以文本方式查看主题 -  精本科技论坛  (http://www.wh40.cn/bbs/index.asp) --  精本科技  (http://www.wh40.cn/bbs/list.asp?boardid=2) ----  pointed out, Michael, the former NHL players working  (http://www.wh40.cn/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardid=2&id=1778)

--  作者：yuguhun --  发布时间：2014-12-10 14:44:54 --  pointed out, Michael, the former NHL players working CLEVELAND -- Stephen Curry somehow misplaced his shooting touch coming out of the locker room at halftime. Curtis Lofton Saints Jersey . He located it just in time to save the Warriors. Curry scored 29 points and made a clutch jumper with 13.5 seconds left as the Golden State opened a long road trip with their fifth straight victory, 108-104 in overtime against the Cleveland Cavaliers on Sunday. Curry, who nearly recorded a triple-double by adding 11 assists and nine rebounds in 48 minutes, was just 1 of 11 from the floor in the second half and OT when he pulled up and knocked down the games biggest shot to give the Warriors a 108-104 lead. "Thank God for the green light," Warriors coach Mark Jackson said. "Hes a guy we believe in. Were not going to tell him to stop shooting." David Lee, who didnt have a point or rebound in the first half, finished with 19 points before fouling out for the Warriors, who are on the road for seven games over the next 13 days. Kyrie Irving scored 27 for Cleveland, which dropped its fifth straight and lost its third tight game in a row. The Cavs lost by three in Boston on Saturday and two in double-overtime against Atlanta on Thursday. "Weve just got to close out games better," Irving said. "It sounds simple but weve just got to do a better job of it." Irving drained a 3-pointer with 9.5 seconds left in regulation to tie it 99-all. The Warriors, who once trailed by 17, quickly pushed the ball up the floor for one final shot, but Currys 8-foot runner in the lane bounced off the rim in the last second, sending the teams to overtime. Curry threw his head back in disbelief at the miss. "It was my best look," he said. "I just missed it." But the silky smooth point guard more than made up for it in the extra session. After Irving missed, Curry fed Andre Iguodala on the wing and the Warriors forward alertly hit a cutting Draymond Green for a dunk to put Golden State ahead 106-104 with 59 seconds to go. Jarrett Jack misfired for the Cavs, and with the 24-second shot clock winding down on the Warriors next possession, Curry dropped a contested 23-foot jumper from the left side to put Golden State up by four. "It was frustrating," Curry said of his drought before hitting his big jumper. "None of them were tough looks. They were shots I made in the first half. You realize you have time to make some more plays. I was blessed I had more opportunities." The Warriors then stole Clevelands last inbounds pass to wrap up a grind-it-out win. Green went just 2 of 10 from the field but added 10 rebounds, and Klay Thompson scored 16 for Golden State. Currys shot wasnt falling after halftime, so he adjusted his game and picked up seven assists in the second half and overtime. The loss wrapped up a strange weekend for the Cavs, who excused Andrew Bynum indefinitely on Saturday for conduct detrimental to the team. The Cavs are trying to trade the 7-foot centre, who signed a two-year, $24 million contract with Cleveland in July and showed flashes of being dominant again but became a headache. Bynums bizarre situation continues to hover over the Cavs. His locker was empty except for a half-loaf of whole grain bread, a jar of peanut butter, headphones, a pair of sneakers and shower sandals. Its unlikely hell be back to fetch them as the Cavs will either deal or release him before Jan. 7, the deadline for his contract to be guaranteed. The Cavs beat the Warriors at their own fast-paced game in the first half, building a 64-47 lead with 1:13 left before halftime on Jacks 3-pointer. But Curry, who came in shooting just 32 per cent (20 of 63) from the field in his past four games, knocked down a pair of 3-pointers and Golden State closed the half with an 8-0 tear to pull within 64-55 at the break. Curry went 5 for 5 from long range in the first half. The Cavaliers reeled off 18 straight points in the first quarter, turning a five-point deficit into a 12-point lead. Irving and C.J. Miles made 3-pointers during the stunning run, which helped Cleveland open a 35-26 lead after one. NOTES: The Warriors have won six in a row over the Cavs. ... Not surprisingly, Jackson had high praise for Curry, who came in averaging 23.2 points and 9.5 assists. "Hes a star player," Jackson said. "I think people realize that. I love the fact hes picking and choosing when to facilitate, when to score. Hes scoring the basketball but even more impressive is hes second in the league in assists." ... The Warriors will travel 8,300 miles on their road trip, which ends Jan. 8 at Brooklyn. ... Cavs coach Mike Brown said he had to take off his expensive shoes during the pregame walk-through and convince his young players he wasnt wearing Hush Puppies. Corey White Saints Jersey .” – Mark Bloom (@markbloom21), on Twitter That one sentence sums it up, while at the same time, leaving so much out. Brandin Cooks Saints Jersey .com) - The Edmonton Oilers have been in spoiler mode for a while now, however as the season winds down they become more and more dangerous to opponents fighting for a playoff berth.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 decisiion" made correctly on the ice that was overturned by "non-officiating personnel" that staff the Situation Room on a nightly basis. Marques Colston Saints Jersey. (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!" \' \' \'