PS2 » night when John Moore checked Dale Weise in the h

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-ya Kerry, I find it amazing that with all the bad calls that were made in Game 3 of the Habs-Lightning series, people are up in arms about possibly the biggest call in the game that was one of the few that was correct. Would you please do us all a favour and explain why that goal was justly disallowed? I really miss having you, Ron, Andy and Don refereeing games. You four were true professionals. Sincerely,Bob (a.k.a. Avro Arrow on TSN.cas comment threads) P.S. - Please put it in laymans terms as I think that the on-air host may have used terminology that most people arent familiar with. LOL Hey Bob: (a.k.a. Avro Arrow) I give young referee Francis Charron kudos for having the courage to correctly apply rule 69.3 and disallow the potential go-ahead goal by Ryan Callahan with 4:22 remaining in the second period and the score tied 1-1. The overriding rational of rule 69 (Interference on the Goalkeeper) 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. There were two instances of goalkeeper interference by virtue of the rule on the play whereby a goal could not legally be allowed to stand if the puck entered the net. In the first instance Alex Killorn took the puck hard to the net and initiated contact with Carey Price as he attempted to deke and jam the puck into the net. The rotation of Killorns body and subsequent crash into the back of the net was as a result of his skate to pad contact with Price and not as a result of any back door pressure exerted by David Desharnais. (Check the footage closely!) In attempting to make the save and as a result of the contact by Killorn the Montreal goalkeeper was knocked beyond his blue paint and was then struck by a falling Desharnais. If the puck were to have entered the net following the contact initiated by Alex Killorn the goal should immediately be disallowed. As the action continued the referee would only allow a "good goal" once he determined that Price was able to reestablish his position within his goal crease to defend any subsequent shot following this initial contact from Killorn. Price got to his feet and moved laterally across the crease to establish his position and to defend a potential shot by Valtteri Filppula from the left side face-off circle. Alex Killorn was attempting to exit the net behind Price in this same moment and resulted in the second incident of goalkeeper interference inside the crease. This time however the contact was initiated by Price and not through the actions of Alex Killorn. Nonetheless a violation of rule 69.3 occurred; (Rule 69.3 - 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.) Even though the contact initiated by Price took him deep into left field, it occurred inside the blue paint as Price was "attempting to establish position inside his goal crease" and could only be judged as such by the referee. Price knows this rule better than most goalies in the NHL and that is why he threw himself into Alex Killorn inside the blue paint. Price has utilized this rule to his advantage on at least three occasions in previous games. I demonstrated a great montage of Price initiated contact inside his goal crease on Thats Hockey 2Nite with Steve Kouleas following the Habs-Lightning game. In the footage, Price clearly initiated contact with attacking players inside his crease and in each case the referee immediately disallowed the goal. Players, coaches, former players and fans dont fully understand the rule application or the standard by which the referees are instructed to enforce rule 69. Until this "loophole" in the rule is closed referee Francis Charron and his colleagues will continue to enforce it in the same manner that we saw last night in Montreal. The NHL needs to come out in support of Francis Charron and the gusty, correct call he made. You did what is not only expected but demanded of you kid. In laymens terms Avro Arrow, my best advice to attacking players is to keep out of the blue paint and to especially keep clear of Habs goalie Carey Price! Todd Frazier Jersey . - The Denver Broncos kept rookie wide receiver Tavarres King from joining the Green Bay Packers by promoting him to their active roster Tuesday. Keith Hernandez Jersey . According to TSNs Farhan Lalji, Richardson is heading to Toronto for a physical and is expected to sign with the Argonauts. http://www.metssale.com/mets-lenny-dykstra-jersey/ . The CFL unveiled its 2014 schedule Wednesday and the Redblacks will play their first-ever regular-season game in Winnipeg against the Blue Bombers on July 3. Tim Tebow Jersey .com) - The Utah Jazz look to put an end to their five-game losing streak when the Denver Nuggets visit Salt Lake City Monday night. New York Mets Jerseys . Tensions rose in the first period when Penguins defenceman Brooks Orpik hit Bruins forward Loui Eriksson with what appeared to be a clean hit.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. Kerry, I just witnessed the hit by John Moore on Dale Weise in Game 5 - how was that different than the hit that Brandon Prust landed on Derek Stepan? Stepan sustained a broken jaw ... Weise sustained a headache! Should the same rule book call have been made on both hits? Rick Rick: The primary difference between these two illegal hits is that the head of Dale Weise was the "main point of contact" delivered from the shoulder of John Moore in Tuesday nights game and as such, fell under the parameters and language of rule 48 - illegal check to the head. Brandon Prust, on the other hand, initiated shoulder contact to the upper chest/shoulder of Derek Stepan and as the Habs player drove up and through the hit, "significant contact" resulted to the head of Stepan. No penalty was assessed to Prust on this play (missed by all four officials) but since this illegal check was very late, blindside in nature and excessive in the degree of violence asserted, a major and game misconduct should have resulted for interference (rule 56.4/.5). While it might sound like "wordsmithing" (main point of contact versus significant contact), these are important distinctions for the referee to judge when assessing the appropriate penalty. Regardless of the terminology or rule application, both Prust and Moore deserved to be expelled from the game pending any subsequent decision by the Player Safety Committee. While both players were able to finish the game, it was learned the following day that Derek Stepan required surgery to repair a fractured jaw. Brandon Prust was suspended by the Player Safety Committee for a whapping two games! The full extent of head trauma symptoms is not always immediate so it might be premature to determine if Dale Weise is suffering anything beyond a headache. There is no provision for the referee(s) to assess a major and game misconduct penalty under rule 48 (minor or match only). Based on the degree of impact to the head of Weise, it was correctly determined by the referees that John Moore deserved a match penalty (delibberate attempt to injure) and was immediately suspended.dddddddddddd Moore has been suspended two games following his hearing with the P.S.C. this afternoon. To your point, Rick, there was an option, albeit ever so slight, for the referee(s) to impose a match penalty against Brandon Prust if first, they saw the play and second, deemed the illegal hit on Stepan was for no other purpose than to attempt to or deliberately injure the Ranger player. Given all the components of Prusts attack and delivery of the hit (excessively late, blindside and high) it would be reasonable to suspect it was not a normal "finish of a check" but instead designed to inflict punishment or even attempt to injure Stepan. Knowing the thinking habits of the referees, they would much prefer to impose the major and game misconduct option contained in the interference rule (or charging) and then let the P.S.C. rule under supplementary discipline if they deemed a suspension is warranted to the player as opposed to applying a match penalty that results in an immediate suspension and hearing. That option was not available to them last night when John Moore checked Dale Weise in the head beyond just two minutes worth! Based on the seriousness and potential consequences of any illegal contact to the head, I offer the following recommendations, Rick: - There should absolutely be no minor penalty option once the referee deems an illegal check to the head has been committed.- Only a major and game misconduct or match penalty should be assessed for an illegal check to the head. - Eliminate the fine line margin of tolerance and thinking that exists between "main point of contact" to the head for the referees to determine an illegal check to the head and for suspension purpose. If contact to the head of an opponent is "significant" through an elevated hit or otherwise, it should be judged as an illegal check to the head. Place the onus on the player making the hit to do so responsibly. - Keep players skates on the ice through a hit.- Hold players accountable for their poor decisions that result in significant contact to an opponents head with meaningful suspensions; beyond just two games.- Rule on the violence of the act and not the result; namely the presence or extent of injury. ' ' '