Klassik-Bereich » for a Nov. 26 hearing on their case

Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn. Eric Haase Indians Jersey .ca. Im sure you have thousands of emails on this already. How can that third Kings goal in Game 2 be allowed? The Kings player went in to the blue paint on his own accord, made contact with the Rangers defender and then laid on Lundqvists leg as the shot went in. If it is not a two-minute goalie interference call, it is at least a disallowed goal because of "incidental" contact with the goalie. I really dont see how they could rule any other way. Thank You,Bruce ChangoDillsburg, PA ----- Hi Kerry, Dwight Kings goal with plenty of time left in the third period last night was a huge momentum swing, eventually resulting in the Kings overtime win. However, the Rangers were unhappy about what they thought was goaltender interference on Henrik Lundqvist. Do the Rangers have any argument here? Anthony Z.Sault Ste. Marie, ON ----- Kerry, Im sure youve been asked to comment on the Kings third goal in Saturdays game and the goaltender interference controversy. But Ill ask again. What did you see and how would you have called it? J. RockwellEaston, PA Bruce, Anthony and ‘J-Rock: A violation of Rule 69 (goalkeeper interference) was committed by Dwight King when he initiated contact with Rangers goalkeeper Henrik Lundqvist inside the goal crease. As a result of this deliberate action by King, the goal should have been disallowed and a minor penalty assessed to King for goalkeeper interference. Some fans will maintain that King was pushed into Lundqvist through the actions of Rangers defenceman Ryan McDonough, which would have resulted in the scoring of a legal goal. From the quick look and decision rendered by referee Dan OHalloran, I have to believe that he also felt McDonough was guilty to some degree of pushing King into the crease. Allow me to explain why this was not the case and why I am confident that, if the referee was afforded the luxury of video review, he would have also concluded that Lundqvist was the victim of goalkeeper interference and the goal subsequently would have been disallowed. What I want to disprove is the premise that King was pushed into Lundqvist and that he did not make any reasonable effort to avoid the Ranger goalkeeper as per 69.1: “If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.” We pick up the action outside the goal crease to the right of Henrik Lundqvist when Dwight King (approaching on an angle outside the crease and from behind goal line) and Ryan McDonough (front of net) engaged one another in frontal combat with their sticks in a prone cross-check position toward one another. With McDonoughs posture and position, he was set to move his opponent away from the crease and not into it. King was also moving in a direction towards the slot and not facing into the blue paint. Note also that Kings stick blade appears to be in tight on Lundqvist. In this pose, both players are willing combatants engaging in a battle for position outside of the crease. Following their initial contact, King played off McDonough to the inside and then slipped laterally into the blue paint and toward Lundqvist. King then made a movement independent (separation) of McDonough with a backward press deeper into the crease and a resulting lateral ‘skate hop that initiated solid contact with the Rangers goalie. The resulting tumble caused King to land on the right pad of Lundqvist inside the crease. This action took place as Lundqvist was attempting to remain square and set for a shot from the point that King was ultimately given credit for deflecting past the Ranger goalkeeper. Once again from 69.1: “The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeepers ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.” So why was this play, as I described it, missed by the referee you might ask? First of all, contact such as this can happen very quickly in real-time and, especially, while other action is taking place. Different angles can also be deceiving. In this situation, Justin Williams carried the puck behind the Rangers goal and deep into the corner directly toward referee OHalloran. The referee was forced to pivot out from the corner and then back to allow Williams space to carry the puck wide and up the wall. Based on the referees body posture, he visually followed Williams carry the puck up the wall and then deliver a cross-ice outlet pass to Matt Greene at the right point position. While this action was taking place, the contact between King and McDonough had been initiated. This, along with Kings independent move into the blue paint, would have been undetected by the referee. With a pending shot from the point and a refocus by the referee toward the front of the net, it would likely have appeared from the refs vantage that McDonough deposited King in the goal crease as a result of the fall. It would have been a “bang-bang” play in the eye and mind of the referee under these circumstances. Lundqvist claimed that the referee told him the puck had already entered the net prior to any contact by King. Plays of this nature and magnitude must be reviewable as I have contended for at least the past couple of seasons! Review will be a crucial safety-check for the referees to correctly determine and enforce goalkeeper interference. The Competition Committee apparently met today. The eventual outcome of some games might just rest in their hands pending final approval of the rules committee. Mike Freeman Jersey . By then it was clear: The 76ers were going to win for the first time in two months, and they were going to do it with ease. The 76ers snapped their NBA record-tying, 26-game losing streak, routing the Detroit Pistons 123-98 on Saturday night to avoid establishing the longest skid in U. James Karinchak Indians Jersey .7 million, one-year contract, a raise of $2.2 million. Wieters had asked for $8.75 million and the Orioles had offered $6. https://www.cheapindiansonline.com/3398u-joe-charboneau-jersey-indians.html .C. - The Panthers will be without starting defensive tackle Star Lotulelei for Saturday nights NFC divisional playoff game against Seattle after undergoing surgery Wednesday to repair a broken bone in his foot.The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has told FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association it has a week to respond to a bid by a group of elite players for an expedited hearing on whether using artificial turf at the 2015 Womens World Cup is discriminatory.The tribunal, after the Oct. 9 deadline for responses, may still deny the players request for a fast-tracked hearing. But the players lawyer applauded the tribunals move, made just one day after the legal brief was filed.It is past time for CSA and FIFA to acknowledge that singling out women for artificial turf at the World Cup is a mistake and to work with the players on ways to fix it, lawyer Hampton Dellinger said in a statement Thursday.But if CSA and FIFA are determined to litigate against their tournaments own players, we hope they will not seek to delay or duck a decision on the merits of whether they are discriminating on the basis of sex against female athletes.The Human Rights Tribunal also asked the CSA and FIFA to file their response to the players complaint by Nov. 6.Earlier in the day, Dellinger told a media conference call that installing real grass pitches for the tournament slated for next summer in Canada was affordable and the right thing to do.The lawyer said it would cost $2 million to $3 million at most.This has been done before. It is a drop in the bucket in terms of FIFAs coffers, Dellinger said. Canada is one of the richest nations on earth. This is completely economically feasible. The players, who include reigning FIFA player of the year Nadine Angerer of Germany and U.S. womens national team forward Abby Wambach, claim that playing their showcase tournament on artificial grass amounts to gender discrimination under Canadian law. Men have always played the World Cup on natural grass surfaces.Lead Canadian lawyer David Wright called it a clear-cut case of discrimination.FIFA and the CSA (Canadian Soccer Association) are treating women differently than they treat men, he said.Canadian players are not part of the lawsuit, although Dellinger says a number have already spoken out on grass being their preferred surface.Carrie Serwetnyk, a former Canadian national team player and the first woman inducted into the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame, spoke out strongly Thursday.Its incredible were holding the World Cup but its a real shame that we cant step up to put on the best tournament thats worthy of the female athlete, she said. I think its like asking an Olympic athlete to Just go run on that cinder track. No big deal, you can still run fast there, right?As a citizen, I expect more from my country, she added.The players filed their brief Wednesday, detailing the facts and law in support of the discrimination claim, as well as the motion to expedite the proceedings.Our lawyers will be reviewing any and all applications or information related to this, the CSA said in a statement Wednesday. We will refrain from any comment until there has been a thorough review.FIFA, meanwhile, appears unwilling to reconsider the tournament playing surface.We play on artificial turf and theres no Plan B, Tatjana Haenni, FIFAs head of womens competitions, told The Canadian Press on Tuesday as she started an inspection tour of the World Cup venues.Dellinger said the women had been misled by the CSA and FIFA on their willingness to use grass at the tournament. He cited a FIFA survey of players, taken at the 2013 Algarve Cup, on grass versus turf at major events with the clear indication to the players that this was going to dictate what they would do ultimately for the 2105 World Cup.The players were overwhelming in their opinion that major tournaments should be played on grass. And yet FIFA didnt do a thing, the Canadian Soccer Association didnt do a thing. They didnt evenn tell the players they werent going to do anything. Oscar Gamble Jersey. Dellinger called it really astounding that FIFA and CSA world turn their backs on the players and urged them to work together to solve the issue.The players, their attorneys just want this fixed ... Lets get this out of court and get the focus back on the pitch, he said.The players brief suggests that tournament venues in Vancouver (B.C. Place Stadium), Edmonton (Commonwealth Stadium), Ottawa (TD Place Stadium) and Winnipeg (Investors Group Field) replace their turf with permanent or temporary grass pitches.Games at Olympic Stadium in Montreal should be moved to Saputo Stadium, which has real grass, or a temporary grass surface could be installed. The brief also calls for a temporary grass surface at Moncton Stadium. It also suggests that games could be moved to Torontos BMO Field, which has a natural grass surface.Ive played on artificial turf, especially now in Vancouver (where the tournament final will be played) and the risk to get injured is very, very high there, Angerer said on the conference call.Secondly I think it totally changes the game. Its not fair why our game should be changed.Added Spanish midfielder-forward Veronica Boquete: Especially in a tournament where you play every three days, the recovery after playing on a turf field is not the same with being on grass. ... We just want to have the best field to be able to do our best and to show the best that womens soccer has.The women say they want to play at the tournament and have not thought of boycotting the event. Boquete says its up to FIFA and the CSA to listen and do something about it.Serwetnyk said women would play on a field of glass and nails at the World Cup.Theyre so spirited and dedicated and mentally tough. And thats the problem. We just know women would step up a€” OK, well artificial field, sure, well do that. Glass, OK. Nails, well do that a€” because they love the game.The CSA and FIFA are getting away with putting the players on artificial turf and they know they cant do that with the men. Men would boycott it. It would just not happen. So theyre putting them (the women) in an unfortunate position where of course theyre going to show and play. And thats not the kind of tournament we want to have for the World Cup. Serwetnyk, who started an Equal Play organization two years ago to focus on inequity in sport, says she has paid the price for speaking out.Ive had a backlash from it, she said.Thats why current Canadian players have not joined the lawsuit.The CSA is their boss, she said. And so I think its easier for players from other countries to express their feelings. She also noted the Canadian men rank 120th in the world, wondering if the CSA mentality of playing on turf helps explain why the team is so low.The rest of the world would agree that grass is the best and only surface for such a high-level competition and thats what we should be giving the best women around the world.The Canadian women are ranked No. 8.Dellinger turf versus grass an explosive issue in soccer.FIFA rules stipulate that matches can be played on artificial turf if special dispensation is granted, as it was in Canadas case. The regulations also state that all matches in a tournament must be played on the same surface.Lawyers for the women said the fact that FIFA rules allow for playing on artificial turf that meets specified standards does not impact their lawsuit.Dellinger said all past mens and womens World Cups have been played on grass. And Wright noted that the CSA had ensured that the mens team played its World Cup qualifying games on grass not turf.Lawyers have asked for a Nov. 26 hearing on their case. The World Cup starts June 6, 2015.---Follow @NeilMDavidson on Twitter ' ' '