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! Hey Kerry, Maybe you can help explain the rule of the referee intending to blow the whistle as hes lost sight of the puck, because I just dont get it. In Saturdays Game 2 of the Stanley Cup Final, the Blackhawks seemed to score a goal that was disallowed by Wes McCauley. Ive never understood this intended to blow the whistle rule, it makes absolutely no sense to me. The puck was clearly across the goal line before McCauley even brought his whistle to his mouth, as he clearly could not see from his vantage point blocked by Tuukka Rasks goal pad that the puck had crossed the line just inside the post. Why does this arbitrary rule exist? Doesnt it make more sense for the video judge to check the audio and see if the puck has crossed the line before the sound of the whistle? After all, players are taught to play to the whistle. Wouldnt that be more cut and dry, and a much better way to make a determination? I just dont get it... Dino BellemarePort Moody, B.C. Hi Dino, As we know, when the referee deems play is dead for a variety of reasons (but not limited to losing sight of the puck), he shall blow his whistle. There is a momentary time delay between the refs determination that the play is stopped (based on his optics and then mental processing of that visual information) and the physical action of bringing the whistle to his lips, blowing air and the sound penetrating the airwaves. This delay is clarified in the rules so that play is deemed to be stopped by the referees mental determination in advance of the physical action of blowing the whistle; henceforth the "intent" to blow the whistle. I provide the following references: Rule 31.2 — As there is a human factor in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may deem the play to be stopped slightly prior to the whistle actually being blown. The fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line prior to the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee has ruled that the play had been stopped prior to this happening. Rule 78.5 (xii) — (Disallowed Goals) When the referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle. Dino, it might seem arbitrary to employ the refs mental thought process (intention) as opposed to the whistle sound that everyone else can physically hear to stop play. The truth is the sound of the whistle used to be the determining factor in stopping play. That philosophy, along with the language in the rule, was changed following a controversial play that occurred in a playoff game between the New York Rangers and the Quebec Nordiques in 1995. With the Nordiques leading 2-0, Craig Wolanin of the Nords tapped Alexei Kovalev on the back with a one-handed swing of his stick inside the Quebec blue line. Kovalev fell to the ice in a heap and stayed down. With the Nordiques on the attack, referee Andy Van Hellemond skated past Kovalev and told him to get up off the ice; believing that the Ranger player was faking an injury. (Search Youtube for Alexei Kovalev faking injuries in the playoffs.) As play continued and Joe Sakic scored what would have been Quebecs third goal of the game, the referee saw that Kovalev still remained motionless on the ice. Referee Van Hellemond blew his whistle and disallowed Sakics goal. Kovalev tied the game with a goal in regulation and assisted on the winner in overtime for a Rangers victory. The controversy resulted from the fact that Van Hellemond had blown his whistle after the puck entered the net. When questioned by Sr. VP of Hockey Operations Brian Burke following the game, it was the referees sworn contention that he had blown the whistle due to Kovalevs apparent injury prior to the puck crossing the goal line. Once replay, with enhanced sound, proved the opposite to be true, the referee then stated that he had "intended" to blow the whistle and, in the delay to do so, the puck entered the net. Even though Van Hellemond was eventually fined by Burke for the details of the play, the rule was later changed to support Van Hellemonds contention that play should be stopped the instant a referee intends to blow his whistle. In Game 2 of this current Stanley Cup Final series between the Bruins and the Hawks, I am positive that referee Wes McCauley lost sight of the puck once Jonathan Toews wrap-around attempt ended up underneath the sprawled body of Tuukka Rask. Referee McCauley would have also observed something else take place from his perfect position at the net to correctly deem the play dead and intend to blow his whistle. As Rask held his left pad against the post to make the initial save off Towes, Brandon Saad jammed his stick hard into Rasks left pad, causing the goalies left leg and body to sprawl and fully extend along the goal line toward the opposite goal post with the puck underneath the pad. There is no doubt in my mind that seeing this occur, Rule 69.6 flashed into McCauleys mind which states: "In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed." Rask did not dive from one side of the net to the other; he was pushed by the Chicago attacker(s). The push from Saad, in addition to one from the front of the crease by Marian Hossa, caused the goalkeepers body and pad to cross the goal line at some point with the puck. When this occurs, it is most prudent of a referee to deem the play stopped and not wait until the puck and goalie end up in the back of the net to react. McCauleys intent at this point was to blow the whistle! As far as Im concerned, video review was a formality that could have been dispensed with on this play to determine if the puck had crossed the goal line since McCauley correctly ruled the play dead. Nonetheless, replays could not show the puck crossing the goal line at any time during the play. Only after Rask got up off the ice could the puck be seen lying over the line just inside the post. An inconclusive verdict would be returned and the referees decision on the ice would stand. In his first Stanley Cup Final game, McCauleys "intention" to blow his whistle on this play was the right decision to make. I didnt have to hear the sound of the whistle; I knew exactly what he was thinking. You cant just lose sight of the puck. Authentic Yasiel Puig Jersey . -- The Magic have their first victory of the new year. Dodgers Jerseys From China . That gave fans outside Joe Louis Arena another chance to ask for autographs from the 19-year-old whose stardom in the NHL has arrived earlier than most expected. http://www.cheapangelesdodgersjerseys.us/authentic-chase-utley-jersey/ . Kyle Denbrook, a soccer player from Saint Marys University, took the CIS male athlete of the week honour. Stanley, a fourth-year business administration student from Charlottetown, scored both goals in a 2-0 win over Dalhousie on Friday and tallied again in a 1-0 win over Saint Marys on Sunday. Wholesale Dodgers Jerseys Authentic . PETERSBURG, Fla. Authentic Julio Urias Jersey . Louis Blues. Shane Hnidy joins Brian Munz for the broadcast on TSN 1290 Radio at 7pm ct. Michigan and Notre Dame?are resurrecting their football rivalry in 2018.Both schools announced Thursday that the Wolverines and Fighting Irish would square off in the 2018 season opener on Sept. 1 in South Bend, Indiana. The return contest is set for Oct. 26, 2019, in Ann Arbor, Michigan.New Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel said in March that he would be open to discussing future matchups with the Irish in football after the two programs ended their annual series in 2014 with an unfriendly parting of ways.This is a game that holds great significance for the student-athletes and coaches who compete on the field, Manuel said in a statement. A great deal of credit goes to Coach Harbaugh and Coach Kelly for initiating the discussion of scheduling this series. This rivalry is also important for the fans of both programs, and we look forward to renewing one of college footballs great rivalries.Manuel said there have been ongoing discussions to extend the series beyond 2019. Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick indicated that the teams may not play every year.While the schedule commitments of both Notre Dame and Michigan make an annual series impractical, were optimistic that additional games can be scheduled in the future, Swarbrick said.To make room for Notre Dame, Michigan has canceled its series with Arkansas and moved a 2019 Big Ten game against Rutgers to a new date.dddddddddddd. The Wolverines will pay the Razorbacks $2 million for games scheduled in 2018 and 2019.Primarily, we are disappointed in Michigans timing in pulling out of a non-conference football series between the SEC and the Big Ten that has been set for four years, Arkansas AD Jeff Long said in a statement. While there are many other quality opponents that would help us strengthen our non-conference schedule, the late notice of Michigans cancellation makes securing those games substantially more difficult.The Wolverines had to pay a $2 million cancellation fee to the Razorbacks.Michigan and Notre Dame have played 42 times in a rivalry that goes back more than 100 years but ended when Notre Dame dropped the series to make room to schedule more ACC teams as part of an agreement with that conference.After that decision by Notre Dame, former Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon said it would be a long time before the two schools played again. But Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly said in September that he thought the possibility of the series returning was trending up.The Wolverines lead the all-time series 24-17-1.Information from ESPN staff writer Dan Murphy and The Associated Press was used in this report.? China Womens NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys China Wholesale Jerseys China Wholesale NFL Camo Jerseys Discount NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Black Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale ' ' '