Forum FORUM REKLAMOWE Strona Główna FORUM REKLAMOWE
DARMOWA REKLAMA TWOJEJ STRONY NA FORUM REKLAMOWYM
 
 POMOCPOMOC   FAQFAQ   SzukajSzukaj   RejestracjaRejestracja 
 ProfilProfil   Zaloguj się, by sprawdzić wiadomościZaloguj się, by sprawdzić wiadomości   ZalogujZaloguj 

going? The very best going? The very best

 
Napisz nowy temat   Odpowiedz do tematu    Forum FORUM REKLAMOWE Strona Główna -> REKLAMA TOPLIST I RANKINGÓW
Zobacz poprzedni temat :: Zobacz następny temat  
Autor Wiadomość
hfy962464



Dołączył: 31 Lip 2018
Posty: 135

PostWysłany: Sob Sie 11, 2018 03:58    Temat postu: going? The very best going? The very best Odpowiedz z cytatem

NEW YORK -- California Chrome has galloped two miles at Belmont Park, with the Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner preparing for the final leg of the Triple Crown. Christian Djoos Jersey . Assistant trainer Alan Sherman says California Chrome was especially eager Tuesday, noticeably tugging at him in the barn and then exercise rider Willie Delgado during the gallop. Delgado says it was hard to resist letting the chestnut colt go faster. He says California Chrome seems to like the tracks deep and sandy surface. Sherman says the colt is scheduled for his only official timed workout before the Belmont on Saturday. California Chrome is set to run in the 1 1/2-mile race on June 7. No horse has swept the Derby, Preakness and Belmont since Affirmed in 1978. Lucas Johansen Jersey . Calgary finished atop the CFL standings with a 14-4 record and earned the right to host the West Division final at McMahon Stadium on Nov. Andre Burakovsky Jersey . LOUIS -- The Atlanta Braves used a two-run rally in the ninth to end their road trip with a win. http://www.authentichockeyshopcapitals.com/authentic-philipp-grubauer-capitals-jersey/ . Browns owner Jimmy Haslam announced the move with Young on Monday during a speech at a Pro Football Hall of Fame luncheon.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. Hi Kerry! In the first and second period of the Ottawa-St. Louis game last night, there were two disallowed goals against Ottawa, one on Erik Condra and one on Chris Neil. Im just wondering if you agreed with the referees call on the ice. First disallowed goal: Condra is on the rush and gets a squeaker through Brian Elliott. The puck was never covered, nor frozen, but the play is called dead by the referee behind the net, where he can see the puck at all times. I think that this is a make-up call because of the disallowed goal against St. Louis not long before. Second disallowed goal: A shot is taken, there is a scramble in front of the net. Chris Butler on St. Louis knocks over Elliott and the puck is loose. An Ottawa player then gets a shot off and the puck is near the goal line. It is at this point where Butler kicks the puck into his own net. The puck is already half way to the back of the net before the whistle was blown. Incidental contact with the goalie. The only person that made direct contact with the goalie was Butler. Just wondering. Andrew S. from Renfrew, ON ----- Hey Kerry, Id love to get your expert opinion on all the disallowed goals in the Ottawa-St. Louis game and overall absolute inconsistent officiating in this game in general! The first Ottawa goal was clearly a case of a loose puck - where Brian Elliott was still searching up until it was in the back of the net - both Erik Condra and Ian Cole were still looking for the puck - I was in disbelief that the whistle went. The second goal - clearly a case where a loose puck is pushed to the side of the net vacant to Elliott as Chris Butler cross-checked Condra to the opposite side as well, while catching the right leg of Elliott. It is very clear as well on this play that Condra stopped up and both he and Neil were looking for the loose puck while colliding with the Butler and the several back checking Blues forwards. You can pull the rule book and say the goalie has to be able to make the save and play within his crease and the official blows his whistle when he decides to. But theres has been such a distraught and overwhelming response to the inconsistency of the no-goal and goalie interference/unable to do his job by fans this season, because every single time in every different game, on any given night, the rule seems to change or have a different outcome. I would love to hear your take on these calls. I have asked for your opinion many times, especially concerning the craziness around goalie related calls! Cory Bicker Hi Andrew and Cory: There was also a Blues disallowed goal scored by Jaden Schwartz just 2:42 in before a quick whistle negated a legitimate shorthanded goal scored by Erik Condra. Fair is fair gentlemen, so we must credit referee Dan ORourke for making an excellent, decisive judgment to disallow the Schwartz goal following the incidental contact initiated by Jori Lehtera of the Blues. Whats important to note is how the referee positioned himself in such a manner ahead of the goal line halfway between the side boards and the near goal post. From this prime real estate the ref had a face-on view through the goal crease where Lehtera made himself bigger with his right elbow to turn Ottawa goalkeeper Robin Lehner, in addition to what was taking place on the opposite side of the net. In the instant goalie interference resulted, the puck was travelling to the opposite side of the net onto the stick of Schwartz for a gimme-redirect off a nifty pass from Kevin Shattenkirk. Far too often we see referees become puck watchers! This play demonstrates a textbook case of how a referee set himself to take in the entire play from the first pass to goalie interference to the puck entering the net. Referee ORourke followed the No. 1 rule of real estate - location, location, location and his keen awareness paid dividends. A couple of minutes later we saw a different result when referee Frederick LEceyer saw the initial shot by Condra, on a shorthanded rush, appear to be gobbled up and covereed by Brian Elliott in the butterfly position. John Carlson Jersey. Elliott remained statuesque and the referee assumed that the puck was covered as he looked through the left pad of the goalkeeper from a distant position gliding below the goal line. Condra had the lead lane close to the top of the goal crease and ahead of Blues defender Ian Cole. A probable concern was created in the mind of the referee that Condra might crash into Elliottt thereby knocking the puck and the goalkeeper into the net. The still picture shows the whistle being blow by the referee with an obstructed view of the loose puck located between Elliotts open pads. Hindsight is 20-20, but the young referee should have demonstrated more patience with his whistle while moving his skates quickly toward the back of the net to make sure the puck was not exposed and available to be played. If Condra happened to dig at Elliotts equipment or initiate contact with the goalie the referee still had the option to blow his whistle at that point and/or disallow any resulting goal. There is no sugar-coating that the whistle was blown prematurely and in error by the referee. If he could have sucked the wind out of his whistle Im quick certain he would have done so. The expanded and broader discretion granted to video review could not be utilized in this case to allow the goal since it was not one continuous play. The whistle was blown prematurely following Condras initial shot. Condra then made a second play on the loose puck to put it into the net. Rule 38.4 (viii) allows video review to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (to ensure they are good hockey goals). This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play). Im still waiting for a quick whistle situation to be determined by video review that a good hockey goal will result. The disallowed Ottawa goal with 6:02 remaining in the second period was also a good hockey goal and should have been credited to Chris Neil after Chris Butler kicked the puck across the goal line. There was way too much going on in the goal crease on this play for any referee to have even less than 50-50 chance at getting the call right. While the still photo demonstrates that referee ORourke didnt have the best position and attack angle to make an accurate judgment on this crease scrum it does highlight the need for either a referees video review of potential crease violations or a Coachs Challenge. Any incidental contact and subsequent injury that Blues goalkeeper Elliott suffered was as a result of his own player, Butler, shoving Condra from behind and onto the goalies right leg. Condra was outside the blue paint when he was pushed from behind by Butler and launched into the crease. You dont want me to pull the rule book out Cory, but Rule 69 supports your claim that a legal goal resulted where it states: 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 the purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. Condra was clearly pushed by Butler onto Elliott. Condra had no option to avoid contact with the Blues goalkeeper, reasonable or otherwise. For the past three years I have recommended that the referees need the opportunity to review these types of plays from a monitor in the penalty box. Brian Burke and Brian Murray recommended the implementation of this very process at a meeting during the summer. It would appear studies are ongoing? The very best real estate from which the refs could get this call right was from a secure location inside the penalty box looking at a review monitor. Cheap Chargers Jerseys Cheap Rams Jersey Cheap Dolphins Jerseys Cheap Vikings Jerseys Cheap Patriots Jersey Cheap Saints Jerseys Cheap New York Giants Jerseys Cheap Jets Jerseys Cheap Raiders Jerseys Cheap Eagles Jerseys Cheap Steelers Jerseys Cheap 49ers Jerseys Cheap Seahawks Jerseys Cheap Buccaneers Jerseys Cheap Titans Jerseys Cheap Redskins Jerseys ' ' '
Powrót do góry
Ogląda profil użytkownika Wyślij prywatną wiadomość
Reklama






Wysłany: Sob Sie 11, 2018 03:58    Temat postu:

Powrót do góry
Wyświetl posty z ostatnich:   
Napisz nowy temat   Odpowiedz do tematu    Forum FORUM REKLAMOWE Strona Główna -> REKLAMA TOPLIST I RANKINGÓW Wszystkie czasy w strefie CET (Europa)
Strona 1 z 1
Skocz do:  
Nie możesz pisać nowych tematów
Nie możesz odpowiadać w tematach
Nie możesz zmieniać swoich postów
Nie możesz usuwać swoich postów
Nie możesz głosować w ankietach

FORUM REKLAMOWE  

To forum działa w systemie phorum.pl
Masz pomysł na forum? Załóż forum za darmo!
Forum narusza regulamin? Powiadom nas o tym!
Powered by Active24, phpBB © phpBB Group