Calgary Stampeders wide receiver Maurice Price caused a stir Monday with a negative tweet about Michael Sam, and the team isnt happy about it. Detroit Pistons Store . The Stampeders issued a statement condemning Prices actions. “The Calgary Stampeders are outraged by the offensive comments made today in tweets from Maurice Prices account, The comments are repugnant and in no way reflect the organizations views or values. The matter will now be dealt with internally.” Price tweeted: "My faith wont allow me to ACCEPT what took place over the weekend! Sorry, NOT sorry! #AdamAndEve #NotAdamAndAdam." In the since-deleted tweet, Price was referring to Sam, who is openly gay, being drafted by the St. Louis Rams of the NFL. When Sam recieved news he was drafted, he gave his boyfriend a kiss on national television. Sam was picked by the Rams in the seventh round of the NFL draft Saturday, becoming the first openly gay player drafted by a pro football team. While the Stampeders stated they would deal with Price internally, the CFL may still levy a punishment for the tweet. Stitched Pistons Jerseys . Louis, MO (SportsNetwork. Detroit Pistons Pro Shop .C. - The Carolina Hurricanes hope they now have the leadership tandem in place to turn the franchise around. Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at [email protected]. Hi Kerry, Im in the middle of watching the Oilers-Predators game Tuesday night where we saw a puck that entered the net called no goal by the ref behind the net. After over a minute of continued play which included an Oilers penalty, the play finally stopped and the refs were able to review the goal (it was a good goal). The broadcasters said that they would have to bring the play back to the moment in time when that goal happened, so I was surprised to see Mark Frasers penalty stand from the end of the play. My question is as follows: What would have happened if Nashville had scored a goal as well? They had some good sustained pressure after the Hall goal. They let the penalty at the end of the play stand, but would they have also let a Nashville goal stand? Thanks. Aaron Deblois,Edmonton Aaron, Once video review was instituted to determine the scoring of legitimate goals, including those that are undetected by the referee during the course of play, Rule 78.6 was included in the rule book to cover the situation that occurred in Tuesday nights Oilers-Predators game. Interestingly, I was called to rule upon the identical situation the first very time it occurred in an NHL game. Current executive VP and director of hockey operations Colin Campbell was behind the bench that night as coach of the NY Rangers for a game in Pittsburgh. The Rangers scored an undetected goal and play continued for another minute until I blew my whistle for a Ranger penalty. While assessing the penalty, a horn sounded to signify the play was placed under review by the video goal judge located in the Pittsburgh Arena. Video review confirmed that the puck had indeed entered the net for a Ranger goal. I instructed the timekeeper to re-set the clock to the time of the goal and place two minutes on the Rangers penalty clock. I explained the strange turn of events that resulted from this new rule application to Coach Campbell at the Rangers bench. While pleased with the award of a goal for his team, the coach was somewhat miffed that the penalty should stand given the difference inn game time that had occurred. Custom Detroit Pistons Jerseys. Nonetheless, Campbell trusted my knowledge of the rule and the Rangers killed off the minor penalty. This initial situation was handled "on-site" by the referee and the video goal judge. Currently all video decisions are made "off-site" in the Situation Room in Toronto under the direction of former coach, Colin Campbell who received some basic training that night in the Igloo. Aaron, I provide points from Rule 78.6 that address various scenarios and answer your specific question. • Any potential goal must be reviewed during the next stoppage of play. No review can take place after the puck has been dropped.• If an apparent goal is confirmed by video review, the clock is re-set to the time the goal was scored.• Only one goal can be awarded at any stoppage of play. Had Nashville subsequently scored to stop play after Taylor Halls undetected goal, the Preds goal would not stand.• If review determined that the undetected goal by Taylor Hall was scored illegally (i.e. distinct kicking motion), the goal shall be disallowed and since the play should have stopped, no subsequent goal scored by either team can be awarded on the same play. The clock (including penalty time clocks, if applicable) must be re-set to the time of the disallowed goal by Hall.• Any penalties (Mark Fraser) signaled during the period of time between the apparent goal (scored by Hall) and the next stoppage of play shall be assessed in the normal manner, except when a minor penalty is to be assessed to the team scored upon (Nashville), and is therefore nullified by the scoring of the goal. If the penalty to be assessed (Nashville) was a double minor, one of the minors would be nullified with the scoring of the goal.• *If an infraction happens after the first stoppage of play following an apparent goal (i.e. infraction committed by Mark Fraser or a Preds player occurred after the whistle) by either team, it is assessed and served in the normal manner regardless as to the decision rendered by the Video Goal Judge. Whenever this unusual play occurs in a game, Rule 78.6 provides the necessary check-list for the referee and video review to follow. ' ' '
