Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn. Barry Church Jersey .ca. Good morning Mr. F, First, thank you for helping to educate us fans about the rules of the game, and for sharing your stories. Second, my questions: What is the NHL policy on media and officials? Can they be on Twitter? Can they be interviewed by TSN? Can they publish a book? We rarely, if ever, see an active official make a comment off the ice. Is this because they dont have much to say, or because of restrictions? I could see referee interviews causing uproars among fans. Thanks!Kent Hi Kent: The policy the NHL has in place for their officials speaking to the media is clear and direct: NO COMMENT! All media access to the officials (interviews) must be cleared and granted through the office of Gary Meagher, Sr. Vice President Public Relations & Media Services. Gary is assisted by Julie Young, Manager of Public Relations. Once the content and nature of an interview is cleared, Julie is typically responsible for contacting the official and facilitating the interview. Both individuals are extremely professional and very good at their job. It was a treat to work with Julie Young because through her efforts things always went smoothly during the many times that I was requested for interviews. Social media is off-limits for all the officials! They are not allowed to have a Facebook or Twitter account as information could easily be misconstrued or deemed to be inappropriate. It is just another undesirable location that the officials could become accessible. After NBA referee Tim Donaghy was convicted on criminal charges and served time in federal prison for betting on games he officiated, NHL officials are "strongly discouraged" from entering casinos while travelling on NHL business. You can forget about reading a book written by any NHL officials until after they retire; unless perhaps it is a childrens coloring book! Other than the number on the back of their sweater (no names since 94) the league is most content when their officials are seen and not heard from. During the playoffs a supervisor (Officiating Manager) is assigned to each series. In the event that an explanation might be required for any reason, it is conveyed to the media through the series supervisor after he consults with the officiating crew. If a major controversy were to occur in game, Gary Meagher will typically craft a press release and/or instruct the supervisor as to the information that should be shared with the media. Personally, I preferred the day when a pool reporter was allowed into the refs room after a game to get the answer directly from the official who made the decision on the ice. I would rather explain the reason behind my decision than to have it communicated through a third party or worse yet not explained at all. On occasion, pertinent aspects of my explanation became lost in the transfer and delivery of information. There are even times when the only answer is that an honest mistake was made but I doubt youll hear about it! Some officials are media savvy while others are not. I know many officials that would get torn to shreds by the media if they became accessible following a game. The only time the press would be interested to hear what an official had to say would be following some sort of controversy. It is at times such as this when damage control is utilized. Most often however, there is a reasonable explanation for a refs decision that should become public. Players and coaches can provide post-game comments from an emotional and often biased perspective. Those are the sound bites and quotes that fans are left with even though the NHL can (and has) impose fines to players and team management when they impugn the officials publicly. To prevent embarrassment or limit the need for damage control by the NHL, it is most obvious that a broad policy has to apply which restricts all referees or linesmen from making public comments. I am under no such gag order so the best place to get a straight answer as we move into the 2013-14 Stanley Cup playoffs is right here at Cmon Ref! Fair, honest and opinionated - the spin truly does stop here Kent! Enjoy the final weekend of the regular season and the race for the playoffs. Jason Myers Jersey . Gonzalez participated in his final game on Sunday, Atlantas 21-20 defeat at the hands of the NFC South champion Carolina Panthers, having posted four catches for 46 yards. Abry Jones Jersey . LOUIS -- Joe Thornton and the San Jose Sharks won the matchup of unbeaten teams. http://www.shopthejaguarsonline.com/Elite-Allen-Hurns-Jaguars-Jersey/ .I dont think it comes to mind in this business, in this game, the Philadelphia Flyers forward said. You dont try to lose games.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, As Im sure youve seen, in Sundays game in Chicago between the Blackhawks and the Edmonton Oilers, Chicago made an unfortunate gaffe resulting in an own goal with their goalie out of the net for an extra attacker. As the puck slid toward the open net, Oilers forward Mark Arcobello gave chase while Blackhawks defenceman Nick Leddy tried to prevent it from crossing the goal line. Arcobello, unable to touch the puck because of the Oilers delayed penalty, changed course to slow Leddy down enough to ensure the puck went in the net. Leddy really didnt have a chance at stopping the puck, so his being slowed down made no difference. But I was wondering, had it been a close play, where Leddys path to the puck would have made the difference between a goal and a save, would Arcobello have been penalized for going out of his way to prevent Leddy from accessing the puck? A disallowed goal? Interference penalty (in addition to the delayed one)? Or would that have been a legal play? Josh BernierWinnipeg, Manitoba Hi Josh, It was a bizarre play when Patrick Kane put the puck into his own unguarded net during a delayed slashing penalty called against Oilers goalie Devan Dubnyk. Kanes intended back-pass to the blue line travelled the entire length of the ice and split the wicket well before Blackhawks defenceman Nick Leddy could reach the puck. You bring up an interesting point with regard to a potential interference call on a play such as this when Mark Arcobello sprinted across the path of Nick Leddy. You correctly stated Josh, that Leddy was unable to get to the puck in advance of it crossing the goal line in spite of Arcobellos minimally invasive action. The fact that Leddy could not have gotten to the puck in time however, should have no bearing on whether an interference penalty was warranted. As I am sure you recall, the standard of enforcement for Rule 56 (Interference) changed drastically in the 2006 season following a return from the first NHL lockout in a concerted effort to eliminate what was then referred to as "obstruction". Lets examine the language and application of Rule 56 as it might apply to this situation. • A sstrict standard on acts of interference must be adhered to in all areas of the rink. Calais Campbell Jersey. • Body position shall be determined as the player skating in front of or beside his opponent, traveling in the same direction. • A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may "block" the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Moving laterally and without establishing body position, then making contact with the non-puck carrier is not permitted and will be penalized as interference. • A player is always entitled to use his body position to lengthen an opponents path to the puck, provided his stick is not utilized (to make himself "bigger" and therefore considerably lengthening the distance his opponent must travel to get where he is going). • A player delivering a "pick" is one who moves into an opponents path without having body position, thereby taking him out of the play. When this is done, an interference penalty shall be assessed. On this play, Arcobello executed a perfect, legal, "moving pick" when he sprinted to gain the ice in advance of Leddy and continued to move through that ice with very minimal alteration to his speed and direction. It was especially important that physical contact with the Hawks player did not result. These were crucial components with regard to the legality of the play since Arcobello cut laterally across the path of his opponent as opposed to travelling in front of or beside and in the same direction of Leddy. If Arcobello, after deliberately moving laterally across the path of Leddy, had slowed considerably, stopped or made contact with Leddy, an interference penalty would have been deserved whether Leddy could have prevented the puck from entering the net or not. If that were to have taken place, the referee should immediately blow his whistle and assess a penalty to Arcobello for interference in addition to the delayed penalty signaled to Dubnyk. The subsequent goal would then be disallowed. As we moved forward from 2006, the expected standard of enforcement regarding interference is that the illegal act should be penalized in all cases as opposed to the result or consequence to the play! Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Jerseys From China Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Cheap Jerseys ' ' '