DANGER » Walter figure to have the final say. "I think he did gg

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. Im sure you have thousands of emails on this already. How can that third Kings goal in Game 2 be allowed? The Kings player went in to the blue paint on his own accord, made contact with the Rangers defender and then laid on Lundqvists leg as the shot went in. If it is not a two-minute goalie interference call, it is at least a disallowed goal because of "incidental" contact with the goalie. I really dont see how they could rule any other way. Thank You,Bruce ChangoDillsburg, PA ----- Hi Kerry, Dwight Kings goal with plenty of time left in the third period last night was a huge momentum swing, eventually resulting in the Kings overtime win. However, the Rangers were unhappy about what they thought was goaltender interference on Henrik Lundqvist. Do the Rangers have any argument here? Anthony Z.Sault Ste. Marie, ON ----- Kerry, Im sure youve been asked to comment on the Kings third goal in Saturdays game and the goaltender interference controversy. But Ill ask again. What did you see and how would you have called it? J. RockwellEaston, PA Bruce, Anthony and ‘J-Rock: A violation of Rule 69 (goalkeeper interference) was committed by Dwight King when he initiated contact with Rangers goalkeeper Henrik Lundqvist inside the goal crease. As a result of this deliberate action by King, the goal should have been disallowed and a minor penalty assessed to King for goalkeeper interference. Some fans will maintain that King was pushed into Lundqvist through the actions of Rangers defenceman Ryan McDonough, which would have resulted in the scoring of a legal goal. From the quick look and decision rendered by referee Dan OHalloran, I have to believe that he also felt McDonough was guilty to some degree of pushing King into the crease. Allow me to explain why this was not the case and why I am confident that, if the referee was afforded the luxury of video review, he would have also concluded that Lundqvist was the victim of goalkeeper interference and the goal subsequently would have been disallowed. What I want to disprove is the premise that King was pushed into Lundqvist and that he did not make any reasonable effort to avoid the Ranger goalkeeper as per 69.1: “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 purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.” We pick up the action outside the goal crease to the right of Henrik Lundqvist when Dwight King (approaching on an angle outside the crease and from behind goal line) and Ryan McDonough (front of net) engaged one another in frontal combat with their sticks in a prone cross-check position toward one another. With McDonoughs posture and position, he was set to move his opponent away from the crease and not into it. King was also moving in a direction towards the slot and not facing into the blue paint. Note also that Kings stick blade appears to be in tight on Lundqvist. In this pose, both players are willing combatants engaging in a battle for position outside of the crease. Following their initial contact, King played off McDonough to the inside and then slipped laterally into the blue paint and toward Lundqvist. King then made a movement independent (separation) of McDonough with a backward press deeper into the crease and a resulting lateral ‘skate hop that initiated solid contact with the Rangers goalie. The resulting tumble caused King to land on the right pad of Lundqvist inside the crease. This action took place as Lundqvist was attempting to remain square and set for a shot from the point that King was ultimately given credit for deflecting past the Ranger goalkeeper. Once again from 69.1: “The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeepers ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.” So why was this play, as I described it, missed by the referee you might ask? First of all, contact such as this can happen very quickly in real-time and, especially, while other action is taking place. Different angles can also be deceiving. In this situation, Justin Williams carried the puck behind the Rangers goal and deep into the corner directly toward referee OHalloran. The referee was forced to pivot out from the corner and then back to allow Williams space to carry the puck wide and up the wall. Based on the referees body posture, he visually followed Williams carry the puck up the wall and then deliver a cross-ice outlet pass to Matt Greene at the right point position. While this action was taking place, the contact between King and McDonough had been initiated. This, along with Kings independent move into the blue paint, would have been undetected by the referee. With a pending shot from the point and a refocus by the referee toward the front of the net, it would likely have appeared from the refs vantage that McDonough deposited King in the goal crease as a result of the fall. It would have been a “bang-bang” play in the eye and mind of the referee under these circumstances. Lundqvist claimed that the referee told him the puck had already entered the net prior to any contact by King. Plays of this nature and magnitude must be reviewable as I have contended for at least the past couple of seasons! Review will be a crucial safety-check for the referees to correctly determine and enforce goalkeeper interference. The Competition Committee apparently met today. The eventual outcome of some games might just rest in their hands pending final approval of the rules committee. Fake Shoes From China .500 were once common achievements for the Dallas Mavericks. Now, both are season highs as Dallas slowly works its way back into playoff contention in the Western Conference. Wholesale Fake Shoes . The Redskins announced Monday that the quarterback who led the team to the Super Bowl championship in the 1987 season will serve as a personnel executive. https://www.fakeshoes.net/ .The third-seeded Murray, who won here in 2009, will face seventh-seeded Kevin Anderson of South Africa next on the indoor hard court. Fake Shoes . Just ask last seasons Supporters Shield winners, the New York Red Bulls, who were resoundingly defeated last weekend by a rampant Vancouver Whitecaps in a match which produced two contenders for MLS Goal of the Week from Sebastian Fernandez and Pedro Morales. Wholesake Fake Air Jordan 1 .com) - Mike Conley scored 20 points with five assists to help the Memphis Grizzlies remain unbeaten with a 91-89 win over the Oklahoma City Thunder on Friday. LOS ANGELES -- Don Mattingly said Monday that his 2014 contract option vested with the Dodgers first-round playoff victory over Atlanta, but he isnt sure hell be back as manager next season. He said that the organization put him in a difficult position with his players by not exercising a team option going into the final year of his three-year deal. "Its been a frustrating, tough year, honestly," he told reporters while sitting next to general manager Ned Colletti. "It puts me in a spot that everything I do is questioned because Im basically trying out and auditioning, can you manage or cant you manage? Thats not a great position for me as a manager." Mattinglys option worth $1.4 million would allow him to return, but the team has yet to say anything about his future. Colletti said Mattinglys status would be "resolved very quickly." But it was apparent while Mattingly talked that he would like a multiyear deal. "Its pretty easy to figure out," he said. "I like being here, but I dont want to be anywhere where youre not wanted. I dont want to be somewhere where people dont think youre capable of doing the job," Mattingly said. Colletti made it clear that he supports Mattinglys return. But team President Stan Kasten and the ownership group headed by Mark Walter figure to have the final say. "I think he did ggreat," Colletti said.dddddddddddd. "I have a lot of respect for this guy. He kept it steady for a tough period of time." Mattingly is 260-225 in three years as manager, guiding the Dodgers to the NL championship series, where they lost to St. Louis in six games last week. When the Dodgers stumbled to start the season, falling to last place in the NL West while injuries piled up, speculation was rampant that Mattingly would be fired. Kasten indicated to him at the time that things needed to improve for Mattingly to keep his job. The team won 42 of 50 games during a torrid midseason stretch to take over first place and eventually won the division by 11 games over Arizona. "It was quite a remarkable season," Colletti said. He wouldnt comment on the status of Mattinglys coaching staff, but its possible changes could be made, although Mattingly indicated he would like to keep it intact. NOTES: Dodgers CF Matt Kemp had arthroscopic surgery on his left ankle performed by Dr. Robert Anderson in Charlotte, N.C. The team said the procedure "involved removing several spurs, a loose body and doing a microfracture on the talus bone." Kemp is expected to be in a splint for two weeks and a walking boot for another two weeks. But the Dodgers say "he is expected to be competitive in time for the regular season." ' ' '