Dein erstes Forum » dmonton Oilers on Tuesday. [url=http://www

The NHLs Mar. 5 Trade Deadline is drawing closer and teams will be deciding on whether to buy or sell while figuring out which players can make the biggest difference and hold the greatest value. Check out todays trade-related reports and speculation from around the NHL beat. And follow TSN.ca through Deadline Day for all the updates. Improving the Champs? Do the defending Stanley Cup champion Blackhawks need to be even better? Chicago Sun-Times reporter Mark Lazerus spoke to Comcast Sportsnet and recalled last seasons acquisition of Michal Handzus and said, "I think just like last year (GM Stan Bowman will) be in the market for a center. I dont know if it will be quote-unquote a second-line center, but they do need some depth down at the middle," Lazerus told CSNs Pat Boyle. Lazerus said that the Blackhawks are currently carrying a surplus of defencemen and could use one potentially as trade bait. Bigger in Texas Dallas Stars GM Jim Nill spoke to Mike Heika of the Dallas Morning News and discussed his teams ability, if they choose, to trade draft picks for roster players because the team has the cap space to allow such a deal. Nill would not get into player specifics, but Heika suggested in his article that pending unrestricted free agents Vernon Fiddler and Ray Whitney could be desirable to other clubs. Heika also noted that Sergei Gonchar, Erik Cole, and Shawn Horcoff each have one year left on their deals and with a rising salary cap, their manageable costs might be attractive to teams as well. Leaky Pipes The Minnesota Wild are struggling with injuries to both of their goalies, Niklas Backstrom and Josh Harding. Michael Russo of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that Wild GM Chuck Fletcher has talked trade with some teams, but the market is drying up with Devan Dubnyk and Ben Scrivens now off the board after they were moved last week. Russo says the team has talked internally about signing free agent Jose Theodore in case they need some insurance. Theodore is living in South Florida and has been working out throughout the season just in case a call comes. Jesper Bratt Jersey . None of them was better than playing with LeBron James again. Mirco Mueller Jersey . The 24-year-old right winger has one assist in nine games this season with the Sabres. In his career, he has three goals and six assists in 43 NHL games. http://www.devilssale.com/authentic-trav...-devils-jersey/. Trailing by a goal after 20 minutes of play, Joe Pavelski responded with three goals and an assist as the Sharks snapped a two-game losing skid with a 5-2 victory over the struggling Edmonton Oilers on Tuesday. Will Butcher Jersey .com) - Rakeem Christmas scored 21 points, B. Scott Stevens Devils Jersey . -- DeMarcus Cousins had 29 points, nine rebounds and six steals to lead the Sacramento Kings to their third straight preseason win, a 107-90 victory over the Phoenix Suns on Thursday night.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! Hey Kerry, I was watching some of the Montreal vs. Tampa Bay game and have a question regarding the disallowed goal in the second period. If Im not mistaken, a goal that is missed can only stand after a delayed review if there have been no other stoppages between the goal and the time of the review. If play has stopped and then continued it is tough luck so-to-speak. Am I also correct in by understanding that goaltender interference cannot be the reason to waive off a goal that is under review? The only thing reviewable is whether or not the puck crossed the line and if it did so cleanly off of a player and not the result of being kicked in or gloved into the net, etc. So my question is - how was the goal that was missed because the puck went in and out of the net off of the net camera then reviewed at the next stoppage of play but waived off and deemed "no goal" because of "incidental contact with the goaltender?" While I personally think that goaltender interference should be something that is factored into the review of a questionable goal as it very difficult for the on-ice officiating crew to catch sometimes and even more difficult to make a split second decision as to whether or not the goaltender is trying to sell goaltender interference, regardless, shouldnt this goal have counted for the Lightning? Matt Henschel Matt: You are correct in your assertion that an undetected goal must be reviewed at the first stoppage of play. We also know that at the present time goalkeeper interference is not a reviewable offence. If goalie interference were to occur that call must be made exclusively by the Referee(s) on the ice. The four officials can conference following the scoring of a goal where it was suspected that goalie interference might have taken place. We have seen situations where the initial call by the Referee on the goal line has been reversed through the conference process. If a Referee deemed incidental contact with the goaltender took place even though he did not witness the puck enter the net (undetected goal) and which was subsequently confirmed through video review, there is nothing to prevent that Referee from disallowing the goal based on his initial observations. On the initial play Referee Mike Leggo was in very good position and focused intently on a battle for position that was taking place between Habs defenceman Doouglas Murray and Tyler Johnson of the Lightning in the Montreal goal crease area.dddddddddddd Cary Price was in his set position, square to the puck and shooter when the Habs goalie was bumped from behind by Tyler Johnson through "incidental" contact. The contact caused Price to spin/turn slightly and lose his balance and his ability to properly defend the shot (Goalie interference can occur inside or outside of the crease). Leggos primary visual focus was on the potential for goalie interference (which he correctly determined took place) and as such did not witness the hard shot slip past Price and rebound off the net-cam and out as evidenced by the referees emphatic washout signal. When "incidental" contact takes place and there is the absence of a goal being scored (or detected) play is allowed to continue. The only time the Ref would stop play is if he ruled that goalkeeper interference had been committed for deliberate contact; in which case he would assess a penalty. Play continued for 32 seconds before the Tampa net was dislodged, whistle blown and video review was initiated to determine if the puck had entered the Montreal net. Referee Leggo took the head set and waited for a determination from the Situation Room. If the verdict was returned that the puck did not enter the net then there would be no further explanation required. On the other hand, since an undetected goal had been scored Referee Leggo would revert to his initial decision that Tyler Johnson was guilty of incidental contact on Habs goalie Cary Price and appropriately disallow the goal. The decision to disallow the goal was made exclusively by the Referee and independent of video review. The Situation Room informed Leggo the puck had entered the net. Referee Leggo then informed the hockey world that it had been done so through illegal means (incidental contact of the goalie) which he determined on the initial play and therefore the goal would not stand. In this situation Referee Mike Leggo and the system currently in place performed to perfection. Like you Matt, I would prefer to see goalie interference become a reviewable offense; not to assess a penalty but to determine the legitimacy of a goal. I would also want the review to take place at ice level and performed by the Referee(s). I am sure the Refs would welcome the opportunity to personally review the play through video and make the final determination at ice level. After all, thats what they get paid to do. Well done, Mr. Leggo. ' ' '