ive verdict even in cases where it appears logical that the puck would have crossed t

Germanys Tatjana Maria is considering suing after controversial defeat to Alize Cornet at the French Open - but admits she is not sure who to sue. Maria believes Cornet broke the rules over treatment for cramping during her 6-3 6-7 (5-7) 6-4 second round win.Cornet cramped up in her right leg during the second set tie-break of her second round clash against and needed regular treatment throughout the deciding set. But Maria insists the rules, which forbid treatment for cramping, were broken while she was equally furious that the trainer and the tournament supervisor physically helped Cornet to her chair after she collapsed in agony on the court.Maria also claims that Cornet also exceeded the 20-second rule between points as she tried to ride out the cramping.We want this (legal action) because it was simply not fair in the match, she said.I think thats important for the sport. Its not about the defeat. I accept that. Maria said her husband Charles had already consulted a French lawyer with expertise in sports litigation. There are more meetings planned in the coming days, she added. Alize Cornet came through a bout of cramp to beat Maria However, she admitted that they are not certain who they will sue - the International Tennis Federation, the WTA or the French Open.Maria said she would not pursue action against Cornet.The German added that she had received widespread backing for her complaints from other players in the dressing roomEven French players have told me that they are behind me. That was nice to hear, because the defeat hurt, she said.Maria had a degree of revenge for her loss when she teamed up with Madison Brengle of the United States to defeat Cornet and Polands Magda Linette in the doubles Friday.Cornet, 26, insisted she did not seek treatment for cramping but had developed pain in her left hip and called for the trainer before completing her win.She said she was mystified by Marias frustrations.I didnt understand so much why she was so mad at me. She even told me when we shake hands that she thought I was not fair play.I didnt choose to cramp at the end of the second set, and I didnt choose to have this pain in my leg, and I needed a treatment for that. I didnt take a treatment for my cramp because I know the rule, and I respect it.Cornets run was ended by Venus Williams in the third round on Saturday. Also See: French Open Draw Nadal pulls out of French Open Djokovics missing major Murray at Roland Garros Adidas Superstar For Sale Cheap . Patty Mills scored 15 points, Tim Duncan had 10 points and 11 rebounds in limited minutes, and San Antonio trailed for only 11 seconds late in the first quarter of a 103-90 victory over Portland on Wednesday night. Adidas Superstar Wholesale China . Wrights first stint with Milwaukee was on a 10-day contract from March 14-23. He played in two games, averaging six points and two rebounds in 16. http://www.superstarcheap.com/ . Coach Jorge Sampaoli resisted naming any major surprises in the list published Tuesday at the site of Chiles football association. Chile is pinning its hopes on the recovery of Vidal. Cheap Adidas Superstar China . Jean-Gabriel Pageau and Buddy Robinson scored 43 seconds apart in the second period to lead the Binghamton Senators to a 4-1 victory over the Bulldogs in American Hockey League action Friday night at the Bell Centre. Cheap Adidas Superstar Wholesale . - The Florida Panthers are getting some Army training to finish off their preparations for the season.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. Kerry, Just watched the shootout in the Coyotes/Leafs game and I have to ask, why was the James van Riemsdyk goal allowed to count? All of the video replays we were shown on TV were inconclusive about whether the puck had entirely crossed the line or not. Neither ref made an attempt at blowing the whistle or pointing at the net and no call was made on the play as it was sent right to the video replay judges. Only after the replay was reviewed was the goal allowed to count. Paul Devorski told Coyotes coach Dave Tippett that he was sure it was a goal. If Devorski was so confident it was a goal then why didnt he signal a goal and blow the whistle? Why did he send it to the video replay? Their indecision and explanation do not seem to match up. Your insight would be greatly appreciated as it appears the Leafs were the recipients of the proverbial home ice advantage! Thanks,Chad Conner in Phoenix Chad, After witnessing JVRs ultimate shootout goal, neither referees (Rob Martell and Paul Devorski) signaled a goal nor did they make a waive off. Understandably, they appeared uncertain and indecisive as they searched to find the puck from underneath Smiths pads. The puck did not become visible until Smith wisely and carefully manipulated his pads from inside the net and kicked his feet forward until the puck appeared well out in the middle of his goal crease. Since no signal was made by either referee as required, I must assume they did not and could not see the puck across the goal line. As such, they were unable and unwilling to make an initial call. The only alternative for Martell and Devorski at this point was to pass the decision upstairs to video review which has become the safety net for the official. Video review rendered an inconclusive verdict since no camera angle was available to clearly demonstrate the puck crossing the goal line due to the obstructed view from Smiths pads! The call then reverted back to the referee(s) on the ice for a final decision. Referee Rob Martell was on the head set throughout the video review process. The referee was either provided with input and assistance from upstairs and/or Martell used common sense and logic to deduce that since the puck was under Mike Smiths padss and Smiths pads were across the goal line a legal goal should be counted.dddddddddddd I agree with the referees ultimate decision in that it is most logical and probable that the puck completely crossed the goal line. I have personally stood on the goal line and signaled a goal when the puck was caught by the goalkeeper with his glove across the line and then pulled his glove and the puck forward out of the net. The puck was in the glove and the glove was across the goal line and inside the net. I also counted goals when the goalkeeper carried the puck across the line and into the net. I made these decisions immediately and without hesitation. There was no video review to act as a safety net. Even when the review process was implemented I wanted to see the play and make the call. - This very late decision by the on-ice referee Thursday night following video review highlights at least two flaws in the current system. The first is that two different standards can be applied in determining goals. Video review must clearly see the puck across the goal line with an unobstructed view before they will verify a goal. The evidence must be unequivocal! If this cant be achieved video review personnel render an inconclusive verdict even in cases where it appears logical that the puck would have crossed the line. - The referee, on the other hand, as we saw demonstrate on this call, allowed a goal to stand by applying logic, common sense and the power of deduction to determine that in his judgment the puck had crossed the goal line. My recommendation is to provide the referee with the authority to review controversial goals at ice level (including goalkeeper interference) and have the final authority and judgment in these matters. The optics on JVRs ultimate goal determination looked ridiculous! Referee Martell (and Devorski) did not make a decision on the play in real time. Martell then spent several minutes communicating through a head set and staring into space. Following the inconclusive review verdict, Referee Martell was forced to render a final decision - one that he was unable or unwilling to make in real time! The Refs are supposed to make a call one way or the other in real time; let them also make the final decision through the video review process, As Referee Rob Martell demonstrated Thursday night, thats in their job description and what they get paid to do! ' ' '