Basisphilosophie » pard sent a pass from the point that deflected

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. 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 1 Scontate .com) - Wayne Simmonds, Scott Laughton and Jakub Voracek each posted a goal and an assist as the Philadelphia Flyers thumped the Carolina Hurricanes, 5-1, on Saturday. Air Jordan 1 Italia . -- Mississippi State was crushed twice by Florida last season, once by 35 points and the other by 25. http://www.airjordan1scontate.it/ . Louis Blues are reportedly taking restricted free agent forward Vladimir Sobotka to arbitration. Air Jordan 1 Outlet Italia . Horford is out 3-to-4 months with a torn pectoral muscle for the Hawks, who have won two straight and five of six games. Atlanta improved to 2-0 on the residency with Saturdays 93-91 triumph over Minnesota, as Ivan Johnson scored his teams final four points, including the game-winning free throw with 4. Air Jordan 1 Offerta . -- Detroit shortstop Jose Iglesias says he has stress fractures in both legs and isnt sure when hell be able to play again, leaving the Tigers two weeks to fill his spot for opening day and perhaps a lot longer.SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The San Jose Sharks squandered another chance to open up their lead over the Anaheim Ducks. Tobias Enstrom scored a power-play goal with 3:36 remaining in the third period to help the Winnipeg Jets deal a blow to San Joses chances to finish in first place by beating the Sharks 4-3 on Thursday night. "Weve let some teams that are not as good in the standings beat us and take points away, for whatever reason Im not sure," captain Joe Thornton said. The Sharks have lost six games since the Olympic break, all to teams that would not be in the playoffs if the season ended now. San Jose still holds a two-point lead over Anaheim in the Pacific Division but the Ducks have three games in hand. "We cant give away points," forward Joe Pavelski said. "Weve given away a few too many lately. They got the games in hand. If they do their job theyll be there but theres still quite a bit of hockey left." Dan Boyle, Brent Burns and Logan Couture scored for the Sharks, who have lost four of six. Antti Niemi made 27 saves for San Jose. Blake Wheeler added a goal and two assists for the Jets, who trail Phoenix by nine points in the race for the second wild card spot in the Western Conference. Andrew Ladd and Dustin Byfuglien also scored, and Al Montoya made 27 saves. "We talked about the playoff race for the first time tonight," Jets coach Paul Maurice said. "Its a long hill to climb but this is the way we need to play every night." Couture scored the tying goal in the second period for San Jose but then committed the penalty that led to the game-winner when he shot the puck over the glass while trying to kill a penalty. The Sharks managed to kill 11 seconds of the 5-on-3 but couldnt kill the second penalty when Wheeler slid a pass to a pinching Enstrom, who beat Niemi. "Were a long shot coming into the building against arguably the best team in the league," Wheeler said. "We just tried to make one more play than they did and it worked out for us." The Jets took a 3-2 lead by scoring twice in the first 10 minutes of the secondd period.dddddddddddd The equalizer came early when Wheeler skated into the offensive zone and fired a bad-angle shot at Niemi from along the goal line that somehow sneaked into the net. Winnipeg took its first lead after Thornton negated a San Jose power play with a tripping penalty. Just seconds after Paul Postma came out of the box to give the Jets a power play, Wheeler slid a perfect pass to Byfuglien, who beat Niemi with a one-timer for his 20th goal. "Our power play was kind of sloppy but we were able to pull together a couple of times and set it up," Ladd said. "I wanted to come here, have a good effort and give ourselves a chance to win, and we did that." The Sharks tied it later in the second when they capitalized on another power-play chance. James Sheppards slap shot deflected off Coutures thumb and into the net to give San Jose its fifth power-play goal in two games. Couture also got his 20th goal in his return to the lineup after missing one game with an injury from blocking a shot on Monday in Calgary. The Sharks opened the scoring less than 2 minutes into the game when Sheppard sent a pass from the point that deflected off Marty Havlats stick and right to Boyle, who beat Montoya with a backhand for his first goal in 30 games. The Jets answered just 36 seconds later when Ladd put in a rebound of Michael Froliks shot for his 22nd goal. It came in Ladds first game back after missing Mondays tilt in Dallas for the birth of his daughter. "Theres a little bit of energy in the building, and bang its gone," Sharks coach Todd McLellan said. "They come right back down and score and we have to start all over. That was probably a bit of a turning point, may have been an indication of things to come." San Jose went back in front late in the period on Burns power-play goal. NOTES: Thornton became the 100th player to play in 1,200 career NHL games. ... Former Sharks F Devin Setoguchi was a healthy scratch for the Jets. ... San Jose recalled F Freddie Hamilton from Worcester of the AHL to replace F Adam Burish, who had surgery on two broken fingers on his left hand. ' ' '