Поверхность ТВ Поверхность ТВ
пятница, 24 мая 2024  
 
Поверхность ТВ Форум
На главную | Все форумы | Пользователи | Правила | Мониторинг тв | Поиск | Регистрация | Зайти

Вы не зашли.
Поверхность ТВ Форум / Вопросы комментаторам / d interference on the Модераторы: BuTbKa, Maria, dex Тема закрыта
Автор
Сообщение Страниц: 1
vv1122365
Member

Зарегистрирован: 2019-02-20
Сообщений: 46
Every night of the Stanley Cup playoffs, TSN hockey analyst and former NHL goaltender Jamie McLennan breaks down each goalies performance. Jamies number grades given are out of five, with five being the best mark. Tuukka Rask, Boston Bruins (5) – He had a brilliant game; it was a huge response for his average games before. He delivered when needed by his team; was the best player on the ice. He had huge saves on Bournival and Eller in first, Gionta on a breakaway in the second. He had elite rebound control: everything was just hitting him and dying. Huge left pad save again on Gionta in third period, great Subban pass to Weise and Rask makes a big right shoulder save. Stopped Gionta again in tight shorthanded. He was locked in all night, his positioning was outstanding. Made it look easy. Carey Price, Montreal Canadiens (5) – He had a big save on Bergeron in the first, a great reaction save on Smith in the second, handled the puck real well on wraps on boards and around net, and had three posts/crossbar plays against. He was poised, calm and cool in the third. When he was not busy, he did not lose focus on a few in-tight shots. Sign of tremendous mental toughness. Game-winning goal was a scramble play that was an odd bounce off the back glass to get in front. Jonathan Quick, Los Angeles Kings (3) – He had no chance on the first goal against. He was very composed on a big save on Perrault, a glove save on Silverberg was great as well. He had no chance on Selannes back door goal. He was his acrobatic self in net, made great saves on Maroon and Perry in tight. The Lovejoy goal was a short side shelf shot, stoppable with how good his glove is. Frederik Andersen, Anaheim Ducks (3) – He was calm and cool in the net, had a big save early on in game on Voynov. He had some rebound issues with a lot of pucks, but was great at battling in-crease. He had big saves on Williams, Kopitar, and Brown. Gave them a chance to win, until his injury. Jonas Hiller, Anaheim Ducks (4) – He came in cold with under 10 minutes left in the third, made good saves on Doughty, Kopitar and Carter right away. Tough task to come in cold, but he did a solid job settling in. Bad rebound on Richards goal, but found a way to hold on. Air Jordan 1 Scontate Uomo . -- Two nights after losing to the Eastern Conferences worst team, the Phoenix Coyotes handled the best. Scarpe Air Jordan 1 Scontate . QUARTERBACKS Carson Palmer (vs Colts)Last week: 30/42, 419 yards, 2 TDsWinners of their last three and now tied for the final wild card spot in the NFC, the Cardinals are worth keeping an eye on. http://www.airjordan1scontate.it/ . - Washington Redskins tight end Fred Davis said Wednesday hes "nodded off" during meetings, but he said its something every player does. Air Jordan 1 Offerta . Greece was on the wrong end of a 3-0 rout to Colombia in its first game of the tournament. They surrendered a goal in just the sixth minute of the contest, and despite some promising attacking play, failed to crawl back into the match. Japan, on the other hand, struck first in its match with Ivory Coast, with Keisuke Honda putting his side into the lead in the 16th minute. Air Jordan 1 Outlet Italia . It certainly isnt a coincidence that Dwight Howard has scored at least 20 points in each game of the winning streak.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. Hi Kerry, In Game 2 of the Canadiens-Bruins series, could you explain how the interference to Tuukka Rask by Brandon Prust, which appeared to prevent him from getting back into position and be ready for Mike Weavers shot (which produced Montreals first goal) differed from the situation you described in the first series when Carey Price was interfered with and - as you answered then - was correctly waved off as a no goal? Thanks!Rhonda McClure Rhonda: The primary difference between the two plays, both of which resulted in significant contact with the goalkeepers inside their crease, is that Brandan Prust was pushed/cross-checked from behind onto Tuukka Rask by his defenceman (Andrej Meszaros) which negated interference on the goalkeeper as spelled out in rule 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 the purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.) Prust had no opportunity to avoid contact with Rask after being shoved from behind by Meszaros. It is also important to note that Prust did not delay in getting up off Rask and then immediately vacated the goal crease. On the other hand, Alex Killorn of the Tampa Lightning initiated contact with Carey Price when he crashed the net with a deke and attempt to jam the puck past Price. (David Desharnais was behind Killorn but did not push, shove or foul the Tampa player so as to cause contact with Price as Meszaros did to Prust!) Following contact with Prices skate and pad Killorn rotated and fell into the back of the net. IIf the puck were to have entered the net on this segment of the play the goal should be disallowed based on the goalie interference initiated by Killorn.dddddddddddd. Alex Killorn suffered double jeopardy once the second incident of contact in the blue paint was clearly initiated by Price when the goalie launched himself into Killorn as the Tampa player was attempting to vacate the crease. This action by Price demonstrates the flaw in rule 69.3 which states; "If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeepers ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed." Following this allowable contact initiated by Price the goalie was unable to regain his position to defend the subsequent shot and the referee disallowed the goal. There is definitely a need to tweak rule 69.3 when a goalie initiates contact with an attacking player. It might even require that the referee(s) exercise their best judgment to determine the intent of the goalkeepers actions when contact is initiated inside the crease. If contact is legitimately initiated "in the act of establishing his position" to defend a shot then the goalkeeper should be entitled to that protection. If contact is initiated by the goalkeeper for any other purpose, as Carey Prices actions might indicate here, then a goal scored following this "incidental" contact should be allowed to stand. Given the glove hand/arm contact initiated inside the crease by goalkeeper Henrik Lundqvist onto the stick of Evgeni Malkin, perhaps the referees are already exercising their judgment in this area? Based on the current rule James Neals goal that rolled down Lundqvists back following his contact with Malkin should have been disallowed. 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 ' ' '

2019-02-22 04:34:21
   
Страниц: 1   Тема закрыта
Перейти