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. Andris Biedrins Jersey . How foolishly wrong I was. Forget the now inherent corruption and back handed favours that plague the beautiful game. Goal Line Technology? Youre having a laugh. As for them penalty cheating bandits, footballs lawmakers upend them by awarding the penalty to the opponent each time a player attempts to con the referee into awarding ghost penalties. Monta Ellis Jersey .com) - Hassan Whiteside scored 20 points with nine rebounds in the Miami Heats 83-75 win over the Boston Celtics on Sunday. https://www.cheapwarriors.com/ .C. -- Duke sophomore Rodney Hood is entering the NBA draft. Woody Sauldsberry Jersey . Englands only win in the four most recent trips north had been tight, and Scotland was expected after losing 28-6 to Ireland six days ago to show some venom against its archrival. Fake Warriors Jerseys . Forward Iker Muniain scored the winner in the 70th minute after Bilbaos incessant pressure recovered the ball and sparked a counterattack inside Barcelonas half. Neymar was once again tagged to pick up Messis goal-scoring duties, but when he wasnt frustrated by slippery footing Bilbaos defence got the better of him.WINNIPEG -- Winnipeg head coach Mike OShea isnt just disappointed that the Blue Bombers lost. OShea disliked the Blue Bombers performance in a 26-3 to the Edmonton Eskimos on Thursday in front of Winnipegs largest home crowd of the season. "The biggest disappointment, besides teammates thinking they let down teammates, is having a crowd like that and putting that kind of effort forward," said OShea, as the Bombers fell to 3-1. The crowd at Investors Group Field topped 30,000 for the first time this season with 30,976 in attendance to watch the Eskimos claim sole possession of first place in the CFL West at 4-0. A scrambling Mike Reilly may have been the difference maker. He rushed for a team leading 96 yards in a game where defences on both sides were making life hard for offences. "It was a long night for both offences, I think," said the Eskimos quarterback, sacked four times to five for Winnipegs Drew Willy. Reilly was held to one offensive touchdown, with another scored by the defence and the rest of Edmontons points coming from Grant Shaw field goals. Winnipeg had only one field goal from Liram Hajrullahu and he hit a post on another try. "Both those defences are really good," said Reilly. "Even in the first half we had some good drives that we didnt finish off. So, certainly, we like to come away with touchdowns rather than field goals but the way our defence is playing right now, its enough to get the win." Slotback Fred Stamps, one of the teams best and most consistent receivers, was injured in the game and coach Chris Jones said later he was still being evaluated. He left the field after the game on a stretcher with an oxygen mask on and was taken to a Winnipeg hospital for precautionary testing. "It was a physical night for both sides and again our quarterback got tested a time too many (but) again hes a physical big quarterback and thats what he does, hes a winner," said Jones. "They were 3-0 for a reason. Theyre a good football team and theyve got great schemes and things of that nature and we had to go out and earn that win." OShea said the way Reilly slipped tackles time and time again showed the Bombers his power, something they knew he had workked on in the off-season.dddddddddddd "Yeah hes strong and tough," said OShea. "We underestimated him and give him that credit and when we look at the film well be disappointed we didnt squeeze a little harder and bring him down." That said, the defence kept the Bombers in the game. Winnipegs offence had the ball for just 21:34 to Edmontons 38:26. But in the first and final quarters, when the Eskimos scored 20 of their points, the Bombers had the ball for less than seven of those minutes. "We never got a rhythm going," said Willy. "We left our defence out there. They played really well. Anytime you dont possess the ball very much its tough to put points on the board." He was wearing an ice bag on his left ankle but said he wasnt hurt that badly and it wont affect his ability to play next week in B.C. Edmontons only touchdown in almost 50 minutes of football came from the defence on a first-quarter interception, carried in by former Bomber bad boy Odell Willis. But despite some solid drives (Edmonton had 24 first downs to Winnipegs 11) all the Eskimos offence could muster were field goals until the fourth quarter. With Stamps injured, Reilly finally connected with A.J. Guyton with a 13-yard throw to make it 20-3 with about 10 minutes left, the first and only touchdown by the offence. He said Stamps would have drawn more coverage. The Bomber offence had hardly touched the ball until Nic Grigsby gave them a first down with just over two minutes left in the second quarter. Willy followed with a 50-yard throw to Clarence Denmark but he was sacked on the next play and Denmark couldnt hold it in the end zone on a touchdown try, forcing Winnipeg to settle for a field goal. Notes: The last time an unbeaten Winnipeg and Edmonton tussled for first in the West early in the season was in 1961. Edmonton won that game but Winnipeg went on to win the Grey Cup. ... Zach Anderson had two of Winnipegs four sacks and picked up what initially looked like a fumble deep in Edmonton turf on Thursday, although it was ruled down by contact. Willie Jefferson had two of Edmontons four sacks. Regular punter Mike Renaud hurt himself during the warmup leaving Hajrullahu to handle punts as well. ' ' '