Gemeinsam Angeln » makes no sense that Thomas Vaneks goal would

OTTAWA -- The moment Corey Chamblin first started thinking about becoming a CFL head coach came while he was breaking down game film with Jim Barker years ago when the two were with the Calgary Stampeders. They were watching tape during the 2008 Grey Cup when Barker, himself a former coach, was then Calgarys senior vice-president of football operations and player-personnel director. Barker turned to the young assistant and made what Chamblin thought at the time was a terribly bold prediction. "He said, Youll be a better head coach than an assistant coach, and if you dont decide to go to the NFL and you stay in this league, youll definitely be a head coach," Chamblin recalls. "And I was like, Jim, youre crazy. " But Barkers words were prophetic. On Wednesday, Chamblin was named the CFLs coach of the year. The 36-year-old received the Annis Stukus Trophy after leading the Saskatchewan Roughriders to a Grey Cup win on home turf in only his second season with the club. The Riders finished second in the West Division standings with an 11-7 record. They defeated B.C. 29-25 in the conference semifinal before upsetting first-place Calgary -- which posted a league-best 14-4 record -- in the West Division final 35-13. That victory earned Saskatchewan home-field advantage for the Grey Cup game, which was held at Mosaic Stadium. Before a rabid gathering of 44,710, the Riders didnt disappoint, capping their season with an impressive 45-23 victory over the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. Kent Austin, Hamiltons head coach/GM, and John Hufnagel, who also holds the same dual post with Calgary, were the award finalists. In his first season with Hamilton, Austin led the Ticats to second in the East Division with a 10-8 record before the club posted playoff wins over Montreal and Toronto. Austin was named the CFLs top coach in 07 after leading the Riders to a Grey Cup title. Hufnagel, who won the award in 2008, worked with Chamblin in Calgary. He said he saw in Chamblin many of the traits that have allowed him to make the transition from a position coach into a winning head coach. "He was very organized but he also had an eye out for the entire program, not just the defensive backs," Hufnagel said. "His vision was far-reaching. "He wanted to put a program together to help make the players transition, once they did make the roster, in finding homes in Calgary and all the type of things that provides the transition, makes it easier for the players. So early on, I knew Corey did have a vision of more than just what was his particular area." Chamblin bounced around the NFL until 2004 before embarking on his coaching career. The native of Birmingham, Ala., played defensive back at Tennessee Tech. After being bypassed in the NFL draft, he signed as a free agent with the Baltimore Ravens in 1999 but was waived before seeing any regular-season action. Chamblin then signed with the Jacksonville Jaguars. He also spent time in Green Bay, Tampa Bay and Indianapolis and played in Germany with the Rhein Fire of the former NFL Europe. His first coaching gig came in 2006 as an assistant at Tennessees Cumberland University. He got his first CFL job a year later as a defensive backs coach with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. Chamblin moved to Calgary and spent three seasons as the Stampeders defensive backs coach -- winning the Grey Cup in 2008 -- before becoming Hamiltons defensive co-ordinator in 2011. The following season, he landed his first head-coaching job with the Roughriders. Chamblin credits Barker, currently the GM of the Toronto Argonauts, with inspiring him to become a head coach. "It was one of those things where I was like, Yeah, Jim, I dont know why youre saying this and I dont believe you. Right now, Im a defensive backs coach, " Chamblin said. "But I took that, and I think that was something that opened my eyes, that you know what, I should start preparing myself, and I did and I got it pretty soon." Cheap NHL Jerseys Authentic . Halak did not get the start in the Washington Capitals Tuesday night game against the St. NHL Jerseys Sale . Three pitches later, he was hugging Mike Napoli at home plate after his teammates winning home run. Napoli and Ortiz hit consecutive homers with one out in the 10th inning and the Boston Red Sox rallied past Minnesota 2-1 Wednesday, sending the Twins to their fifth straight loss. https://www.chinanhljerseys.us/. Go to turbozone.ca to see more of his epic work and you can follow him on twitter (@Turbo_Zone). Gaurav Shastri - A tribute to the amazing fan base who stand outside during games at "Jurassic Park" and an unbelievable shot of Paul Pierce fearing a Raptor. Custom NHL Jerseys . Smiths former Atlanta teammates were glad to hang on for an ugly win. Fake NHL Jerseys . In this weeks Leaf Report podcast, James Mirtle and Jonas Siegel debate whether Toronto can continue their shootout dominance and discuss what Dave Nonis game plan should be heading into the trade deadline.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. Dear Mr. Fraser, In the Islanders/Blues game on Saturday, the Isles had the apparent game-winning goal overturned in overtime because of a distinct kicking motion by Thomas Vanek. This was the explanation the referee received from Toronto after the goal was reviewed. Ive watched the play over and over, I cant see any kicking motion, let alone a distinct one. The Isles broadcast team thought it was a good goal. They even reported the Blues broadcast team called it a good goal. The Blues goalie (Jaroslav Halak) skated toward the gate leading to the visitors locker room (clearly, he must have figured it was a good goal). The NHL uses the word "distinct" to describe the words "kicking motion." According to the dictionary, "distinct" means readily distinguishable by the senses. I would imagine that if the NHL added "distinct" they meant that the motion could not be interpreted as anything other than a kicking motion. What does a "distinct kicking motion" look like from a referees perspective? As a fan, I would assume the knee would have to bend a bit or the thigh would have to move somewhat, especially if we are talking about a motion being "distinct." I know the NHL can overturn referees calls if there is conclusive evidence, but what does mean if the video doesnt seem to support the explanation. Does the NHL mean "distinct kicking motion" in a figurative or a literal way? Is there an explanation for "distinct" that the NHL uses that fans and internet analysts are not aware of? How does the NHL determine conclusive evidence to overturn a call, especially when most people watching assumed the goal was a good one? The refs didnt spend a long time at the timekeepers station, so the evidence should have been distinct to everyone watching, which is wasnt according to how many people thought the goal should have stood. The NHL had to see something that they consider "distinct," but that the rest of people watching may not have considered (this is my speculation). Its that "something" that has prompted my email inquiry to you. Was this simply a bad call by the guys in Toronto (a frustrating bad call in my personal opinion)? I appreciate you taking the time to read this email. I enjoy reading your column on TSN.ca. Thank you,Michael Bonet Michael: Thank you for your detailed question along with the logical (and expert) analysis you provided relative to the goal Thomas Vanek scored in overtime. To the referees eye, mind and perspective Thomas Vanek did NOT use a "distinct kicking motion" to propel the puck past Blues goalie Jaroslav Halak and score the game-winning goal in overtime. This was another example of an "officiating decisiion" made correctly on the ice that was overturned by "non-officiating personnel" that staff the Situation Room on a nightly basis.dddddddddddd (NFL and MLB employ and empower referees/umpires to make final video review decisions). The guidelines and definition in determining a "distinct kicking motion" must have changed drastically, at least concerning Situation Room criteria employed, from when the kicking puck rule was first explained to my colleagues and I during a training camp meeting the season the rule was implemented. Otherwise Thomas Vaneks goal and the one scored by Brendan Gallagher of the Habs against Martin Brodeur last week (both of which were deemed legal by the referee in great position on the ice) would not have been overturned and disallowed through the video review process. The definition in rule 38.4 (iv) remains the same as when it was explained to us in that training camp meeting by Hockey Ops that still control the Situation Room. "A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL." As you correctly pointed out, Michael, the former NHL players working as analysts on both the NY Islanders and St. Louis Blues broadcast teams were convinced that Vaneks goal should count. They went so far as to say that Vanek wouldnt have known where the puck was as he rotated his body position away from Halak at the top of the goal crease and was then shoved from behind by Alexander Steen of the Blues. A referees perspective would clearly indicate that the bump from behind by Steen changed Vaneks rotation to a forward motion toward the net and caused the puck to be deflected off Vaneks skate and into the net. (Rule 49.2 - A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking players skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking plays skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident). We can envision various legal plays when a player is allowed to deliberately turn and angle his skate to direct a puck into the net or even makes a natural sliding stop at the crease in order to contact the puck causing it to enter the goal. Unless there has been some change in the definition and criteria of a "distinct kicking motion" it makes no sense that Thomas Vaneks goal would be disallowed through a video review decision. If there has been a "distinct" change in the criteria that the Situation Room employs in rendering their exclusive decisions, perhaps it is time they advise the rest of the hockey world! Until that takes place, Michael, this decision will be viewed by most as "simply a bad call by the guys in Toronto!" ' ' '