Gästebuch » consultation took place with

CHICAGO -- Rookie Jose Abreu connected for his second multihomer game in three days and the Chicago White Sox ended a 14-game losing streak against Cleveland, beating the Indians 7-3 Thursday night. Abreu hit tape-measure drives in the second and fifth innings and drove in three runs. The Cuban slugger hit the first two homers of his major league career Tuesday in Colorado. Abreu has four homers and 14 RBIs in 10 games. Alexi Ramirez homered and drove in three runs for Chicago. The Indians had outscored the White Sox 102-45 in a streak that dated to last June. White Sox starter John Danks (1-0) got off to a rocky start, but settled down to allow three runs and six hits in six innings. Indians starter Danny Salazar (0-1) struck out 10 in 3 2-3 innings. He also gave up five runs and six hits, including homers by Abreu and Ramirez. Salazar fanned eight through three innings, with the only non-strikeout out coming when Adam Eaton tried to stretch a single into a double in the third inning. Salazars problem was that when the White Sox made contact, it was solid contact. Cleveland staked Salazar to a 2-0 lead by scoring twice in the top of the first. Abreu homered to lead off the bottom of the second to cut the lead in half, but Asdrubal Cabrera got the run back with a homer leading off the third. The White Sox tied it 3 in the bottom of the third on a leadoff homer by Ramirez and an RBI single by Eaton. Chicago took a 5-3 lead and chased Salazar in the fourth as Ramirez drove home a pair with a double. Abreu later homered to left field off left-handed reliever Josh Outman. NOTES: With INF Lonnie Chisenhall beginning a three-day paternity leave on Thursday, the Indians called up Justin Sellers from Triple-A Columbus. "Lonnie will rejoin us Sunday," manager Terry Francona said. "His wife is having the baby at 7 a.m. (Friday). He gave us a heads-up a while back just so we could plan for it. The rule in place now is good. A guy should be back with his wife or family and you shouldnt be short-handed." . In the second game of the series Friday night, the White Sox send ace LHP Chris Sale (2-0) to the mound against RHP Carlos Carrasco (0-1). Alvin Davis Jersey . Last year, Islanders forward Colin Mcdonald released a "Do It For Colin" campaign to promote his teammate and friend John Tavares for the EA sports honour:The most popular sports voting video ever has to go to Chris Bosh who showcased his comedic abilities in his effort to get fans to vote him into the 2008 All Star Game:You can vote for TJ and other star players for the NHL 15 cover vote here. Art Warren Mariners Jersey . "Im proud of him," Jones said in an interview from Sacramento, site of the UFCs weekend televised card. "I think hes listening to his body and hes doing what makes him happy and thats what life is about ultimately. https://www.cheapmariners.com/2385k-jame...y-mariners.html. PAUL, Minn. Mark Langston Jersey . Bjoerndalen, who had failed to win any major race for two years before Sochi, writes in a Facebook entry that he is "full of energy and inspiration" after winning the 10-kilometre sprint and mixed relay at last months Olympics. Dan Wilson Mariners Jersey . While Minnesota takes aim at its eighth win of November, the Canadiens will try to post just their third victory in nine games this month.In the Predators/Habs game Saturday night, Montreals second, go-ahead goal was ultimately disallowed after review (I believe the ref stated that after all four officials determined that the puck had not crossed the line). Now, correct me if Im wrong but I saw one official distinctly pointing at the net indicating a good goal but after an inconclusive review they overturned the goal. Shouldnt the ruling on the ice (good goal) stand after an inconclusive review? Why was this overturned? James Veaudry Pembroke, ON -- Hey Kerry, Youll get a lot of these, but why was the Montreal goal against Nashville Saturday night overturned? Eller puts the puck on net and the on ice ruling from the ref behind the net is a Montreal goal. After much delay, the same ref announces that after a review with all on ice officials, the ruling is the puck never crossed the goal line. How is this possible? Ive always believed that if the video review is inconclusive, which it obviously was, then the call on ice stands. How is the other ref from the blue line supposed to tell if a puck crosses the line? Let alone be able to overrule the ref inches away. The ref simply changed his mind after the play. Is that allowed? Sounds pretty shady to me. Thanks, Dave -- Hi Kerry! Last night I was bouncing out of my chair with excitement when the red light came on, Lars Eller celebrated and the referee pointed indicating a goal in the third period. Then suddenly the referees decided to review the play as there was question about whether the puck had actually crossed the line. After watching the replays myself, it was unclear whether the puck made it over the line or not because it was hidden under Rinnes body. Seeing this, I was all but sure that the goal had to stand, because from my understanding the referees needed undeniable evidence to over-turn an on-ice call. But that wasnt the case. The referee announced that "The four referees agree that the puck did not enter the net" which indicated to this viewer that, they too were unsure but had a chat about it, and I suppose used their judgment, to deicide the puck had never crossed the line. What I dont understand is how they can make this new judgment with inconclusive evidence? Moreover, how a referee can clearly call a goal a goal, and then change his opinion moments later? Could you clear up my confusion with the rules on this matter? Thanks! Rob -- To All Disappointed Habs Fans: Upon further information gathering from all vantage points on the ice by the officiating crew, including a seemingly definitive confirmation from the situation room video review, the referee on the goal line changed his initial quick reaction decision and correctly determined that the puck did not cross the goal line - no goal! At no time do we see the puck cross the goal line on thiis play.dddddddddddd The official statement found on the Situation Room blog posting at NHL.com is as follows; “Video review determined that Montreal Canadiens forward Lars Ellers shot did not cross the goal line. No goal Montreal.” (See Situation Room review here. Having witnessed referee Chris Rooney point to the net to signal a goal I trust it is the referees announcement that is causing you confusion (“The call on the ice by the four officials that the puck did not cross the goal line and that is confirmed (by video review)…”) and not the correct final decision that was ultimately rendered. All confusion would have been eliminated had the announcement by the referee simply been; “Video review has confirmed that the puck did not cross the goal line, the initial call on the ice is overturned - no goal.” Let me explain the protocol and how the process most likely worked in this situation. In the event that video review returns an “inconclusive” verdict the referees are required to make a decision (communicated with a point into the net or washout signal) from their vantage point when it appears the puck has entered the net. Sometimes the “vantage point” a referee has in that moment is not always the best one. For this reason, the four officials on the ice are required to conference and provide input from their respective vantage points as an added ‘safety check. This is in addition to video review that takes place. Through the conference process considerable doubt must have been created in referee Rooneys mind and caused him to change his initial reaction to the play. The obvious answer is the referee needs to see the puck cross the line before pointing to the net. In real time other factors can complicate this decision. In fairness on this play, the referees approach to the net was from the opposite corner from behind the goal line. This route caused an obstructed view looking through the net and the back of Predators sprawled goalie Pekka Rinne. The refs focus was also split between a penalty that he signaled to David Legwand for cross-checking Eller just as the Montreal forward flipped the puck toward Rinne. With Rinnes body position sprawled deep into the net and across the goal line, Rooneys gut reaction and instinct told him the puck had crossed the line from his vantage point. As required, the ref made his initial decision but once a consultation took place with the other crew members Rooney correctly changed his opinion on the play. It would have been less confusing and more efficient had the ref not communicated the result of the Officiating Crews ‘internal process that caused him to change his initial decision on the play. In the end the right decision was rendered. Sometimes the less said the better! ' ' '