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 Ref, I am a Habs fan, but no one likes to see headshots or injuries. I dont think that Douglas Murray intended to concuss Mike Kostka, and I really hate the trend of punishment based on severity of injury instead of severity of the infraction. Murray deserves a suspension, but given inconsistency of supplementary discipline I have no idea what is appropriate. I see worse things get away with nothing and things that arent as bad might get 3 games. It just seems random. What Murray did was a lazy, stupid panic reaction to a player he knew he could not keep up with or slow down legally, and could reasonably have been foreseen as injurious but I dont think he intended that. He clearly meant to hit him, he clearly stuck out his elbow, but I dont think he intended to make it the sole or even primary point of contact. He is just big and slow enough that it was all he made contact with. I would probably give him 3-4 games but given inconsistency have no idea what to expect. Whatta we have to do to get consistency, and what does this deserve? PR Kerry, I read your post on a regular basis. My team is not on anyones radar, playoff-wise, so bias not an issue here. On Tuesday you commented on the Orpik hit - I totally agree on your view. I just happened to be channel surfing last night and saw the Douglas Murray hit which may not have been equal to but not unlike the Orpik hit except Murrays skates did not leave the ice but intensions were much the same with perhaps a bit more elbow and the refs threw the book at Murray -- match penalty. In your opinion, should the refs be more on the severe side in these cases like the Murray hit? Also, there seems to be real disconnect when these calls are made in different games with different teams. Just an opinion, but I think it would be better if the referees were more severe - more MATCH penalties in these situations. Intent to injure, which many of these hits are, should equal a match penalty. Murrays hit equals automatic suspension, Orpik equals 0 jb CLICK HERE to watch the play in question. PR and JB: I agree that Douglas Murray neither attempted nor intended to injure Mike Kostka on this play. At 63 and 240 lbs, Douglas Murray is a huge presence on the blue line but he is not regarded as a dirty player. Murray is a "straight ahead" type of player with somewhat limited lateral mobility. Given his size, whenever Murray contains or catches an opponent inside his personal space he can administer a punishing body check. On the play in question, it was this limited lateral mobility that caused Douglas Murray to make himself even bigger with a reflex elbow once Mike Kostka dished the puck off in close quarters and was about to beat the Habs defenceman to the inside. A match penalty for attempting to or deliberately injuring an opponent is more typically imposed for a retaliatory attack on an opponent and/or when there is a larger gap in space and time that would indicate some premeditation. For example, if Douglas Murray had taken a run at Mike Kosta with his elbow in an extended prone position targeted at the head of his opponent, a match penalty should clearly result. While I am in no way condoning the poor and dangerous decision that Murray made to extend his elbow and contact the head of Kostka, it appeared to be a desperation, reflex move by Murray intended to stop his opponent and not in an attempt to deliberately injure Kostka. Under the current standard and interpretation, a 5 minute major and game misconduct would be the more expected penalty assessment on a play of this nature. The resulting time penalty (5 minutes) and expulsion from the game Murray incurred would have been the same with either assessment. To your point, JB, if there was any doubt in the refs mind whether to assess a major plus game misconduct or a match penalty he and the game would be better served by imposing the more severe penalty. The primary difference is that as a result of being assessed a match penalty, Douglas Murray was automatically suspended from further competition until the Commissioner (Players Safety Committee) has ruled on the issue as stipulated in Rule 21.2. If a major and game misconduct (or no penalty at all) had been assessed, the Players Safety Committee would, at their discretion, been able to review the hit and impose a suspension to Murray under Rule 28 - supplementary discipline if they deemed it worthy. Douglas Murray needs to be suspended for his decision and actions on this play. I wouldnt expect it to be more than three games but your guess is as good as mine. There is a big difference between Brooks Orpiks check that made contact through the body and the head of Jonathan Toews and Murrays elbow hit to the head of Mike Kostka. Orpiks hit is deemed to be entirely "legal" while Douglas Murray clearly violated Rule 45 - elbowing and/or Rule 48 - illegal check to the head. Orpik left his feet to increase velocity and impact through the hit on his opponents body and head while Murray kept his skates planted firmly on the ice when he extended an elbow that struck the head of Kostka and became the main point of contact. Brooks Orpik intended to inflict added punishment with the hit on Toews, who had placed himself in a vulnerable position, while Douglas Murrays illegal reflex elbow was intended to stop Mike Kosta from getting past him. As Ive outlined, there is a big difference in the two hits where contact to the head of an opponent resulted in varying degrees. Vapormax Herre Norge . - The situation looked bleak at best for the coach Doc Rivers Clippers — down by four points with 18 seconds left in the fourth quarter. Nike Joyride Run Norge . Alen, 28, hit .315 with five home runs, 59 RBI and a career-high nine stolen bases for the Goldeyes last season. He is the longest serving catcher in Goldeyes history, having already spent five seasons with the organization. http://www.vapormaxnorge.com/vapormax-da...-flyknit.html.C. -- Panthers offensive tackle Jordan Gross is saying goodbye to the NFL after 11 seasons. Nike Vapormax Salg . Last years runner-up, Sara Errani, also reached the last eight in straight sets. Flipkens converted all four of her break points against Meusburger, and the third-seeded Errani broke Karin Knapps serve five times to win their all-Italian match 6-4, 6-3. Vapormax Hvit Herre Norge . Subway workers in Rio de Janeiro, meanwhile, were holding an assembly to vote on whether they would strike to demand higher wages, threatening to disrupt transportation. By late Tuesday night there was no announcement of their decision.PRETORIA, South Africa -- The first witness in the Oscar Pistorius murder trial testified Monday to hearing a womans "blood-curdling" screams before the sound of four gunshots on the night the double-amputee Olympian killed his girlfriend. Michell Burger, a woman who lives on an estate next to Pistorius gated community, said she and her husband were awoken by the screams in the pre-dawn hours of Feb. 14 last year, when Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp by shooting four times through a door in his bathroom. Pistorius says he killed Steenkamp by mistake thinking she was a dangerous intruder in his house, but prosecutors believe the world-famous athlete shot his girlfriend after a fight and immediately tried to paint a picture at the trial of a loud argument before the fatal shots. Burgers testimony contradicts Pistorius version of events, because he said he thought Steenkamp was in bed and he did not describe any woman screaming. "It was very traumatic," Burger said, speaking in Afrikaans through an interpreter and in answer to questions from lead prosecutor Gerrie Nel. "You could hear it was blood-curdling screams. You cant translate it into words. The anxiousness in her voice, and fear. It leaves you cold." Burger said: "She screamed terribly and she yelled for help" and testified that she also heard a man shout for help before the shots were fired. Pistorius lawyer, Barry Roux, opened his cross-examination by asking Burger if she thought Pistorius was a liar. She didnt directly answer that with a yes or no, but repeated her recollection of the nights events. "I can only tell the court what I heard that evening," Burger said. "I cannot understand how I could clearly hear a woman scream but Mr. Pistorius could not hear it." But Roux argued she had changed her testimony from the written statement she gave to police soon after the shooting, only adding "blood-curdling" as a description of the screams in court. Pistorius earlier pleaded not guilty at the start of the trial to charges of murder and three other counts relating to shooting guns in public and illegal possession of ammunition. Wearing a dark grey suit and black tie, he spent the first 30 minutes of the first day of the trial at the high court in the South African capital standing before his defence lawyer, Barry Roux, asked the judge for permission for Pistorius to sit. The Olympians murder trial was being broadcast live on TV in South Africa and across the world. The first witness, Burger, was called before even an hour had passed as the prosecution went straight into testimony. The trial itself started 90 minutes late after an earlier delay because of an interpreter problem. When he entered court, Pistorius walked past the victims mother who says she came to court so she can "really look him in the eyes." Defence lawyer Kenny Oldwadge laid out Pistorius legal strategy, reading a statement from Pistorius in which he says the killing was an accident and that there were inconsistencies in the states case, as well as an attempt to introduce inadmissible character evidence to discredit him. In the statement, Pistorius said he brought two fans in ffrom the balcony on the night of the killing, after speaking to his girlfriend who was in bed beside him.ddddddddddddHe said Steenkamp must have gone into the bathroom while he was fetching the fans. Pistorius said he did not notice that she had gone and heard the bathroom window open. "I approached the bathroom, armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I," Pistorius said in the statement. He said he then heard a noise in the toilet, and was in a "fearful state" because he was unable to run away or defend himself physically since he was not wearing his prosthetic legs. "The state has embarked on a strategy to rely on unsubstantiated allegations," he said, citing a neighbours testimony that an argument had been heard in his home. According to Pistorius statement, other neighbours living nearby said they had not heard any argument. He also cited evidence provided by police detective Hilton Botha as "false in material respects." In the courtroom, Pistorius was seated near Steenkamps mother, June. She was quoted in the Pretoria News, which published an interview she gave to a British newspaper, saying that she wants to see Pistorius. "I want to look at Oscar, really look him in the eyes, and see for myself the truth about what he did to Reeva," said June Steenkamp, 67. "Whatever the court decides at the end of his trial, I will be ready to forgive him ... But first I want to force him to look at me, Reevas mother, and see the pain and anguish he has inflicted on me. I feel I need that." Reeva Steenkamp was a glamorous model and budding reality TV show star when she was cut down at age 29. Earlier, a drone carrying cameras flew over the entrance to the courthouse in grey, drizzly skies. Several broadcasters massed live broadcast satellite trucks around the courthouse. A 24-hour cable channel devoted to covering the trial was launched in South Africa on Sunday. If convicted on the murder charge, Pistorius could be sent to prison for at least 25 years before the chance of parole, the minimum time someone must serve if given a life sentence in South Africa. South Africa does not have the death penalty. A lesser sentence is possible if Pistorius is found guilty of murder but without premeditation. He also could be convicted of culpable homicide, South Africas version of manslaughter in which someone is killed through negligence. The additional firearms charges relate to him allegedly shooting out of the sunroof of a car in one incident and another when he allegedly fired a gun inside a restaurant, apparently by mistake. Ammunition also was found at his house after the shooting that he allegedly did not have proper licensing for. Judge Thokozile Masipa, hearing the biggest trial of her career, will ultimately pronounce the champion runner innocent or guilty and will decide on any sentence. South Africa has no trial by jury. Parts of the trial will be broadcast on live television, both in South Africa and across the world. A South African cable channel has been launched which will provide 24-hour coverage of the Pistorius trial, using commentators and prepared feature stories when the court is not in session. ' ' '