity that he received his ballot yesterday. Another confirms hes been told to expect his shortly. "The unions executive committee insists a strike vote does not mean were pushing away from the table," the player said. "But we want the league to know were serious about our position.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Hi Kerry, I think theres a significant flaw in the NHLs instant replay process - or perhaps you have an explanation Im not aware of? During the Leafs/Kings game Monday night, L.A. scored an early goal. It wasnt clear that the puck crossed the line, so the play continued on. At the next stoppage, they went upstairs, and it was quickly called a good goal because it clearly crossed the line. However, if you watch the replay of the goal, Marian Gaborik circles into Berniers crease and obstructs Berniers ability to slide left and stop the Anze Kopitar shot. He was standing in the middle of the crease well before the puck crossed the line. At the point in time the puck crossed the line, the ref wasnt aware it crossed the line and the play continued. Therefore, there was no need to wave the goal off due to goalie interference. When the play went for review, all the boys in the War Room looked for was the puck crossing the line. In actuality, the puck did cross the line, but the goal should have been disallowed due to goalie interference. And because the War Room cant look at goalie interference, the wrong call had to be made. Another conspiracy call against the Leafs in L.A. or am I just missing something? Craig Dalziel Craig: You havent missed a thing as evidenced by your excellent observation and well prepared question. The correct decision made within the allowable criteria and capability of the video review process to determine a good goal on this play reinforces my ongoing publicly stated position that the referees must be allowed to personally review potential goals where there is any suspicion that a violation of goalkeeper interference had occurred. Even though play continued for approximately 45 seconds after Anze Kopitar fired an undetected rocket under the crossbar for a potential goal, one or all of the officials on the ice could have determined, (perhaps through reflective hindsight) that Marian Gaborik had maintained a significant presence and initiated contact with Leafs goalie Jonathan Bernier prior to the shot. They might have even determined that Bernier was unable to move freely about his crease as a result of Gaboriks intrusion and contact inside the blue paint. The time lapse thhat resulted could have contributed to a foggy recollection of the play by the officials.dddddddddddd. Perhaps the fact that it all happened very quickly in real time just might have caused them to miss the potential goalie interference. The fact remains, if they had detected the incidental contact on what they thought was of no consequence at the time of an undetected goal, nothing prevented the referee(s) from disallowing that goal as a result of goalkeeper interference once video review informed them that the puck had in fact entered the net. For whatever reason the call was missed on the ice in the moment, if the referee(s) had the opportunity to review a play of this nature my best guess is they just might have disallowed the potential goal. As we know, goalie interference is the on-ice officials call to make. Most often, they could surely use the benefit of video replay to make this very difficult call correctly. Lets not be too quick to cast blame on the referees however. They want the authority and ability to review goalie interference. It just hasnt been granted to them at this point. As we more closely examine this play Craig, Bernier set himself at the right side post in a butterfly position and then chose to flop as he moved across the crease prior to the contact initiated by Gaborik. Some might suggest that Bernier put himself in a position where he would not have been able to make the save on Kopitars shot regardless of any interference created by Gaborik. While we could debate that distinct possibility, rule 69.3 clearly states that if an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. 69.1 also provides that goals should be disallowed only if an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeepers ability to move freely within his crease and defend his goal. Gaborik entered the crease willingly and not through contact with Leafs Captain Dion Phaneuf. By his positioning (significant presence inside the crease) and contact, Gaborik impaired Berniers ability to move freely within his crease and defend his goal. I have to believe that, upon further review, most referees would determine that a violation of rule 69 had resulted and the good goal would be overturned with a call at ice level. Cheap Buffalo Sabres Gear Wholesale Calgary Flames Jerseys Cheap Adidas Colorado Avalanche Jerseys Montreal Canadiens Outlet Store Wholesale New Jersey Devils Jerseys Adidas Arizona Coyotes Jerseys Cheap Adidas Boston Bruins Jerseys Cheap Adidas Carolina Hurricanes Jerseys Chicago Blackhawks Shop Free Shipping Wholesale Columbus Blue Jackets Jerseys Dallas Stars Shop Free Shipping Cheap Adidas Detroit Red Wings Jerseys Anaheim Ducks Jerseys China Wholesale Edmonton Oilers Jerseys Florida Panthers Shop Free Shipping Wholesale Los Angeles Kings Jerseys Minnesota Wild Outlet Store Cheap Adidas Nashville Predators Jerseys Cheap Adidas New York Islanders Jerseys New York Rangers Winter Classic Jerseys Cheap Adidas Ottawa Senators Jerseys Cheap Adidas Philadelphia Flyers Jerseys Wholesale Pittsburgh Penguins Jerseys Cheap Adidas San Jose Sharks Jerseys St. Louis Blues Winter Classic Jerseys Wholesale Tampa Bay Lightning Jerseys Toronto Maple Leafs Outlet Store Vancouver Canucks Outlet Store Cheap Adidas Vegas Golden Knights Jerseys Cheap Adidas Washington Capitals Jerseys Cheap Adidas Winnipeg Jets Jerseys ' ' '