Boardregeln » Im sure in some instances there would still be

Jesse Joseph, a 2013 Montreal Alouettes draft pick from UConn, has been invited to the Chicago Bears rookie minicamp on a tryout basis. Joseph wasnt given a contract by the Bears but could earn one with a solid showing at the minicamp. Joseph was taken in the third round, 23rd overall, in last years CFL Draft. Youth Nike Air Vapormax . They never thought it would take some blood, too. Kevin Love grabbed his 4,000th career rebound as part of a 19-point, 13-board effort to lead the Timberwolves over the Utah Jazz 112-97 on Tuesday night. Womens Nike Air Vapormax .J. -- Pitcher Carl Pavano is retiring after 14 major league seasons. http://www.cheapairvapormaxsale.com/. On paper, it looks a little like Andre the Giant taking on a midget wrestler. It has all the makings of a rout with the Americans adding an eighth win in nine outings of this biennial event. The Yanks have eight players in the top 15 in the world while the Internationals have just one. Nike Air Vapormax Discount .com) - St. Louis Blues right wing Vladimir Tarasenko, Detroit Red Wings center Pavel Datsyuk and Pittsburgh Penguins goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury have been selected as the NHLs top players for last week. Black Nike Air Vapormax . Numbers Game looks into the Canadiens securing the services of Thomas Vanek in a trade with the New York Islanders. The Canadiens Get: LW Thomas Vanek and a conditional fifth-round pick.On this weeks TSNFC podcast we spent a long time discussing the handball decision that effectively ended Vancouver Whitecaps season. Much has been said and written about whether or not World Cup referee Mark Geiger made the right call to penalize Kendall Waston in last weeks playoff match at Dallas, with many differing opinions on the matter. There doesnt seem to be a consensus, although Geigers boss - referees chief Peter Walton - said it was the correct decision and a standard call. As a veteran Premier League referee who now runs the Professional Referees Organization in North America, Waltons opinion should be respected, but the controversy surrounding the decision - and many other handball decisions we see all over the world each week - could easily be avoided if there were a change to the law. In my view, there are two things wrong with the current law. Firstly, the punishment doesnt fairly reflect the size of the crime. Secondly, there is too much room for interpretation of the referee which makes consistency of decisions almost impossible. Here are the main points of the current FIFA Law: Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration: ? the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) ? the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) ? the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement Deliberate - done consciously and intentionally I dont think Kendall Waston made a conscious and intentional decision to handle the ball inside the penalty area in the last 10 minutes of a playoff match. In my mind it was a momentary lapse in concentration from the towering defender rather than a deliberate act. In relation to this law, it seems deliberate can also mean a player didnt react quickly enough to move his hand/arm out of the way of the ball. But the fact the law allows such ambiguity means officials are in the spotlight more than necessary whether or not they get the decision right. There must be a bettter way.dddddddddddd Although video replays will certainly assist officials decision making in other areas, in the instance of Waston it wouldnt have made much difference because even with review, the decision would have been made depending on the officials interpretation of the law. One suggestion I have seen is to award a penalty anytime the ball hits a hand or arm inside the area whether it is intentional or not. A clear rule - it doesnt matter how it happens, if the ball strikes the hand, it is a penalty. Theres very little room for argument and interpretation there, but I think it would lead to far too many penalties and also an excessive number of game changing moments. Again, the punishment wouldnt match the offence. New Law So how about this. In order to provide clarity, I would be in favour of a rule change along the following lines: Anytime a player makes contact with the ball inside the penalty area with his hand or arm, an indirect free kick will be given. There is no room for interpretation - if it hits the arm or hand whether deliberate or not, it is an indirect free kick. There is one exception. If a player handles the ball to prevent a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity, a penalty is given. With this rule applied, Kendall Wastons handball would have been penalized with an indirect free kick, still giving the opposing team the benefit of a set piece close to goal but eliminating the need for a referee to award a penalty for an incident that was not going to end in a goal. For me, that far better reflects the size of the infringement and also would remove much of the debate surrounding penalty kicks awarded for handball. Im not na?ve enough to expect that changing the law would eliminate all problems. Im sure in some instances there would still be controversy and debate surrounding what is or isnt an obvious goal scoring opportunity. But I believe it would drastically decrease the amount of times a game is decided by a referees decision and therefore lead to more post-game talk about players instead of officiating – and that can only be a good thing. ' ' '