Allgemein » think when you have the regul

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. 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 TSN.ca. 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!" Stan Smith Scontate . -- A 25-year-old freelance journalist from British Columbia was formally charged on Thursday with a felony, five days after she was arrested in the United States over allegations she threatened to kill her hockey player boyfriend. Stan Smith Italia . The Thunder earned the Game 1 win with a 100-86 victory Saturday night. Oklahoma City dominated the first half and led by 22 at the break, but saw its lead shrink to just two points in the fourth quarter. http://www.stansmithscontate.it/ . Roy says he will know more about Duchenes potential playing status Sunday. Duchene has been out since damaging the MCL in his left knee when he ran into a teammate against San Jose on March 29. Hes been skating on his own all week, before joining the team Saturday hours before a pivotal game in a series tied at 2. Scarpe Stan Smith Scontate .ca. The NHL Play of the Year showdown kicks off with some slick moves going head-to-head with a combination of soft hands and endless patience. Stan Smith Scontate Uomo . Fourteen players were suspended last summer by Major League Baseball as part of the Biogenesis drug scandal, ranging from All-Stars to also-rans.BOSTON -- Cam Neely says the Bruins are still set up to contend for the Stanley Cup for years to come. Speaking at a news conference a week after Boston was eliminated from the playoffs by archrival Montreal, the Bruins president noted that most of the roster is made up of young but experienced players -- aside from 37-year-old Zdeno Chara. "And Zdeno is still, in my opinion, the best defender in the game," Neely said. "So I still think were in our window. We just have to recognize what we need to do to make our team better, whether its guys playing better or whether were adding different players." The core of the current team, led by Chara, Patrice Bergeron, David Krejci, Milan Lucic and Brad Marchand, won the Stanley Cup in 2011 and lost in the Stanley Cup finals to the Chicago Blackhawks in six games in 2013. This season, they went 54-19-9 and won the Presidents Trophy with the best regular season record. In March, the Bruins had a 12-game winning streak and a 16-game point streak that helped them soar to the top of the standings. They did not lose more than two games in a row all season. Against the Canadiens, however, the Bruins came up short despite grabbing a 3-2 lead in the best-of-7 series. Itll be up to management to determine where the way the Bruins playedd in March or how they played in May is more reflective of the capabilities of the current roster.dddddddddddd "I think when you have the regular season that we had, especially that stretch from March into April, that wasnt luck," Neely said. "We were a good team. And we still feel we have a good team and maybe need a few tweaks." The Bruins have two key players, forwards Jarome Iginla and Shawn Thornton, scheduled to become unrestricted free agents July 1. They have a handful of restricted free agents and several signed veterans with no-trade clauses. There doesnt seem to be an urgent desire to make major changes to the on-ice personnel. Owner Jeremy Jacobs is confident Neely, general manager Peter Chiarelli and the rest of the front-office staff have the right plan to avoid a future early-round loss. "This was sort of a tale of two seasons. One of them, I mean, we had the best team in the National Hockey League during the regular season and it was our expectation to carry that on fully and it didnt happen," Jacobs said. "I dont think they are looking at a massive change. I think they are looking at tweaking it as opposed to doing any serious changes. I think keeping the organization together is one of their objectives and two is to improve on it." ' ' '