Plege und Gesundheit der Hunde » games last season

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. Dear Mr. Fraser, In the Islanders/Blues game on Saturday, the Isles had the apparent game-winning goal overturned in overtime because of a distinct kicking motion by Thomas Vanek. This was the explanation the referee received from Toronto after the goal was reviewed. Ive watched the play over and over, I cant see any kicking motion, let alone a distinct one. The Isles broadcast team thought it was a good goal. They even reported the Blues broadcast team called it a good goal. The Blues goalie (Jaroslav Halak) skated toward the gate leading to the visitors locker room (clearly, he must have figured it was a good goal). The NHL uses the word "distinct" to describe the words "kicking motion." According to the dictionary, "distinct" means readily distinguishable by the senses. I would imagine that if the NHL added "distinct" they meant that the motion could not be interpreted as anything other than a kicking motion. What does a "distinct kicking motion" look like from a referees perspective? As a fan, I would assume the knee would have to bend a bit or the thigh would have to move somewhat, especially if we are talking about a motion being "distinct." I know the NHL can overturn referees calls if there is conclusive evidence, but what does mean if the video doesnt seem to support the explanation. Does the NHL mean "distinct kicking motion" in a figurative or a literal way? Is there an explanation for "distinct" that the NHL uses that fans and internet analysts are not aware of? How does the NHL determine conclusive evidence to overturn a call, especially when most people watching assumed the goal was a good one? The refs didnt spend a long time at the timekeepers station, so the evidence should have been distinct to everyone watching, which is wasnt according to how many people thought the goal should have stood. The NHL had to see something that they consider "distinct," but that the rest of people watching may not have considered (this is my speculation). Its that "something" that has prompted my email inquiry to you. Was this simply a bad call by the guys in Toronto (a frustrating bad call in my personal opinion)? I appreciate you taking the time to read this email. I enjoy reading your column on TSN.ca. Thank you,Michael Bonet Michael: Thank you for your detailed question along with the logical (and expert) analysis you provided relative to the goal Thomas Vanek scored in overtime. To the referees eye, mind and perspective Thomas Vanek did NOT use a "distinct kicking motion" to propel the puck past Blues goalie Jaroslav Halak and score the game-winning goal in overtime. This was another example of an "officiating decision" made correctly on the ice that was overturned by "non-officiating personnel" that staff the Situation Room on a nightly basis. (NFL and MLB employ and empower referees/umpires to make final video review decisions). The guidelines and definition in determining a "distinct kicking motion" must have changed drastically, at least concerning Situation Room criteria employed, from when the kicking puck rule was first explained to my colleagues and I during a training camp meeting the season the rule was implemented. Otherwise Thomas Vaneks goal and the one scored by Brendan Gallagher of the Habs against Martin Brodeur last week (both of which were deemed legal by the referee in great position on the ice) would not have been overturned and disallowed through the video review process. The definition in rule 38.4 (iv) remains the same as when it was explained to us in that training camp meeting by Hockey Ops that still control the Situation Room. "A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL." As you correctly pointed out, Michael, the former NHL players working as analysts on both the NY Islanders and St. Louis Blues broadcast teams were convinced that Vaneks goal should count. They went so far as to say that Vanek wouldnt have known where the puck was as he rotated his body position away from Halak at the top of the goal crease and was then shoved from behind by Alexander Steen of the Blues. A referees perspective would clearly indicate that the bump from behind by Steen changed Vaneks rotation to a forward motion toward the net and caused the puck to be deflected off Vaneks skate and into the net. (Rule 49.2 - A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking players skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking plays skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident). We can envision various legal plays when a player is allowed to deliberately turn and angle his skate to direct a puck into the net or even makes a natural sliding stop at the crease in order to contact the puck causing it to enter the goal. Unless there has been some change in the definition and criteria of a "distinct kicking motion" it makes no sense that Thomas Vaneks goal would be disallowed through a video review decision. If there has been a "distinct" change in the criteria that the Situation Room employs in rendering their exclusive decisions, perhaps it is time they advise the rest of the hockey world! Until that takes place, Michael, this decision will be viewed by most as "simply a bad call by the guys in Toronto!" Cheap Nike Shoes Authentic . The Raptors had an early deadline Sunday, a dreaded afternoon game, and they left the bulk of their work until the last minute, as theyve done so many times before. Cheap Nike Shoes Free Shipping . Patrick Sharp scored twice and Patrick Kane, Bryan Bickell and Nick Leddy also connected to lead Chicago to a 5-2 win over the Devils on Monday night. https://www.wholesalenikeshoesauthentic.com/. TSNs coverage of the Third Round gets underway Sunday with Game 1: Los Angeles at Chicago at 3pm et/Noon pt. TSNs broadcast schedule for the Third Round of the 2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs is as follows: Chicago Blackhawks vs. Los Angeles Kings• Game 1: Los Angeles at Chicago – Sunday, May 18 at 3pm et/Noon pt• Game 2: Los Angeles at Chicago – Wednesday, May 21 at 8pm et/5pm pt• Game 4: Chicago at Los Angeles – Monday, May 26 at 9pm et/6pm pt Featured in the broadcast booth for TSN are play-by-play announcer Chris Cuthbert and game analyst Ray Ferraro, with Farhan Lalji contributing reports from rinkside. Discount Nike Shoes . -- Stacy Lewis shot 7-under 65 to lead the LPGA Tour team to the championship of the 3Tour Challenge on Tuesday. Cheap Nike Shoes . Neither made it that far in 2013. Not even close. Federer lost his second match at the All England Club. Nadal exited in the first round, a year after bowing out in the second.ARLINGTON, Texas -- The Texas Rangers have received right-hander Shawn Tolleson on a waiver claim from the Los Angeles Dodgers. Tolleson appeared in only six games last season due to lower back surgery and a left hip injury. The former Baylor pitcher was 3-1 with a 4.30 ERA in 41 appearances the last two seasons for the Dodgers, and has a 1.34 ERA in 107 miinor league games since being drafted in 2010.dddddddddddd Texas also Wednesday added infielder Luis Sardinas and right-handers Lisalverto Bonilla and Ben Rowen to its 40-man roster. Left-handed pitcher Edwar Cabrera was assigned outright to the minor leagues after clearing waivers. The Rangers have two open spots on their 40-man roster. ' ' '