RALEIGH, N. wholesale jerseys .C. -- The Carolina Hurricanes used a strong third period to extend their winning streak to three games. The Hurricanes scored four goals in the third period to rally past the San Jose Sharks 5-3 on Friday night. "That was our best game of the year," Carolina coach Kirk Muller said. Elias Lindholm had a goal and two assists to lead the Hurricanes, including the game-winner with six minutes remaining. Jordan Staal, Eric Staal, Riley Nash and Jay Harrison had Carolinas other goals. Cam Ward made 22 saves for the Hurricanes in his return to the lineup after sitting out Carolinas previous two games. Justin Braun, Marc-Edouard Vlasic and Tommy Wingels scored for the Sharks. Joe Thornton extended his point streak to eight games with an assist in the first period. Backup goalie Alex Stalock made 30 saves, and San Jose lost consecutive games in regulation for the first time this season. Before the loss to the Hurricanes and Thursdays 5-1 defeat against Pittsburgh, San Jose had won six in a row. "I dont see an energized team right now," San Jose coach Todd McLellan said. "I see us chasing and the other team dictating the pace of the game. I see us making sloppy plays, sloppy passes -- even missing assignments that are defensive assignments that we should be able to do in our sleep right now. "That could be lazy or that could be fatigue. We have to figure that part out." Lindholms go-ahead goal came on a deflection on Andrej Sekeras wrist shot. Lindholm knocked it through Stalocks legs after Sekera skated around the perimeter. It was the first career multi-point game for Lindholm, who was Carolinas first-round pick and fifth overall in the 2013 draft. "That was the player we drafted," Muller said. Eric Staal then added an empty-net goal with 30.2 seconds remaining. "That has got to be a big confidence builder for our guys tonight -- to beat a team like that who we have a lot of respect for tonight," Muller said. San Jose had tied the score at 3 with 10:25 remaining in the third period on Brauns slap shot from the point. The Hurricanes scored twice earlier in the third period, controlling much of the action to erase a 2-1 deficit. Nash first deflected a Harrison shot above Stalocks left shoulder to tie the score at 2 at 4:54. Jordan Staal then gave Carolina a 3-2 advantage 6:42 into the period when Nathan Gerbe centred the puck into the crease from the corner. Staal jammed at the puck a couple of times, and Stalock couldnt freeze the puck before Staal knocked it into the net. San Jose quickly tried to move past Thursdays loss to the Penguins, scoring twice in the first period to build a 2-0 lead. Wingels opened the scoring after Harrison couldnt connect with Jordan Staal on a pass up the middle of the ice from behind the Hurricanes net. Wingels took advantage of the miscue, batting Jason Demers one-timer from the point by Ward. The Sharks then took a 2-0 lead with 3:29 left in the period when Vlasics wrist shot from the blue line deflected off the skate of Nash and beat Ward. Carolina rebounded with a strong second period, trimming the deficit to 2-1 on Harrisons goal. Harrisons wrist shot from the point hit the boards behind Stalock and bounced into the crease. Stalock couldnt corral the puck, which ricocheted off Stalocks pad and skate before sliding into the net. "We need to regroup, to get some rest," McLellan said. "I hope that is the case." NOTES: With forwards Drayson Bowman and Patrick Dwyer missing the game with injuries, Carolina recalled Zack Boychuk from Charlotte of the AHL before the game. Boychuk played at left wing. ... The Hurricanes also agreed to terms with Carter Sandlak of the Plymouth Whalers on Friday. Sandlak will finish the season in the Ontario Hockey League before the Hurricanes decide where to assign him. cheap jerseys .J. -- Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice has been indicted on a charge he assaulted his fiancee during an argument in an elevator at an Atlantic City, N. cheap jerseys from china . 98 jersey in a game yet, and already its a big seller.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry Fraser wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca! Hi Kerry, In the last few days, Ive seen three very questionable penalty shots being called by the league and am wondering whether you can explain a little bit into why these are suddenly penalty shots. The first was on Saturday in a game between the Detroit Red Wings and Toronto Maple Leafs. Phil Kessel was on a breakaway when Ian White put his stick onto the hip of Kessel. He didnt slash him nor did it look like his stick was parallel to the ice. Ian Whites stick didnt impede Kessels ability to take the shot at all, yet there was still a penalty shot called. The second was one was on Sunday night during a game between the Red Wings and Blackhawks. Tomas Holmstrom jumped over Ty Conklin and appeared to close his hand on the puck, but after a closer look, all he did was swipe the puck with his hand away from the goal line back towards Conklin. Yet, the play was still called a penalty shot. It was my understanding that only closing ones hand on the puck results in the penalty shot, while swiping or batting the puck out with the glove is perfectly legal. The third one was on Tuesday night between the Rangers and Coyotes. Marian Gaborik was on a breakaway and Adrian Aucoin gave Gaborik a little tap to the mid-section. I didnt see this motion to be in any way a slashing penalty or any penalty for that matter. It looked to be a strong defensive play by Aucoin. Yet, a penalty shot was called. Of course, this shot will be remembered for the save by Mike Smith but all the same, I believe that this shot should never have occurred. According to rule 24.1, Penalty Shot – A penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending team, based on the parameters set out in these rules. Now according to this rule, Kessel wasnt denied a reasonable scoring chance by Ian White and therefore the penalty shot should not have been called. Gaborik was denied a reasonable scoring chance but not because of an infraction so really the penalty shot should not have been called either. According to the rules for what can cause a penalty shot. (iv) Falling on the puck in the goal crease (v) Picking up the puck with the hand in the goal crease Tomas Holmstrom did neither of these things, so no penalty shot should have been called. Why are these plays suddenly being called penalty shots when the rules state that they shouldnt have been called? Could you clarify these situations? Cheers, Taylor Williams from Ottawa, Ontario ------ Kerry: Have they changed the rule for what constitutes a penalty shot? My understanding was that a penalty shot would be rewarded if a scoring oppurtunity was taken away. Seems like a lot of weak calls to me! Thanks Taylor: Before I deal with the specifics of each penalty shot infraction you listed, I need to address the second question asked as to changes in what constitutes a penalty shot. The general philosophy or purpose of the penalty shot has not changed over the years, which is to "restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul committed by the offending team" under specific situations. That being said however, in a desire to increase scoring and capitalize on the fan excitement associated with a penalty shot, the NHL relaxed the criteria and conditions in the rules a few years ago under which a penalty shot would be assessed. In doing so, it became obvious to every referee that the league wanted more penalty shots to be assessed. As a result, it is unfair to fault the referees for assessing what might have previously been deemed weak calls. Let me explain the changes and you will perhaps understand why more penalty shots are being assessed as a result. When I started in 1973 and for many years afterward, the criteria for assessing a penalty shot for a foul from behind must fall into the following guidelines: i) The player must be over the centre red line; ii) The player must have been fouled from behind; iii) The player must have possession and control of the puck; iv) The player must have no opponent to pass but the goalkeeper; v) The player must be denied a reasonable scoring opportunity I now list the liberal and generous changes that currently apply under Penalty Shot-- rule 24.8 i) The infraction must have taken place in the neutral or attacking zone (i.e. over the puck carriers blue line); [this distance adds 25 to the previous standard] ii) The infraction must have been committed from behind; [same criteria] iii) The player in possession and control (*or, in the judgment of the referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off doess not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. wholesale nfl jerseys. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a "more" reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be warranted); [This was a major change in philosophy of possession and control of the puck for us referees. What the league was telling us is that a "loose puck" that resulted in a potential foot race with the goalkeeper was really deemed to be in the possession of the attacking player and the standard they wanted applied to increase penalty shots. At this point, we all knew not to get too caught up in the verbiage, "clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck." Historically there was reluctance by referees to call a penalty shot and when necessary a minor penalty was assessed. In 198,2 I was the first referee in history to call two penalty shots in the same game against the same team (called against home team-Detroit vs Vancouver). Up to that point the only other referee to call two penalty shots in one game (one to each team) was former NHL referee and league president, Clarence Campbell.] iv) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper.If the referees are expected to apply this liberal possession and control standard when an attacking player doesnt have the puck, in addition to the fact that a player getting a shot off does not necessarily negate the expectation that a penalty shot will be called, you might understand why a seemingly softer standard on fouls from behind might be implemented. Lets get away from the expectation and philosophy that more (not less) penalty shots are to be called and deal with the specific calls that you questioned, Taylor. 1) On the Phil Kessel breakaway, Ian White reached from a deficient position well behind Kessel and used his stick in a fork-hook attempt to spring the puck off the attackers stick. In doing so, the bottom hand of Kessel was contacted and altered his final move just prior to the shot. Phil Kessel was denied a more reasonable scoring opportunity due to the contact/foul by Ian White. 2) Tomas Holmstrom is allowed to "sweep" the puck within the goal crease, so long as he uses an open palm in a "hand pass" motion (picture turning your hand on its side with baby finger to wrist contacting the ice and sweep without turning your hand down and over the puck.) At the instant the puck is covered with the hand or body within the goal crease, a penalty shot must be assessed. As Holmstrom dove over Conklin, his first order of business was to prevent the puck travelling with forward motion from sliding over the goal line. In order to do this, he exposed the back of his hand to the referee and covered the puck in the process, which gave the appearance of a cover and drag motion even in the replay. This action constitutes a penalty shot. 3) As Marian Gaborik drove to the net in overtime, all elements of the penalty shot rule were set in place, save for the final "foul from behind" criteria to be fulfilled. The referee was on the opposite side to where Aucoin struck Gaborik. Even the replay did not have an angle open to exactly where contact was made. Even in the absence of this clear evidence, the fact is that Aucoin made a short, hard slash in desperation and with his stick in a parallel position to the waist/midsection of Gaborik, which caused the NY Ranger player to lose possession of the puck. Since Gaborik was in the act of shooting, all other penalty shot criteria was fulfilled. There isnt a referee in the NHL (present company included) that would not award a penalty shot in this situation. The only way that Adrian Aucoins stick action would have been deemed a legal stick check is if he had checked in a downward fashion and contacted Gaboriks stick below his bottom hand on the shaft or blade. When a stick check is attempted and contact is made either between the hands or on the hands of an opponent, a penalty will result. (This supports the "stick parallel to the ice philosophy you often hear about.) No differently in this case, the proximity of contact that Aucoin administered in the hand area forced loss of puck possession and a scoring opportunity was restored with a penalty shot. I deem it not only to be the correct call but a courageous call in overtime. If there is a lesson to Taylors question it is that the expectation and emphasis should be that penalty shots will be assessed with much more frequency than ever before. The standard has clearly changed. Join in the excitement these calls bring to the game and the courage with which the referees make them. ' ' '
