Konuyu Oyla:
  • Toplam: 0 Oy - Ortalama: 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
at justified killing in self-defence.The appeal papers were filed Tuesday at the Nort
#1
Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn. Adidas NMD Saldi .ca. Kerry, Just watched the shootout in the Coyotes/Leafs game and I have to ask, why was the James van Riemsdyk goal allowed to count? All of the video replays we were shown on TV were inconclusive about whether the puck had entirely crossed the line or not. Neither ref made an attempt at blowing the whistle or pointing at the net and no call was made on the play as it was sent right to the video replay judges. Only after the replay was reviewed was the goal allowed to count. Paul Devorski told Coyotes coach Dave Tippett that he was sure it was a goal. If Devorski was so confident it was a goal then why didnt he signal a goal and blow the whistle? Why did he send it to the video replay? Their indecision and explanation do not seem to match up. Your insight would be greatly appreciated as it appears the Leafs were the recipients of the proverbial home ice advantage! Thanks,Chad Conner in Phoenix Chad, After witnessing JVRs ultimate shootout goal, neither referees (Rob Martell and Paul Devorski) signaled a goal nor did they make a waive off. Understandably, they appeared uncertain and indecisive as they searched to find the puck from underneath Smiths pads. The puck did not become visible until Smith wisely and carefully manipulated his pads from inside the net and kicked his feet forward until the puck appeared well out in the middle of his goal crease. Since no signal was made by either referee as required, I must assume they did not and could not see the puck across the goal line. As such, they were unable and unwilling to make an initial call. The only alternative for Martell and Devorski at this point was to pass the decision upstairs to video review which has become the safety net for the official. Video review rendered an inconclusive verdict since no camera angle was available to clearly demonstrate the puck crossing the goal line due to the obstructed view from Smiths pads! The call then reverted back to the referee(s) on the ice for a final decision. Referee Rob Martell was on the head set throughout the video review process. The referee was either provided with input and assistance from upstairs and/or Martell used common sense and logic to deduce that since the puck was under Mike Smiths pads and Smiths pads were across the goal line a legal goal should be counted. I agree with the referees ultimate decision in that it is most logical and probable that the puck completely crossed the goal line. I have personally stood on the goal line and signaled a goal when the puck was caught by the goalkeeper with his glove across the line and then pulled his glove and the puck forward out of the net. The puck was in the glove and the glove was across the goal line and inside the net. I also counted goals when the goalkeeper carried the puck across the line and into the net. I made these decisions immediately and without hesitation. There was no video review to act as a safety net. Even when the review process was implemented I wanted to see the play and make the call. - This very late decision by the on-ice referee Thursday night following video review highlights at least two flaws in the current system. The first is that two different standards can be applied in determining goals. Video review must clearly see the puck across the goal line with an unobstructed view before they will verify a goal. The evidence must be unequivocal! If this cant be achieved video review personnel render an inconclusive verdict even in cases where it appears logical that the puck would have crossed the line. - The referee, on the other hand, as we saw demonstrate on this call, allowed a goal to stand by applying logic, common sense and the power of deduction to determine that in his judgment the puck had crossed the goal line. My recommendation is to provide the referee with the authority to review controversial goals at ice level (including goalkeeper interference) and have the final authority and judgment in these matters. The optics on JVRs ultimate goal determination looked ridiculous! Referee Martell (and Devorski) did not make a decision on the play in real time. Martell then spent several minutes communicating through a head set and staring into space. Following the inconclusive review verdict, Referee Martell was forced to render a final decision - one that he was unable or unwilling to make in real time! The Refs are supposed to make a call one way or the other in real time; let them also make the final decision through the video review process, As Referee Rob Martell demonstrated Thursday night, thats in their job description and what they get paid to do! NMD Outlet Italia Scarpe NMD Italia . The Thornhill, Ont., native, who is ranked 11th in the world, said hed hoped he would be ready when Canada begins its World Group first-round tie against Japan in Tokyo on Friday. http://www.adidasnmditalia.it/ . The right-hander said he threw about 30 pitches in a routine bullpen session Sunday at Yankee Stadium, his final hurdle before starting Tuesday night at Tampa Bay.STELLENBOSCH, South Africa - Prosecutors in the Oscar Pistorius case filed appeal papers Tuesday, saying they believe a judge did not correctly apply the law when she found the Olympic athlete not guilty of murder for shooting girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.The prosecutors also said they were appealing against the shockingly light five-year prison sentence Pistorius was given for manslaughter, as well as a third decision by Judge Thokozile Masipa to acquit the double-amputee runner of illegal possession of ammunition for bullets found in his home.South Africas National Prosecuting Authority said it had filed for leave to appeal those verdicts and sentence, the first step in a process that could still see Pistorius convicted of murder and sent to prison for at least 15 years for killing Steenkamp.Prosecutors must first ask Masipa — the red-robed judge who oversaw Pistorius murder trial — for permission to appeal against her decisions. If permitted, Pistorius case will go to the Supreme Court of Appeal, where it would be reviewed by a panel of judges, another legal battle for the world-famous runner whose murder trial lasted seven months and left him broke, according to his defence lawyers.Masipa acquitted Pistorius, 27, of murder for shooting Steenkamp multiple times through a toilet cubicle door on Feb. 14, 2013, and instead convicted him of a lesser charge of culpable homicide, or manslaughter.In the appeal papers, chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel and assistant prosecutor Andrea Johnson questioned if Masipa correctly applied a section of the law called doluss eventualis when she acquitted on murder. Adidas NMD Online Italia. Dolus eventualis says a person should be found guilty of murder if they realized their actions might cause someones death and went ahead anyway, and that person died.Pistorius shot four times through a door and into the small cubicle from close range, hitting the 29-year-old Steenkamp in the head, arm and hip.Pistorius claim that he mistook his girlfriend for a nighttime intruder also was not a defence against murder, the prosecution appeal said, as there was no attack on him that justified killing in self-defence.The appeal papers were filed Tuesday at the North Gauteng High Court in the South African capital, Pretoria — the courthouse where Pistorius trial was held. They were filed exactly two weeks after he was sentenced.Pistorius, a multiple Paralympic champion who made history as the first amputee to run at the Olympics in 2012, is currently serving his manslaughter sentence in the hospital wing of Kgosi Mampuru II prison in Pretoria. Under the current terms, he could be released after 10 months to complete the sentence under house arrest.We will argue that the sentence is inappropriate and shockingly light for someone that killed an innocent person with gross negligence where his conduct bordered on dolus eventualis, the prosecution said in its appeal against the sentence.Prosecutors also said theyd appeal the acquittal on an illegal possession of ammunition charge after Pistorius didnt have a license for bullets found in his home, but testified they belonged to his father. Wholesale Hoodies NFL Shirts Outlet Jerseys NFL Wholesale Cheap NFL Jerseys Free Shipping Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Cheap NFL Jerseys China Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys China Cheap NFL Jerseys ' ' '
Ara
Cevapla


Hızlı Menü:


Konuyu Okuyanlar: 1 Ziyaretçi