Zaslal: so 06. květen, 2017 9:39 Předmět: arly understand what defines a goo
PORTLAND, Ore. -- Just when it appeared Portland was cruising to a victory that would avoid its first three-game losing streak of the season, Torontos DeMar DeRozan put a scare into the Trail Blazers. Holding a 16-point lead with 7:41 remaining, Portland suddenly had to mount a rally of its own, hitting four free throws during the final 11.8 seconds to pull out a 106-103 win Saturday night. LaMarcus Aldridge had 27 points and 15 rebounds and Damian Lillard hit a go-ahead free throw with 11.8 seconds left to help end the Blazers two-game losing streak. Lillard and Wesley Matthews scored 21 points apiece for Portland and Nicolas Batum added 18. DeRozan was a one-man wrecking crew down the stretch, scoring 30 of his 36 points during the second half. DeRozan, who also had 12 assists, scored 16 points during the third quarter and 14 in the fourth. The fourth-year All-Star guard had a hand in 22 of Torontos 26 second-half baskets, with 12 field goals and 10 assists. Kyle Lowry added 23 points for Toronto. The dramatic win helped Portland end its worst offensive slump of the season. The Blazers, the NBAs top scoring team at 108.4 points, came into Saturday having scored season lows of 81 and 88 points in their past two games. Aldridge said there wasnt a sense of relief despite the hair-raising finish. "We know that we had control from the beginning so it was just about staying solid the whole game and trying to close it out. We did that," Aldridge said. Matthews said after losing back-to-back games, to Golden State and Memphis, "this was a must-win game, and that was the sense of urgency we took into shootaround and the urgency we start the game with." DeRozan and the Raptors nearly spoiled Portlands breakout game. Trailing 57-40 at halftime and by as many as 19 points during the second half, Toronto made a prolonged charge at Portland. During the third quarter, the Raptors got as close as six points before Portland hit four 3-pointers during a four-minute stretch to regain a double-digit lead. Then DeRozan led Toronto on a fourth-quarter rally, when a 16-2 run over a five-minute stretch gave the Raptors a 103-102 lead on two free throws by DeRozan. "He was voted an All-Star for a reason. Hes capable of getting hot and carrying a team," Portland coach Terry Stotts said. Despite the near-comeback, Toronto coach Dwane Casey said the Raptors were sunk from a poor first half. "It wasnt us. We picked it up in the second half, but you cant spot a good team like Portland that many points and expect to survive," Casey said. With Portland trailing for the first time in the game, Lillard went on the offensive, drawing a foul while driving to the basket with 11.8 seconds left. Lillard hit both free throws to give the Blazers the lead, then Portlands defence stepped up when Matthews forced DeRozan into a turnover. Matthews said all he could think about during the final few minutes was making a play to stop DeRozan. "We blew a 20-point lead, and we did a similar thing when we played out there in Toronto. DeRozan made tough plays, the rest of the team make tough plays. We just got the timely stop we needed," Matthews said. Batum hit two free throws with 0.1 seconds left to seal the win. At the games outset, the Blazers got their sluggish offence going by turning up their defence, holding Toronto to 35 per cent shooting (14 of 40) during the first half. Aldridge kick-started Portlands performance with 12 points and 11 rebounds during the first quarter to stake Portland to a 31-19 lead. Helped by two Portland technical fouls, Toronto went on a 10-2 run midway through the second quarter to cut the deficit to 43-34. But Lillard went to work, punctuating a 12-point second quarter with a driving windmill dunk to put the Blazers in front 50-36. NOTES: Toronto reserve guard Greivis Vasquez missed Saturdays game with flu-like symptoms. Vasquez, acquired from Sacramento in a Dec. 9 trade, is averaging eight points and 4.5 rebounds a game for the Raptors. . Aldridges 11 first-quarter rebounds is one short of the franchise record for a quarter, held by three different players. . Portland is one of five NBA teams not to lose three consecutive games this season. . The Blazers won their sixth consecutive game in Portland over Toronto. The Raptors last won in Portland in 2006. Clinton Portis 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. Clinton Portis Redskins Jersey . Both sides came closest to scoring in the first half, when Roma had a goal from Mattia Destro waved off for offside and Inters Rodrigo Palacio headed high. "A draw was a fair result. Neither squad had many chances," Roma midfielder Miralem Pjanic said. http://www.authenticredskinsfanatic.com/c-13-redskins-art-monk-jersey.aspx. The Thornhill, Ont., native, who is ranked 11th in the world, said hed hoped he would be ready when Canada begins its World Group first-round tie against Japan in Tokyo on Friday. Josh Norman Redskins Jersey .com) - A top-10 showdown is on tap in at the McKale Center on Saturday, as the 10th-ranked Arizona Wildcats play host to the eighth-ranked Utah Utes in a key Pac-12 matchup. Trent Murphy Jersey . -- San Francisco 49ers offensive co-ordinator Greg Roman is a finalist to replace Joe Paterno at Penn State, his agent said Monday.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at [email protected]. Hello, I love reading your column. I have a question on the Bruins/Columbus game from Saturday. The puck clearly went out of play in the second period and play continued on as the on ice officials didnt see the puck go into the netting and Columbus ended up scoring. Why was this not reviewed and the time put back on the clock and the goal not disallowed? Thanks! Cristina I hope all is well! I was wondering if you could give a little explanation in to the call, or lack thereof, during the Bruins vs. Columbus game on Saturday 12/27? The puck clearly went out of play and hit the protective netting, as it was described by the announcers it should have been reviewed at the next whistle and the clock reset to the time the puck went out of play, the next whistle was a goal by Columbus, which they deserved, but the commentator made it seem that there was no way it would stand with the new rule the NHL implemented in the off season as a result of the Detroit vs. San Jose game last year. Later it was clarified by the NHL that the puck needed to go immediately in the net for that rule to be enforced, who was right in this situation? Sincerely, Jason in Boston Cristina and Jason: The Hockey Operations Department is the exclusive and final authority responsible for managing everything that takes place on the ice. As keepers of the game, Hockey Ops extensive range of authority includes, but is not limited to, conducting studies to improve the on-ice product, recommendation of rule changes, provide for player safety and to render all video review decisions under guidelines issued by the team General Managers and as approved by the rules committee. As the NHL puck bounces, we are all forced to accept their decisions. The expressed inability by the NHL Situation Room blog to review this play beyond the scoring of an immediate goal after the puck struck the struck the spectator netting is beyond just right or wrong. It exposes a communication and public relations problem too often created by the NHL that provides confusion and frustration as opposed to clarity for those that report the game and for fans. There have been times that a new rule was implemented in an attempt to manage a specific situation without due consideration as to how it might affect or impact other preexisting rules. The Referees usually pick up any contradictions at training camp as various scenarios are brought forward in new rule discussions. The horrible optics and negative impact on the outcome of the game in Detroit last season contributed to an expanded and broader discretionary capability for video review to determine the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are good hockey goals). In that game, with L.A. leading by one goal in the dying seconds of regulation time, and the Wings net empty in favor of an extra attacker, the puck deflected high onto the spectator netting behind the Kings net and was undetected by the Officials. The puck then caroomed off the netting, struck Jonathan Quick on the back and rolled into the net for the tying goal. The Wings then went on to win the game in overtime thereby denying the Kings a point they desperately needed in the tight Western Conference playoff race. That was surely not a good hockey goal by any stretch of the imagination. I have to question whether the one in Columbus the other night was much better. During the summer months wording was incorporated into Rule 38.4 (viii) to allow video review to rule upon this specific situation with regard to (and I quote), pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed into the goal. As per the wording in the rule book and as communicated to Bruins play-by-play man Jack Edwards and other NHL broadcasters that attended a pre-season advisory meeting in New York, there was never a reference to the word immediate or a defined lapse of time between the puck going out of play (onto the spectator netting) and a subsequent goal being scored.dddddddddddd. It would appear that a change in criteria or understanding was implemented at some point after the broadcasters September meeting in New York and following the publishing of the 2014-15 NHL Rule Book, to only allow a review if a goal was scored immediately after hitting the spectator netting and going out of play. It would also appear that someone forgot to send a memo to everyone that was affected by this dramatic change in policy? The next most obvious question is how immediate must the puck be directed into the net for video review to disallow the goal and reset the clock? Aside from the puck deflecting into the net off the goalie (as was the case with Jonathan Quick) or any other player for that matter, is a puck off the netting onto a stick and shot allowable? What about an attacker gaining puck possession in the corner who subsequently makes a pass into the slot for a one-timer? Is two or more multiple passes allowed or is sustained pressure in the end zone by the attacking team before the puck is directed into the net? These are way too many variables that create inconsistency through subjective decisions. Are any of these scenarios more or less a good hockey goal from each other once it is determined the puck has exited the playing surface by striking the spectator netting? The new and specific wording in 38.4 (viii) contradicts preexisting rule 85.1 (play shall be stopped when the puck hits the spectator netting unless it goes unnoticed by the on-ice officials, in which case play shall continue as normal and resulting play with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play. I would suggest that through a common sense application the new and expanded authority granted to video review in this very specific situation should take precedent and override 85.1 since it results in the scoring of a goal and not just a normal stoppage at some point and time. My recommendation would be to amend the existing rule by adding, …in which case play shall continue as normal and resulting play with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play unless the next stoppage of play is created by the scoring of a goal in which case video review shall disallow the goal and reset the clock to the time the puck exited the playing surface by hitting the spectator netting. An application of this nature would be consistent with rule 78.6 when a team scores an apparent goal that is not seen by the on-ice officials and play continues, the play shall be reviewed by the Video Goal Judge at the next stoppage of play. If the goal is confirmed by video review, the clock (including penalty time clocks, if applicable) is re-set to the time the goal was scored. Any potential goal requiring video review must be reviewed prior to or during the next stoppage of play. No goal may be awarded (or disallowed) as a result of video review once the puck has been dropped and play has resumed. Video review is provided much broader discretion in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals. They even recently extended the authority granted to them within the above rule by placing a play under review following a puck drop and resumption of play after Carey Price had made a goal line save. The decision to add the terminology to their criteria, puck directed into the goal as an immediate result of hitting the spectator netting would appear to be another extension of this broad discretion and authority. It might be prudent for the NHL Public Relations Department to communicate these changes to the hockey world before they take effect. It is only reasonable to expect that everyone, especially the hockey broadcasters, would like to clearly understand what defines a good hockey goal? Cheap NFL JerseysWholesale JerseysWholesale NFL JerseysJerseys From ChinaWholesale NFL JerseysCheap NFL JerseysCheap JerseysCheap Jerseys ' ' '
Nemůžete odesílat nové téma do tohoto fóra Nemůžete odpovídat na témata v tomto fóru Nemůžete upravovat své příspěvky v tomto fóru Nemůžete mazat své příspěvky v tomto fóru Nemůžete hlasovat v tomto fóru