BARRIE, Ont. Air Max 97 España . - Ben Thompson scored twice, including the eventual winner on a short-handed goal, as the North Bay Battalion edged the Barrie Colts 3-2 Sunday to advance to the Ontario Hockey Leagues Eastern Conference final. North Bay will play the Oshawa Generals, who beat the Peterborough Petes in four straight games, starting Friday. Nick Paul had a goal and an assist for the Battalion, who took the best-of-seven series over the Colts 4-2. Barries Garrett Hooey opened the scoring at 1:23, but North Bay scored three straight for a 3-1 edge. Aaron Ekblad pulled the Colts to within one with 13 seconds remaining in the third period. Battalion goaltender Jake Smith stopped 29 shots in the victory. Barries Mackenzie Blackwood shouldered the loss after making 19 saves. Air Max 97 Baratas . The New York Rangers centre had a goal and two assists in a 4-1 victory over the Ottawa Senators ending a 13-game goal-scoring drought. Air Max 97 Baratas Rebajas .C. - Phoenix Suns coach Jeff Hornacek says guard Goran Dragic will return to the starting lineup against the Charlotte Hornets after missing the last two games with a strained back. http://www.baratasairmax97.es/ . Wall made the comment in a speech to a Regina business crowd that included Lesnar. The U.S. wrestler and retired mixed martial artist says he was visiting his brothers farm in Saskatchewan and decided he wanted to hear what the premier had to say.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. Hello Mr. Fraser, Im watching ?the Toronto/San Jose game on Thursday and Im pretty sure that I just watched a blatant violation of an official rule. On the second goal at about 9:00 in the first period, officially awarded to Patrick Marleau, Matt Nieto drives the net going after the puck behind James Reimer and hits Reimers right pad with his stick and then ?Reimers pad pushes the puck is. This apparently is okay according to Rule 69.6 (I think) which says that if its incidental contact with the goalie in the crease, a goal that results is perfectly legal. On the other hand, 69.3 says that if a goal results from a player making contact with the goalie inside the crease, incidental or not, the goal is disallowed. It seems to me that the goal shouldnt count but it did. Am I missing something or is that correct? Cheers, Joe McLaughlin Joe, This is not a good goal as reported by referee Brad Watson following video review but more appropriately described as a dirty goal. The goal was credited to Patrick Marleau because he was the last San Jose Sharks player to touch the puck before the pad of James Reimer propelled the puck into the net. At least the player most responsible for the goal, Matt Nieto was credited with an assist after he contacted the puck on a one-touch pass in the neutral zone to Marleau. The reason Nieto wasnt credited with the goal is because he did not legally propel the puck into the net with his stick or by a deflection off his body. Rule 78 credits a goal in the scoring records to a player who shall have propelled the puck into the opponents goal. A goal shall be scored when the puck shall have been put between the goal posts by the stick of a player of the attacking side. The rule also states that a goal shall be scored if the puck is put into the goal in any way by a player of the defending side and the player of the attacking side who last touched the puck is credited with the goal. Two rules are potentially at play here, Joe, that in my judgment, should negate this goal. First, I do not believe the incidental contact application found in Rule 69.6 would apply. It states that in a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a resullt thereof will be allowed. Air Max 97 Baratas Online. Nieto was not, by his actions, playing a loose puck. I doubt very much that he even saw the puck that was positioned behind the right pad and between the legs of Reimers butterfly set. Nieto deliberately struck and pushed Reimers lower pad and skate. This was a net crash on the goalkeeper that caused the puck to cross the goal-line. The actions of Nieto are more appropriately described in the spirit and intent of the second paragraph of Rule 69.6 that says, In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. I say spirit and intent because while the force exerted by Nieto to Reimers pad was sufficient to cause the puck to be propelled into the net but the goalkeeper was not. If a common sense extension of this segment of the rule is too much for anyone to envision, the language found in Rules 69.1 and 69.3 offer more clear evidence as to why this potential goal should have been disallowed. The smoking gun is found in Rule 69.1. The rule states that goals should be disallowed if an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his crease. For purposes of this rule, contact, whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review. Disallowing this goal is further supported by the specific language contained in Rule 69.3 (Contact Inside the Goal Crease) as you suggested, Joe. From his position behind the net, referee Watsons initial instinct was to wave off the goal. Something obviously didnt smell right for him as he looked through the back of Reimer and Nazem Kadri. The ref immediately looked for input from the other members of the officiating crew. A decision to allow the goal must have resulted from that conference. Since video replay is unable to rule upon a potential violation of goalkeeper interference, their only input on this play was to establish that the puck entered the net, hence the good goal terminology. General managers, please provide the referees with the capability to more accurately determine the presence of goalie interference through a video monitor located in the penalty box. Your team just might be recipients of the next dirty goal that is allowed unjustly. ' ' '