Dein erstes Forum » know if Isles GM Garth Snow and Habs GM Marc Bergevin

Billy Payne wore a smile as wide as the Augusta National fairways as he watched eight kids file out of the room with their trophies from the inaugural Drive, Chip and Putt Championship on the Sunday before the Masters. "Were going to be hearing from some of these kids again," he said. Yes, but six weeks later? An 11-year-old girl who won her age group in the youth competition before the Masters has played her way into the U.S. Womens Open next month at Pinehurst No. 2. Lucy Li, a sixth grader with braces and a sharp short game, made history Monday at Half Moon Bay with rounds of 74-68 to become the youngest player to qualify for the U.S. Womens Open. Not only did she earn a spot at the biggest event in womens golf, she won the 36-hole qualifier by seven shots. Its another example that golf has no age limits. The record for youngest qualifier had belonged to Lexi Thompson, who was 12 when she made it to the 2007 Womens Open at Pine Needles. Its only fitting that when Li signed up for the Drive, Chip and Putt, she listed Thompson as among her favourite players. Li, from the suburbs south of San Francisco, still wont be the youngest player. Beverly Klass was 10 when she played in 1967, but that was when the U.S. Womens Open didnt have qualifying. Judy Rankin was a 14-year-old prodigy from Missouri when she entered the 1959 U.S. Womens Open at Churchill Valley Country Club in Pittsburgh. "When I went to register, they asked me if I was registering for my mother," Rankin said Tuesday. "I weighed 80 pounds. I remember the first tee was way up high. I was shaking. I was so scared, so nervous. I thought I could fall off. I didnt even make the cut. I was probably ill-prepared to be playing. But the next year, I was low amateur." Teenagers in the U.S. Womens Open are nothing new. Morgan Pressel, who went on to become the youngest major champion in LPGA Tour history at 18, qualified for the U.S. Womens Open in 2001 when she 12. Michelle Wie was 12 when she qualified for her first LPGA Tour event, and she was in the final group at a major when she was 13. Lydia Ko was 15 when she won the Canadian Womens Open two years ago, making her the youngest winner in LPGA history. Now shes in range of becoming No. 1 in the world. In mens golf, Matteo Manassero won twice on the European Tour before he had his drivers license. Ryo Ishikawa won his first professional tournament when he was 15. Jordan Spieth nearly won the Masters last month at age 20. And who can forget Guan Tianlang, the 14-year-old from China who made the cut at the Masters last year? Even so, two numbers are enough to get anyones attention — "11" and "sixth grade." "This is ridiculous," Dottie Pepper said Tuesday, more amazed than concerned. Earlier in the day, Pepper was on Twitter and tried to get her head around an 11-year-old teeing it up at Pinehurst No. 2 when she noted that Lis date of birth was "THIS CENTURY. Whoa!" Rankin and Pepper both attributed the increasing achievements by teens — pre-teens in Lis case — to modern equipment and coaching. Li began playing when she was 7 by whacking a few golf balls on the range while waiting for her brother and cousin to finish a golf tournament. She now works with Jim McLean. And this is not the first time Li has written herself into USGA history. She set a record last year in the U.S. Womens Amateur as the youngest qualifier at age 10. She also was the youngest in the U.S. Womens Amateur Public Links to reach match play, losing in the first round to a college player. "For people with talent, regardless of age, todays equipment is making the game a lot easier to learn," Rankin said. "For talented people, they are learning the game quicker and easier. That has a big bearing on it." Rankin also points to the very best in golf being on television so often, and the fact that kids copy what they see. "No one in the world is better at mimicking than children," she said. "I can go way back to a friend of mine from U.S. Amateur days, Helen Sigel Wilson. She always said the way to teach a kid how to play good golf is only let them see great players. They can figure it out." Sooner than later, thats what theyre doing. Cheap Air Max From China . A knee to the thigh might have stung him the most, but his sixth straight double-double made up for the brief burst of pain. Cheap Real Air Max . The Canadian defensive tackle suffered the injury on Monday and had tests done on Tuesday. He was a potential starter on the defensive line but head coach Mike OShea said he wasnt even thinking about the ratio when he got the news. https://www.airmaxchina.us/ . Blatter also told reporters Saturday after meeting with Qatars emir that the decision to award the tournament to the desert nation is "not reversible." There have been calls to move the tournament because of Qatars intense heat. Fake Air Max . -- Deshorn Brown scored twice, the first coming 13 seconds into the game, and the Colorado Rapids beat the undermanned Seattle Sounders 5-1 Saturday night. Replica Air Max . In the opening game of his fourth-round match at the U.S. Open, the owner of 17 major titles got passed at the net twice, sailed a backhand long, then missed two forehands to get broken.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, I appreciate your earlier comments on Torontos handling of the Vanek goal, and Im sure youve seen the Howie Rose-Kris King interview by now. Im still left with some basic questions about what the actual NHL rules are at this point, and was hoping you could provide some insight. 1. Does the situation room still need clear, incontrovertible evidence to overturn calls made on the ice? Every NHL announcer seems to think so, but Kris King clearly indicates that while that logic held in many cases there was a specific subset of calls (including kicking motion) where the situation room could take the on-ice call as purely advisory and didnt have to find incontrovertible video evidence in order to overturn. Is Kings view backed up by formal statements/rule changes? Do NHL refs uniformly understand that Toronto needs clear evidence to overturn in some cases but not in others? 2. Kings comments seemed contradictory in that he said the rules regarding kicking were defined so that neither refs or the situation room needed to make any judgment as to the players intent (i.e goals scored by kicking should be disallowed even if they could be considered unintentional or inadvertent), but also raised the point that "foot dragging" could be defined as "kicking" in this context. First of all, Rule 38.4 which you quoted in your initial comment does not mention foot dragging, and the "pendulum" motion it prohibits would seem to explicitly exclude the possibility of disallowing goals based on foot dragging. Has there been an internal memo or formal rule change that all NHL refs would be aware of that expands Rule 38.4 to include foot dragging? Secondly, outside of extraordinarily blatant cases, how could anyone disallow a goal on foot dragging grounds without judging the players intentions? Hundreds of goals go off skates where there has been no "pendulum" type kicking motion. How could anyone distinguish good from bad goals without determining whether they thought the player was trying to intentionally redirect a puck, as opposed to simply position themselves near the goal mouth where lucky bounces sometimes occur? We all understand that no set of rules can ever be perfect. The issue here is that you and most fans that saw the Vanek video believed the rule to be applied in that situation was one thing, and King may have implied (but never clearly said), no - the rule to be applied in that situation is different. If the rules are 100 per cent clear to refs and everyone in the league, it would still be useful to communicate changes more clearly so that announcers and journalists arent confusing the fans. Of course, if situation room personnel think they can establish rule interpretations that the on-ice staff isnt in sync with, that would raise a different set of issues. Hoping you can clarify what the real situation is. Hubert Horan Hubert: I truly believe that each person who staffs the Situation Room on a nightly basis in Toronto is a man of integrity and cares deeply about the game. They do not take the huge responsibility handed to them lightly and they do strive to get every call right through videoo review to the best of their ability.dddddddddddd When a play, subject to review, is taken over by the Situation Room their judgment is independent of the referees and any decision rendered through video review is final. The only exception is when video review returns an "inconclusive verdict" at which time the call reverts back to the referee on the ice. In almost every case the referees initial call will then stand. The referees make the call from their vantage point in real time based on the rules as written and with the direction and expected standard of enforcement they are handed from their superiors. The refs recognize that their decision on the ice can be overturned for any reason, whether they agree or even like it! It would appear, at least from the perception of the personnel conducting the video review, that clear and incontrovertible evidence is present for them to overturn a referees call on the ice. That perception and ultimate decision is always subject to debate and scrutiny from the hockey community. While I cant ever recall Kris King agreeing with a penalty I assessed against him during his 14 season NHL career I know him to be a very good, honest and charitable person. As a former player that was most often cheered by adoring fans, Kris and his colleagues in the Situation Room can sometimes find their decisions challenged rather vehemently by various members of the hockey community. No differently than a referee experiences throughout his career, it goes with the territory! This might explain some of Kris apparent defensiveness during the interview with Howie Rose. What Kris didnt explain, but only alluded to, were instructions provided them by the general managers how to ascertain a "distinct kicking motion" beyond the definition provided in rule 38.4 (iv). If such instructions include a skate drag or worse yet, unintended contact with a players skate resulting from physical contact by an opponent, these new criteria should be clearly communicated to the rest of the hockey world. That I believe is the question that Howie Rose and the rest of us would like a clear answer to. I would be most curious to know if Isles GM Garth Snow and Habs GM Marc Bergevin (following Brendan Gallaghers disallowed goal) among others have signed off on the instructions Kris King alluded to. A referee often factors in "player intent" when imposing his judgment on infractions and calls. To suggest otherwise is illogical. At the present time a vast majority of the hockey community, including current and former officials, current and former players, broadcasters and fans cant logically understand decisions to disallow goals like the one that went into the net off the skate of Thomas Vanek. The answer to that question has to come clearly and definitively from Colin Campbell, current Executive Vice President and Director of Hockey Operations who holds the keys to the Kingdom. Finally, the integrity and accuracy of the video review process would be greatly enhanced if the NHL were to employ former referees to provide their specialized expertise and INDEPENDENT judgment in these matters no differently than the other major professional sports leagues have recognized is necessary. ' ' '