Konsolen Treiber » star Nicklas Backstrom

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 Kerry, Why is blood the determining factor in judging the severity of high sticking penalties? I think the NHL has only ever used five-minute majors for high sticking on very serious and pre-meditated actions (take Brashear or McSorley). Again, if the NHL wants to take a serious stance on eliminating or reducing injuries, why do they not revise high sticking rules? Accidental should be a minor and anything deliberate should be a double minor or major. Im not advocating liberal use of majors in the NHL, but its certainly something minor league officials do not shy away from and are encouraged to use major penalties when its called for. Thanks, Greg C. Greg: I attended my first NHL training camp for officials in 1972. While the hockey could be quite violent during that era the rule book was very thin. The book progressively expanded with new rule additions that were implemented for a variety of reasons including the fear of criminal assault charges that had already been initiated by Prosecutors. I like to think the most important changes were made to provide for player safety and ultimately prevent injury. From the time I attended that first training camp to present day, there has never been a specific penalty reference for drawing blood, contrary to what many people think. Based on a referees judgment, there has always been the opportunity to escalate an infraction from a minor penalty to a five-minute major (or match) based on the degree of violence or severity of the act, in addition to (but not limited to) the visible existence of any resulting injury. The presence of blood is just one indicator that the referee can use to determine that a player has sustained an injury. I assessed many major or match penalties based on the severity of the blow even when no apparent injury resulted. I also assessed a minor penalty when I told a player who was attempting to milk a paper-cut that I experienced a worse cut shaving. I like you am not advocating a liberal application of major penalties in the NHL but they must be applied when warranted - not just for stick infractions but especially dangerous and careless hits to the head. Concussions are currently the biggest threat to player safety and future quality of life. In most situations they are less likely to result from being struck with a stick. While referees cannot be expected to diagnose injuries like a doctor, it is imperative that they know the difference between a two-minute minor infraction and a five-minute major or match penalty. Over the past four seasons I have observed far too many situations where two referees on the ice in a game did not recognize a major infraction when it occurred or were reluctant to assess it for what it was. I often provide lectures at clinics for amateur refs, coaches and players and have compiled a video montage of examples from NHL games that I present for educational value. Several clips demonstrate major infractions that went un-penalized or where just a two-minute minor was assessed, only to result in subsequent suspensions imposed by the Player Safety Committee. The suspensions ranged from between two to five games. In one case the player served a two-minute minor, remained in the game and proceeded to score the winning goal in OT. The following day he was suspended for three games. Another player returned from a two-minute penalty for a flying elbow to set up two goals to tie the game and then almost scored the winner in the shootout before he was suspended two games. The referees are the first line of defence in holding players accountable and to provide player safety by correctly enforcing the rules in the spirit with which they are written. If they have the slightest gut feeling the infraction was worth more than a minor my advice is to do the correct math and round up! Greg, I dusted off some old rules books I have on file. Following a prosecution and conviction in the criminal assault case when Dino Ciccarelli hit Luke Richardson over the head three times with his stick in 1988 and was sentenced to two hours of jail time, the NHL got pretty serious about high-sticking. The rule was changed to impose an automatic major and game misconduct for any high-stick that resulted in injury to an opponent (accidental or otherwise). That lasted a season or two when star players were ejected from games (especially playoff games) when they accidentally clipped a player attempting to lift their stick. A modified version followed that allowed for the referee to judge accidental versus careless high-sticking incidents and to keep players in the game. There were several new changes listed in the 1992-93 edition. Notably in response to your question Greg, and in an effort to address high-sticking incidents at the time, rule 58 (now 60) was altered rather dramatically by lowering the reference point of a high-stick from the shoulders to the WAIST. Rule 58 (a) marked as new that year stated, The carrying of sticks above the normal height of the WAIST is prohibited and a minor, double-minor or major penalty may be imposed on a player violating this rule, at the discretion of the referee. 58 (c) went on to specify if an injury resulted as a result of a player carrying his stick above the waist of the opponent a double minor was assessed if deemed to be accidental and a major and game misconduct was imposed when the high-stick was deemed careless. You might imagine what a disaster it became for the refs to differentiate between accidental and careless. Inconsistency resulted in the practical application of this rule depending upon the player involved and the game situation or the ref. Another tweak to the rule was made and the referee was to assess a double minor penalty for all contact that caused an injury, whether accidental or careless, which is as we have it in present day form. Some time prior to the 1998 season the reference point of a high-stick had also returned to carrying the stick above the SHOULDERS of an opponent. I fear history would be repeated Greg if your suggestion were ever to be implemented to assess a minor for accidental contact and anything deliberate would result in a double minor or major. A double minor addresses an injury that results from a high-stick. In more serious cases the referee has the ability to impose a match penalty for attempt or deliberately injuring his opponent. The refs just need to know the difference. If you care to examine some historical fact on how rules might have been added based on the violence associated with bench clearing brawls and excessive stick work, including high profile court cases such as Ted Green-Wayne Maki (1969), Dave Forbes-Henry Boucha (1975), Ciccarelli-Richardson (1988), and others I have attached a link to a paper written by Alex Tepperman that you might find interesting. 1. Players On Thin Ice: Hockey Violence and the Canadian Law Air Jordan 3 Ireland Sale . Curtis Davies and Robert Koren secured the victory with goals inside 35 minutes of the fifth-round replay against the second-tier side. Wholesale Air Jordan 3 Ireland . Cleveland has won the first two of this set and has won six straight games since losing back-to-back tilts to open the year. Seattle, on the other hand, has now lost six in a row following consecutive wins to kick off its campaign. http://www.airjordan3ireland.com/ . Gordon reportedly failed another drug test and is facing a one-year ban. Gordon led the NFL in yards receiving last season despite being suspended two games for violating the leagues substance-abuse policy. Cheap Jordans Ireland .com) - Nino Williams posted 18 points and seven rebounds, as Kansas State edged No. Air Jordan 3 Ireland Online . Rico dove horizontally to meet Andoni Iraolas precise long cross from the right to score his second league goal of the season in the 33rd minute. Two minutes later, Aritz Aduriz netted Bilbaos second when he raced forward and pounced on a poor clearance by Villarreal defender Mateo Musacchio, sending a low shot rolling past goalkeeper Sergio Asenjo.LONDON -- Swedish hockey star Nicklas Backstrom will receive an Olympic silver medal even though he was suspended from the final in Sochi after a positive drug test. The International Olympic Committee ruled Friday that Backstrom had not intended to enhance his performance, laying the blame for his positive test for pseudoephedrine on the Swedish team doctor. The Washington Capitals centre was suspended and pulled from the team just hours before the Feb. 23 gold-medal game, which Sweden lost 3-0 to Canada. The Swedes were outraged by the timing of the decision and said it affected the teams performance. The IOC defended the suspension, saying it was "fully justified" because of the positive test and noting that Backstrom conceded also taking the allergy medication on the day of the final. But the IOC ruled that the player should not be kicked out of the Sochi Games altogether, citing "mitigating circumstances." "There was no indication of any intent of the athlete to improve his performance by taking a prohibited substance," the IOCs three-person disciplinary commission said. "As a consequence, the athlete is entitled to receive the silver medal and diploma awarded in respect of the mens ice hockey event." Backstrom tested positive for excess levels of pseudoephedrine after Swedens win over Slovenia in the quarter-finals on Feb. 19. He said the stimulant was contained in "Zytec-D," a medication he had been taking for allergies. The IOC said the positive result in the "A" sample was confirmed on the morning of Feb.dddddddddddd 23. A hearing with Backstrom and Swedish team officials was quickly assembled. Among those attending was Bjorn Waldeback, the Swedish hockey team doctor and chief medical officer of the Swedish Olympic Committee. The IOC said Backstrom had "nothing to hide" and explained he had been taking the allergy medication regularly for seven years on the advice of a doctor and had never produced a positive test. He said he had taken the medication earlier that day. The IOC said Backstrom told the panel he knew the medication contained pseudoephedrine but relied on Waldebacks advice that the dosage would not trigger a positive test. Waldeback said he was "at fault" for that advice. Backstroms backup "B" sample was tested later on Feb. 23 and also came back positive. The IOC ruled that Backstrom committed an anti-doping violation by having the banned substance in his system. But the panel said he had been "open and co-operative," had disclosed the medication on his doping control form and had relied on Waldebacks advice. The IOC ruled that Waldeback "made a serious error" by telling Backstrom his use of the medication would not result in a positive test. If the doctor applies for Olympic accreditation in the future, the IOC should "seriously consider" his role in the case, the panel said. The IOC said the decision "should in no way" be seen as taking away from the responsibility of athletes to be vigilant and ensure that no prohibited substances enter their body. China NFL Jerseys Cheap Nike NFL Jerseys NFL Jerseys Cheap Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap Basketball Jerseys Online Stitched Hockey Jerseys Wholesale Baseball Jerseys Football Jerseys Outlet College Jerseys For Sale Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys For Sale Wholesale NFL Jerseys ' ' '