Es kotzt mich an! » and deeper team at the start

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 11 Retro Ie . - Christophe Lalancette scored a third-period goal and added the shootout winner to lead the Drummondville Voltigeurs to a 5-4 win over the Quebec Remparts in Quebec Major Junior Hockey League play on Sunday. Cheap Jordan 11 Ireland . Louis Cardinals on Sunday afternoon; a brief, poor outing that served to highlight two trends that have developed this season. http://www.airjordan11ireland.com/. The South Africa international, who rejoined the club last month on loan from Tottenham, opened the scoring in the sixth minute with a powerful shot into the roof of the net. Jordan 11 Wholesale Shoes . 3 Ohio State. Amedeo Della Valle had 15 points, Marc Loving scored a career-high 13 and the bench provided 38 points as the Buckeyes sprinted past Nebraska 84-53 on Saturday. Cheap Jordan 11 For Sale . Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel also accused Pistorius of tailoring his testimony to fit the evidence at the scene. Pistorius denied the accusations. Nel alleged that the Olympic runner changed his aim with his 9 mm pistol to ensure that he hit Steenkamp as she fell back against a magazine rack in a toilet cubicle. SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- With Kevin Durant on the bench to start the fourth quarter, his Oklahoma City Thunder teammates put together a run that helped end one of the most impressive scoring streaks in NBA history. And Durant says nobody is happier its over than him. Caron Butler made all six of his 3-point attempts to finish with 23 points, and the Thunder began the fourth quarter on a 16-0 spurt to pull away for a 107-92 victory over the Sacramento Kings on Tuesday night. Durant finished with 23 points but was never needed in the final quarter, stopping his streak of scoring at least 25 points in 41 consecutive games. Only Oscar Robertson (46 straight games in 1963-64) and Wilt Chamberlain (all 80 regular-season games in the 1961-62 season) have longer such streaks. "I was getting so many texts after every game. Im glad thats over with and we can just focus on the team," said Durant, who shot 8 for 13 in 31 minutes. "If we played well and I had 25 points, that took away from how well the team was playing, so I didnt like that. If we lost, it was all about me scoring 25 points and I didnt like that either. Im glad we can just talk about the team now." Coming off losses at Memphis and Phoenix, Oklahoma City certainly has plenty of bigger things to play for during the seasons final two weeks. Serge Ibaka added 19 points and four rebounds for the Thunder, who rested Russell Westbrook ahead of Wednesday nights game at the Los Angeles Clippers. Oklahoma City (56-21) is 1 1/2 games ahead of the Clippers (55-23) for the Western Conferences No. 2 playoff seed. Even still, Durant said he was aware of how many points he had but never thought of asking coach Scott Brooks to go back in the game. Brooks insisted it never crossed his mind, either, saying the most impressive thing about Durants streak is that he didnt even realize it ended because Durant has been the "trademark for consistency." "Hes about team," Brooks said. "If he wasnt, he would have played golf and tried to chase (Jack) Nicklaus record of 18 majors." DeMarcus Cousins had 24 points and 14 rebounds, and Travis Outlaw scored 24 points in Sacramentos third straight loss. Even with three regulars out with injuries, the Kings made the Thunder work through the first three quarters. Oklahoma City buuilt double-digits leads throughout the game only to watch Sacramento surge back each time.dddddddddddd. But with Durant on the bench to open the fourth, the Thunder finally created a lead big enough to stick. The Thunder held Sacramento scoreless for nearly 6 minutes to go ahead 101-77. "We had some guys that played with no energy," frustrated Kings coach Michael Malone said. "It looked they didnt even want to be out there, to be honest." With the matchup in Los Angeles looming large, Brooks decided to rest Westbrook -- as he has done during one game of back-to-back sets since Westbrook returned Feb. 20 following right knee surgery. The Thunder got some relief with Thabo Sefolosha playing for the first time since injuring his left calf against Memphis on Feb. 28. He finished with two points and three rebounds in 16 minutes. Sacramento, already among the conferences worst teams, played even more short-handed. Kings big man Reggie Evans and forward Rudy Gay sat out with back injuries, and point guard Isaiah Thomas missed his eighth straight game with a bruised right quadriceps. Oklahoma City looked every bit like the better and deeper team at the start. The Thunder surged ahead 9-0 in the first two minutes before Cousins brought the Kings back with his perimeter shot, slicing Oklahoma Citys lead to 30-27 at the end of the first quarter. The Thunder began to pull away again with a 17-4 run in the second quarter propelled by Butler, who made all four of his 3-point attempts in the first half. Oklahoma City led 61-49 at intermission and didnt have a turnover until the second half. Durant credited the communication and ball movement for pulling away late, and he said he hopes the focus can shift from his scoring streak to his teams improved play. "When I sit back after the seasons over thats when I reflect on everything that Ive done, that the teams done, and Im sure Ill appreciate (the streak) then," Durant said. "But now, Im just focusing on game to game and how we can get better as a group and how I can help the team get better." NOTES: The Thunder swept the four-game season series against the Kings. ... Oklahoma City has won 10 straight and 16 of 17 over Sacramento. ... A fan made a shot from half court during a timeout in the first half to win a car. ' ' '