Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn. [url=https://www.wheretobuycheapjerseys.com/]Where to Buy Cheap Jerseys[/url] .ca. Hey, Kerry! Always enjoy your column. Im wondering if you can give so

Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn. Where to Buy Cheap Jerseys .ca. Hey, Kerry! Always enjoy your column. Im wondering if you can give some clarification to the Colorado goal by Dennis Everberg that was waved off in the game in Boston on Monday. Would be interested to hear your perspective. Sure looked like a good goal to me and many other people, apparently. And the video looks pretty conclusive. Thanks! Bill Bayne Bill: You probably didnt realize it when you dropped this one into the CMon Ref mail bag, but your question today has exposed an apparent glaring contradiction in the playing rules. Unless cleaned up immediately, the contradiction found in the language of rule 80.3 (high-sticking the puck) and 78.4 (scoring a goal) could very well impact how a legal goal can be scored once a puck has been struck by an attacking player above the height of the crossbar. First, let me review the play in question. Referee Rob Martell, in good position, made the initial determination that a legal goal had been scored when Ryan OReilly, standing at the top of goal crease, deflected a point shot by Tyson Barrie which subsequently caromed off the shin pad and left skate blade of Dennis Everberg into the Bruins net. From game footage and the Situation Room blog we learned that the officials group huddled in the referee crease and a consensus declared that OReilly deflected the puck into the net with a high stick. Martells call was reversed to no goal on the ice as per rule 60.5 pending confirmation from video review. In fairness, it is often difficult to find a camera angle that definitively demonstrates if a puck has been struck above/below the height of the crossbar. The overhead camera is usually of little value in this situation since it does not provide the necessary depth perception relative to the cross-bar. For this reason I would largely discount the overhead camera had I been in the Situation Room making the call. The farther out from this reference point (goal frame) only compounds the difficulty video review has in making a conclusive determination. Although the front and side angle footage offers more than reasonable evidence to me that OReillys descending blow made contact with the puck at or below the cross-bar, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Situation Room personnel that it was too close for them to call. The inconclusive review kicked the decision back to the officials on the ice. Assuming the on-ice officials determined OReilly contacted the puck above the crossbar but below his shoulders the puck is eligible to be played by any player. We know that the puck did not enter the net directly off the stick of Ryan OReilly but instead glanced off Bruins goalie, Niklas Svedberg and then deflected into the net off the leg and skate of Dennis Everberg. Since there was no distinct kicking motion by Everberg, logic and common sense would indicate that this should be a good hockey goal. Bill, this is where your question has exposed the contradiction! Rule 80.3: When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponents goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed (This translates that the subsequent deflection of the puck off the leg and/or skate of Everberg should still result in no goal). Only to be contradicted by Rule 78.4: If an attacking player has the puck deflect into the net, off his skate or body, in any manner, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal (In this rule, Dennis Everberg should have been credited with his first NHL goal when the puck deflected into the net off his body and skate. If the puck were to deflect into the net off the stick of an attacking player there isnt a referee in the business that would disallow a goal in this situation. A legal deflection, as this rule states, should likewise result in a goal in the opinion of most active referees). It is now time for an amendment to correct these two conflicting rules before another potential good hockey goal is nullified. Additionally, rule 38 was revised this season to empower Hockey Operations with broader discretion to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g., to ensure they are good hockey goals). This just might have been an opportunity to exercise their expanded authority even if the review of the potential high-stick by OReilly was found to be inconclusive. What is a good website to buy sports jerseys . The Toronto Blue Jays general manager made a series of bold moves that reshaped the club ahead of what would turn out to be a disastrous 2013 campaign. What is the best Chinese web site for cheap Jerseys . The group of Slava Fetisov, Igor Larionov, Vladimir Konstantinov, Sergei Fedorov, & Slava Kozlov were a dominant force for The Wings at one point in the 90s. https://www.wheretobuycheapjerseys.com/ . -- Phil Hughes ended a personal losing streak that dated to last July, pitching into the seventh inning Sunday and helping the Twins top the Kansas City Royals 8-3 to avoid a three-game sweep. Genius! RT @vannadam: @keithlaw if u missed it, his spot came up in 9th down two with men at 2nd and 3rd, 1 out. Frandsen grounded out. — keithlaw (@keithlaw) April 19, 2014Is this fair or foul? Is this is a case of aa first year manager trying to express control of his younger star and trying to send a message? Or is Harper just not 100% yet and couldnt push himself on a play where he was almost instantly out. What is the best place to buy knockoff jerseys. ' ' '