Sie sind vermutlich noch nicht im Forum angemeldet - Klicken Sie hier um sich kostenlos anzumelden Impressum 
Sie können sich hier anmelden
Dieses Thema hat 0 Antworten
und wurde 93 mal aufgerufen
wh3171 Offline

Vollzeitflieger, 200 Postings sind bereits erreicht

Beiträge: 840

30.10.2019 03:03
the former NHL players working as analysts on Zitat · Antworten

Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn. Chicago White Sox Shirts .ca. Dear Mr. Fraser, In the Islanders/Blues game on Saturday, the Isles had the apparent game-winning goal overturned in overtime because of a distinct kicking motion by Thomas Vanek. This was the explanation the referee received from Toronto after the goal was reviewed. Ive watched the play over and over, I cant see any kicking motion, let alone a distinct one. The Isles broadcast team thought it was a good goal. They even reported the Blues broadcast team called it a good goal. The Blues goalie (Jaroslav Halak) skated toward the gate leading to the visitors locker room (clearly, he must have figured it was a good goal). The NHL uses the word "distinct" to describe the words "kicking motion." According to the dictionary, "distinct" means readily distinguishable by the senses. I would imagine that if the NHL added "distinct" they meant that the motion could not be interpreted as anything other than a kicking motion. What does a "distinct kicking motion" look like from a referees perspective? As a fan, I would assume the knee would have to bend a bit or the thigh would have to move somewhat, especially if we are talking about a motion being "distinct." I know the NHL can overturn referees calls if there is conclusive evidence, but what does mean if the video doesnt seem to support the explanation. Does the NHL mean "distinct kicking motion" in a figurative or a literal way? Is there an explanation for "distinct" that the NHL uses that fans and internet analysts are not aware of? How does the NHL determine conclusive evidence to overturn a call, especially when most people watching assumed the goal was a good one? The refs didnt spend a long time at the timekeepers station, so the evidence should have been distinct to everyone watching, which is wasnt according to how many people thought the goal should have stood. The NHL had to see something that they consider "distinct," but that the rest of people watching may not have considered (this is my speculation). Its that "something" that has prompted my email inquiry to you. Was this simply a bad call by the guys in Toronto (a frustrating bad call in my personal opinion)? I appreciate you taking the time to read this email. I enjoy reading your column on Thank you,Michael Bonet Michael: Thank you for your detailed question along with the logical (and expert) analysis you provided relative to the goal Thomas Vanek scored in overtime. To the referees eye, mind and perspective Thomas Vanek did NOT use a "distinct kicking motion" to propel the puck past Blues goalie Jaroslav Halak and score the game-winning goal in overtime. This was another example of an "officiating decision" made correctly on the ice that was overturned by "non-officiating personnel" that staff the Situation Room on a nightly basis. (NFL and MLB employ and empower referees/umpires to make final video review decisions). The guidelines and definition in determining a "distinct kicking motion" must have changed drastically, at least concerning Situation Room criteria employed, from when the kicking puck rule was first explained to my colleagues and I during a training camp meeting the season the rule was implemented. Otherwise Thomas Vaneks goal and the one scored by Brendan Gallagher of the Habs against Martin Brodeur last week (both of which were deemed legal by the referee in great position on the ice) would not have been overturned and disallowed through the video review process. The definition in rule 38.4 (iv) remains the same as when it was explained to us in that training camp meeting by Hockey Ops that still control the Situation Room. "A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL." As you correctly pointed out, Michael, the former NHL players working as analysts on both the NY Islanders and St. Louis Blues broadcast teams were convinced that Vaneks goal should count. They went so far as to say that Vanek wouldnt have known where the puck was as he rotated his body position away from Halak at the top of the goal crease and was then shoved from behind by Alexander Steen of the Blues. A referees perspective would clearly indicate that the bump from behind by Steen changed Vaneks rotation to a forward motion toward the net and caused the puck to be deflected off Vaneks skate and into the net. (Rule 49.2 - A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking players skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking plays skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident). We can envision various legal plays when a player is allowed to deliberately turn and angle his skate to direct a puck into the net or even makes a natural sliding stop at the crease in order to contact the puck causing it to enter the goal. Unless there has been some change in the definition and criteria of a "distinct kicking motion" it makes no sense that Thomas Vaneks goal would be disallowed through a video review decision. If there has been a "distinct" change in the criteria that the Situation Room employs in rendering their exclusive decisions, perhaps it is time they advise the rest of the hockey world! Until that takes place, Michael, this decision will be viewed by most as "simply a bad call by the guys in Toronto!" White Sox Jerseys China .J. Ward appeared in court Friday on misdemeanour charges that he threw a glass mug at a bartender at a Denver strip club. Custom Chicago White Sox Jerseys . -- At the beginning of training camp, Andrew Bogut set a goal to play all 82 regular-season games and regain his place among the NBAs best centres. . You can watch the game on TSN at 7pm et/4pm pt and listen to the game on TSN Radio 690 in Montreal. After starting the month of November on an 0-3-1 slide, the Canadiens have recorded wins in three of their last five outings (3-1-1).MELBOURNE, Australia - A place in the quarterfinals awaits the victors Monday when the fourth round is completed at the Australian Open and the second week begins in earnest at Melbourne Park.The womens and mens singles winners, to be determined next Saturday and Sunday nights, will add their names to the honour roll that began in 1905 as the Australian championships and became the Australian Open in 1969, a year after the professional Open Era began.There were no tournaments during both world wars, there were two in 1977 due to a date change when the tournament went from early to late in the year, then none in 1986 when it moved back to its current start-of-the-year slot on the Grand Slam calendar.On Monday, the matches include a potential stern test for the womens top-seeded player, a tale of two Madisons and a mens lineup that includes a four-time Australian champion, the 2014 winner and two of the young new breed of potential major champions.Here are some things to watch on Monday:___DANGER FOR SERENA?: Serena Williams describes her loss to Garbine Muguruza in the second round of last years French Open as the best loss I had the whole year. Her 6-2, 6-2 loss was also the fewest games shed won in any Grand Slam match of her career. That one in particular made me realize what I needed to work on, Williams said after her third-round match here. It opened my eyes towards a lot of things. It actually ended up helping me a lot. She said Muguruza didnt miss a shot that day and the 21-year-old Spaniard agrees. Everything was perfect, Muguruza says. Ill just try to do the same again.___NOVAK, KEI AND MILOS: Novak Djokovic hopes to remain in contention for his fifth Australian Open title when he plays Gilles Muller, while defending champion Stan Wawrinka, who has been wearing Stan the Man t-shirts to his post-match media conferences, hopes to have it on again under winning circumstances after playing Guillermo Garcia-Lopez. U.S. Open runner-up Kei Nishikori, 25, and Milos Raonic, who is 24, are part of that next generation aiming for their first Grand Slam titles. Stitched White Sox Jerseys. . Nishikori takes on David Ferrer and Raonic plays Fernando Lopez. Like last year, Wawrinka is flying under the radar while more attention is paid to players such as Djokovic and quarterfinalist Rafael Nadal. For sure Im not the focus, but it doesnt matter, Wawrinka says. To get into the second week again, its great.___MADISON SQUARED: Madison Keys beat Wimbledon champion Petra Kvitova to advance to a match against another Madison — her American compatriot Madison Brengle. I cannot believe that I just did that — I have wanted to be in the second week for so long, Im still trying to find words, said the 19-year-old Keys, who was born in Rock Island, Illinois. Keys has never been past the third round at any Grand Slam and now — under the guidance of Lindsay Davenport — could be in the quarterfinals. Were very excited to play each other, we know a Madison will get to the quarterfinals, Keys said. The 24-year-old Brengle, who was born in Dover, Delaware and still lives there, says she and Keys set up the possibility of a match between each other before Keys took the court against Kvitota — and after Brengle had beaten fellow American Coco Vandeweghe. She walked into the locker room and she said, Maddie, great job. I was like, You have to win, Brengle said. We have to recreate this picture. Because it would just be so, so funny. Not so funny anymore, but true.___COMPLETING THE PICTURE: The other womens matches Monday feature last years finalist at Melbourne Park, Dominika Cibulkova (she lost to now-retired Li Na), against two-time champion Victoria Azarenka, and Venus Williams, making her first appearance in the fourth round of a Grand Slam since Wimbledon in 2011, against Agnieszka Radwanska. A Venus victory would see her play one of the Madisons in the quarterfinals and potentially her sister, Serena, in the semis.___Follow Dennis Passa on Twitter: ' ' '

Infos zum Thema Fluglärm unter                   Beschwerdemail-Expresslink
Xobor Erstelle ein eigenes Forum mit Xobor