Dennis Everberg should have been credited with from miaowang123's blog

RENTON, Wash. . -- The Seattle Seahawks have signed offensive lineman Lemuel Jeanpierre and safety Jeron Johnson to one-year contract extensions, and given restricted free agent wide receiver Doug Baldwin a second-round tender. Terms of the deals for Jeanpierre and Johnson were not announced on Friday. Both were restricted free agents. The two signed deals are secondary to the situation with Baldwin. The second-round tender means Baldwin would be paid about $2.1 million for the 2014 season if he signs it. He could also reach a long-term deal with the Seahawks or sign with another team. If he were to sign with another club, Seattle would be compensated with a second-round pick. Baldwin has been one of Seattles top receivers in two of his three NFL seasons. Originally an undrafted free agent out of Stanford, Baldwin caught 51 passes as a rookie and had another 50 grabs last season along with a career-high five touchdowns in the regular season. Baldwin had 13 catches in the post-season and a touchdown catch in the Super Bowl. Jeanpierre has proved a vital backup for the Seahawks with the flexibility to play both centre and guard on the offensive line. Jeanpierre made three starts at centre last season when Max Unger was out with injuries. He played in all 16 games during the regular season. Johnson was an undrafted free agent out of Boise State who found a role as a backup with the Seahawks. He has played mostly on special teams in his time with the Seahawks while backing up starting strong safety Kam Chancellor. . James Harden wasnt worried and told his coach as much. "He was fired up but I told him: Its OK. Were going to be all right," Harden said. And they were. Houston scored 17 straight points after that timeout, led by 10 from Harden, to take the lead and roll to an easy 129-106 win. . Mauer drove in two runs before leaving with an injury, Eduardo Nunez homered and the Minnesota Twins beat the Kansas City Royals 10-2 on Tuesday night.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at Hey, Kerry! Always enjoy your column. Im wondering if you can give some clarification to the Colorado goal by Dennis Everberg that was waved off in the game in Boston on Monday. Would be interested to hear your perspective. Sure looked like a good goal to me and many other people, apparently. And the video looks pretty conclusive. Thanks! Bill Bayne Bill: You probably didnt realize it when you dropped this one into the CMon Ref mail bag, but your question today has exposed an apparent glaring contradiction in the playing rules. Unless cleaned up immediately, the contradiction found in the language of rule 80.3 (high-sticking the puck) and 78.4 (scoring a goal) could very well impact how a legal goal can be scored once a puck has been struck by an attacking player above the height of the crossbar. First, let me review the play in question. Referee Rob Martell, in good position, made the initial determination that a legal goal had been scored when Ryan OReilly, standing at the top of goal crease, deflected a point shot by Tyson Barrie which subsequently caromed off the shin pad and left skate blade of Dennis Everberg into the Bruins net. From game footage and the Situation Room blog we learned that the officials group huddled in the referee crease and a consensus declared that OReilly deflected the puck into the net with a high stick. Martells call was reversed to no goal on the ice as per rule 60.5 pending confirmation from video review. In fairness, it is often difficult to find a camera angle that definitively demonstrates if a puck has been struck above/below the height of the crossbar. The overhead camera is usually of little value in this situation since it does not provide the necessary depth perception relative to the cross-bar. For this reason I would largely discount the overhead camera had I been in the Situation Room making the call. The farther out from this reference point (goal frame) only compounds the difficulty video review has in making a conclusive determination. Although the front and side angle footage offers more than reasonable evidence to me that OReillys descending blow made contact with the puuck at or below the cross-bar, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Situation Room personnel that it was too close for them to call. The inconclusive review kicked the decision back to the officials on the ice. Assuming the on-ice officials determined OReilly contacted the puck above the crossbar but below his shoulders the puck is eligible to be played by any player. We know that the puck did not enter the net directly off the stick of Ryan OReilly but instead glanced off Bruins goalie, Niklas Svedberg and then deflected into the net off the leg and skate of Dennis Everberg. Since there was no distinct kicking motion by Everberg, logic and common sense would indicate that this should be a good hockey goal. Bill, this is where your question has exposed the contradiction! Rule 80.3: When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponents goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed (This translates that the subsequent deflection of the puck off the leg and/or skate of Everberg should still result in no goal). Only to be contradicted by Rule 78.4: If an attacking player has the puck deflect into the net, off his skate or body, in any manner, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal (In this rule, Dennis Everberg should have been credited with his first NHL goal when the puck deflected into the net off his body and skate. If the puck were to deflect into the net off the stick of an attacking player there isnt a referee in the business that would disallow a goal in this situation. A legal deflection, as this rule states, should likewise result in a goal in the opinion of most active referees). It is now time for an amendment to correct these two conflicting rules before another potential good hockey goal is nullified. Additionally, rule 38 was revised this season to empower Hockey Operations with broader discretion to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g., to ensure they are good hockey goals). This just might have been an opportunity to exercise their expanded authority even if the review of the potential high-stick by OReilly was found to be inconclusive. ' ' '

Previous post     
     Next post
     Blog home

The Wall

No comments
You need to sign in to comment
Password protected photo
Password protected photo
Password protected photo