CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Cam Newton walked into the press conference Sunday afternoon, flashed that familiar smile and gave a tip of the hat to his former college team. "War Eagle. War Eagle. War. Damn. Eagle," Newton said. Less than 24 hours after the Auburn Tigers pulled off an incredible victory over No. 1 Alabama, Newton had another reason to smile. Carolinas third-year quarterback capped a memorable weekend by throwing for 263 yards and two touchdowns and "Superman" leaped over the pile for another score as the Panthers (9-3) defeated Tampa Bay 27-6 Sunday for a franchise-record eighth straight regular season victory. "It wasnt prototypical, or the way we wanted to win, but we found a way to win and thats the most encouraging part about it," said Newton, who rebounded from two interceptions. The victory set up a huge game next Sunday night in New Orleans against the Saints with first place in the NFC South on the line. "Were ready," said fullback Mike Tolbert, who had 48 yards rushing and 41 yards receiving in the win. "Around here we pride ourselves on being able to follow up one game with another." The Panthers outgained the Buccaneers (3-9) 426-206. Newton ran for 68 yards, 53 on a first quarter run to set up Carolinas first touchdown. Newton, who led Auburn to a national championship and won a Heisman Trophy with the Tigers, is enjoying the best stretch of this professional career with 13 touchdown passes and five TDs rushing during the win streak. Carolinas defence came in allowing an NFL-low 13.7 points per game and forced two turnovers and sacked rookie Mike Glennon five times to snap Tampa Bays three-game winning streak. Glennon had thrown a touchdown pass in an NFL record eight straight games to start his career, but the Panthers kept the Bucs out of the end zone. The Panthers have not lost since a 22-6 defeat on the road to Arizona on Oct. 6 and confidence is at an all-time high in the locker room. "There is no roof, no sky," defensive end Greg Hardy said. "Were going up. Every person on this team, every coach on this team has the same mentality right now. I feel like its contagious. Fans are getting it. They feel like they cant be beat." The turning point came in the second quarter with the Panthers holding a 7-6 lead. Glennon rolled left on third-and-goal at the Carolina 4 and had the ball inexplicably slip out of his throwing hand without being touched and Panthers defensive tackle Dwan Edwards pounced on the loose ball at the 17. "It just slipped out of my hand, and it really hurt us because we would have gotten at least three points," Glennon said. The Panthers cashed in with a 23-yard field goal by Graham Gano. Newton made it 17-6 with 25 seconds left in the half when coach Ron Rivera went for it on fourth-and-goal at the 1. With fans holding signs that read "Riverboat Ron" in the stands, Newton dove headfirst over the pile, extending the ball over the goal line. The Panthers are now 8 of 9 when going for it on fourth-and-1 since his teams Week 2 loss to Buffalo, a big reason for Carolinas turnaround. It was all Panthers in the second half. Safety Mike Mitchell intercepted Glennon on the opening drive and Newton quickly took advantage. He moved the Panthers 78 yards in four plays, connecting on a 36-yard touchdown pass to Ted Ginn Jr., who beat Darrelle Revis on a double move. Glennon was 14 of 21 for 80 yards with an interception. "I dont know if it was a step back, but maybe he looked a little more like a rookie than hes looked in the past," Bucs coach Greg Schiano said. "The ball slips out of his hand going to his left. Thats an awkward deal, and unfortunate, but it happened. The throw to Vincent (Jackson) that gets intercepted and the flag gets picked up, it just didnt look like it came off his hand cleanly. Im not sure if theres any reason." Its hard to imagine the Panthers now have a shot at a first-round bye in the NFC playoffs after starting the season 1-3, when talk was rampant about Riveras future with the team. "Its unbelievable," said defensive end Wes Horton, who had two of Carolinas sacks. "When we were 1-3 it was tense, we were trying to find ourselves as a team. And now were rolling and everyone is one the same page." NOTES: Revis left the game in the third quarter with a shoulder and chest injury and did not return. He will be reevaluated on Monday. ... Greg Olsen had 85 yards receiving on five catches. ... Panthers wide receiver Steve Smith moved into 20th in NFL yards receiving, passing Derrick Mason and Hines Ward. ... RB Jonathan Stewart started for Carolina in place of DeAngelo Williams, who sat with a quadriceps bruise. Adidas Zx 700 Femme.C. Lions won a Grey Cup, Andrew Harris watched shivering in the stands. Nike Roshe Run Femme. Now, the Tigers are hoping to quickly rebound from their sour Sunday after twice blowing leads to the Cleveland Indians. http://www.frchaussuressoldes.com/new-balance-574/new-balance-574-femme.html.C. -- Kyle Busch apologized repeatedly Thursday for showing a "lack of judgment" in driving 128 miles per hour in a 45 m. Nike Air Max 90 Femme Pas Cher.ca looks back at the stories and moments that made the year memorable. Adidas Originals Superstar 2.0 Sneakers.com) - A highly anticipated battle between teams that swapped head coaches during the offseason is on tap today, as John Tortorella and the Vancouver Canucks visit Alain Vigneaults New York Rangers for a clash at Madison Square Garden.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.dddddddddddd (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!" wholesale jerseys　 Cheap Jerseys　 ' ' '