Vancouver Canucks head coach John Tortorella will learn his fate today after Saturday nights line brawl against the Calgary Flames. Many think theres a good chance hell be fined and possibly suspended for an altercation outside of the Flames locker room, where he tried to confront the team about the line brawl that started the game. The question thats lost in all the controversy is - should anything be done about Calgarys head coach Bob Hartley? Should he receive supplemental discipline as well? Should Hartley receive the same amount of blame as Tortorella? Being the road team, Hartley submitted his starting lineup first which included fourth liners Brian McGrattan, Kevin Westgarth and Blair Jones. If Hartley had started his first or second line, as most coaches do to start games, theres a good chance the incident wouldnt have happened. Hartley said after the game that he had no intentions to start any fighting. "Those guys are playing well for us," he said. "They got a goal last game. Were not scoring many goals. We had zero intentions there. "As far as I know they were the home team. They had the luxury to put whoever they wanted on the ice." Tortorella felt he had no choice but to respond with his fourth line of Tom Sestito, Kellan Lain and Dale Weise. "I know the other guy across the bench," said Tortorella in defending his decision after the game. "Its easy for people to say well put the Sedins out there and its deflated. I cant put our players at risk like that. "With the lineup that he had, Im not going to put those types of players at risk and thats what ensued. Im not proud of it. Ive apologized to every one of the players involved in it. I dont feel great about it at all." Before the game was even five minutes old, 150 minutes of penalty time had been assessed and misconducts were handed out to all ten players involved in the melee, including eight who were thrown out of the game. Did Hartley poke the bear and force Tortorellas hand? And if so, should Hartley be held accountable? As always, its Your! Call. Nike MLB Jerseys . This week, topics cover the Blue Jays rotation, the futures John Gibbons and Alex Anthopoulos, protecting pitchers and a bonus question on his predictions for the MLB playoffs. Nike NCAA Jerseys 2020 . Hes still nowhere close to throwing yet. The four-time MVP was in good spirits when he made his first public appearance on the field since having neck surgery Sept. https://www.cheapmlbjerseysjustwholesale.com/. Power had a two-lap average of 218.896 mph in qualifying Friday at the high-banked, high-speed 1 1/2-mile track for his 34th career pole. Soccer Jerseys 2020 . Nothing pretty. But this is 1/4 World Cup. Usually plays out this way. Nike Baseball Jerseys . Hicham Khalouas late goal improved Almerias chances of avoiding relegation in a match dominated by contentious calls, including three penalties. One day after Barcelonas 4-3 win at Real Madrid featured three penalties, referees again dominated a wide-open game that saw Almeria ultimately move out of the relegation zone and one point ahead of Getafe which took its place.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. Hi Kerry, "Goalie interference, no goal" http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=2013020977-X-h Devils defenceman bumps/trips Flyer towards the net, both touch goalie. "Good goal" http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=2013020984-X-h (the Burns goal) The goalie was being held on the ice by an attacking player - isnt that textbook goaltender interference? Brian Hi Kerry, I have a question about the Sharks 2nd goal tonite. The ref blew his whistle and waived off the goal, seemingly indicating there was a reason why it wasnt a goal. If he only believed the puck had not entered the net, wouldnt the play go on as the puck was still live? Seems to me that was a give-back for the blown call minutes earlier where San Jose was robbed of a goal by the refs quick whistle. Love to hear your perspective. ThanksDavid Brian and David: Thank you very much for submitting your questions as to why contact with the goalkeeper in Philadelphia resulted in a crucial disallowed goal, yet in San Jose the Sharks second goal was allowed to stand. This is not an example of inconsistency, as some might suggest, but the referees correct decision on both plays is supported in the language and interpretation found in Rule 69. With the Flyers net empty for an extra attacker, the puck was kicked out of a high scrum of players and thrown across ice by Kimmo Timonen to Jacub Voracek. Scott Hartnell broke for the net with Anton Volchenchov in close pursuit from behind. There was some minor contact exerted by Volchenkov on Hartnell as the Flyer extended to redirect Voraceks pass at Martin Brodeur from outside the crease. Brodeur made the initial save but offered up a rebound as Volchenkov lost his balance and fell to the ice with a slide toward the goal. There was no push, shove or check delivered by Volchenkov on Hartnell and their contact was incidental in nature. Scott Hartnell remained on his skates in a path that took him into the goal crease. Hartnell repositioned his body and began to throw snow in a stopping motion. It appears at this point that Scotts skate contacted the puck and directed it back into Brodeurs stacked pads. Scott Hartnells forward momentum then took him deep into the goal crease. Hartnell initiated a hip bump at the point of contact with Martin Brodeur that knocked both the goalie and the puck into the net. Referee Tom Kowal, with very good position to see the contact, utilized Rule 69.6 to immediately wave off the potential goal. (69.6: In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed.) Kowal correctly ruled that the contact by Hartnell was "incidental" as opposed to deliberate thereby resulting in no goal and no penalty on the play. This is not a reviewable play. The deciision made by the Toronto Situation Room to initiate a review and the subsequent announcement the referee was forced to make did not bring clarity or support the decision made on the ice by referee Kowal.dddddddddddd The delay in getting the game resumed quickly, in addition to the announcement, "Following video review its confirmed its not a good hockey goal. Its no goal" further infuriated Flyers fans in the building for no useful purpose since video review could not overturn the referees decision. Bottom line is that in the judgment of the referee, Martin Brodeur and the puck were knocked into the net through incidental contact exerted by Scott Hartnell. The call made on the ice by the referee was both correct and courageous - end of story! In San Jose, Joe Thornton was positioned to the side and above the goal crease when Tim Gleason of the Leafs checked Thornton from behind with solid contact. The hit caused Thornton to lurch forward into Dion Phaneuf positioned at the top, middle of the crease. Phaneuf pushed back on Thornton, causing Jumbo Joe to enter the blue paint. Thornton was conscious of avoiding contact with Leafs goalkeeper James Reimer, as demonstrated by his effort to straddle Reimer with a wide stance. Thorntons forward momentum from the Phaneuf push, combined with Joes wide stance, caused his upper body to veer forward with a loss of balance. In an effort to regain his balance, Joe had no alternative but to place his hands on the back of James Reimer. Thornton quickly pushed himself up and off Reimer and then immediately exited the goal crease prior to the shot entering the net. The referees decision is supported by Rule 69.1; (If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.) Joe Thornton made more than a reasonable attempt to avoid James Reimer after being body checked by two Leaf players at the edge of the goal crease. The speed with which Thornton exited the crease is also of significance. Had he delayed his departure and remained in contact with the goalkeeper a different decision by the referee would most likely have been rendered. The referee waved the goal off because he thought the puck hit the crossbar on the shot by Brent Burns. Video review subsequently confirmed that the puck did enter the net on the shot. The refs initial decision on this play had nothing to do with the previously disallowed goal when he ruled the puck was covered and play dead prior to Scott Hannan jamming the puck from under James Reimer. In Philadelphia and San Jose, two distinctly different plays involved contact with the goalkeeper and resulted in the correct decision being rendered by both refs based on two separate rule applications contained in Rule 69. ' ' '