WINNIPEG - The Winnipeg Blue Bombers have hired Cory McDiarmid as the clubs linebackers coach. McDiarmid was a special teams assistant with the Saskatchewan Roughriders and before that spent two seasons at the University of Ottawa as assistant head coach and defensive co-ordinator. McDiarmid has 10 years of experience in the CFL, including three trips to the Grey Cup, which he won with the B.C. Lions in 2000. He has coached in various capacities with the Bombers, Montreal Alouettes, Calgary Stampeders, Toronto Argonauts, and B.C. Lions. In Winnipeg he was special teams co-ordinator and running backs coach. Custom Tampa Bay Rays Jerseys .Y. -- Syracuses streak lives on -- barely. Custom Kansas City Royals Jerseys . Footballs governing body said Tuesday that of the 2,577,662 tickets allocated for this years tournament, 1,041,418 have gone to people in Brazil. The U. http://www.customjerseysbaseball.com/cus...rseys-214x.html. And on Sunday against the Houston Astros they were pleased to see his work finally pay off with his first win since May 24. Custom New York Mets Jerseys .Chanathip Songkrasin opened the scoring in the sixth minute before Kroekrit found the target twice in the 57th and four minutes from fulltime.Vietnam and Malaysia play their second leg on Thursday. Vietnam won the first leg 2-1. Custom Cleveland Indians Jerseys . Calgary finished atop the CFL standings with a 14-4 record and earned the right to host the West Division final at McMahon Stadium on Nov.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at email@example.com. Hi Kerry, Why is blood the determining factor in judging the severity of high sticking penalties? I think the NHL has only ever used five-minute majors for high sticking on very serious and pre-meditated actions (take Brashear or McSorley). Again, if the NHL wants to take a serious stance on eliminating or reducing injuries, why do they not revise high sticking rules? Accidental should be a minor and anything deliberate should be a double minor or major. Im not advocating liberal use of majors in the NHL, but its certainly something minor league officials do not shy away from and are encouraged to use major penalties when its called for. Thanks, Greg C. Greg: I attended my first NHL training camp for officials in 1972. While the hockey could be quite violent during that era the rule book was very thin. The book progressively expanded with new rule additions that were implemented for a variety of reasons including the fear of criminal assault charges that had already been initiated by Prosecutors. I like to think the most important changes were made to provide for player safety and ultimately prevent injury. From the time I attended that first training camp to present day, there has never been a specific penalty reference for drawing blood, contrary to what many people think. Based on a referees judgment, there has always been the opportunity to escalate an infraction from a minor penalty to a five-minute major (or match) based on the degree of violence or severity of the act, in addition to (but not limited to) the visible existence of any resulting injury. The presence of blood is just one indicator that the referee can use to determine that a player has sustained an injury. I assessed many major or match penalties based on the severity of the blow even when no apparent injury resulted. I also assessed a minor penalty when I told a player who was attempting to milk a paper-cut that I experienced a worse cut shaving. I like you am not advocating a liberal application of major penalties in the NHL but they must be applied when warranted - not just for stick infractions but especially dangerous and careless hits to the head. Concussions are currently the biggest threat to player safety and future quality of life. In most situations they are less likely to result from being struck with a stick. While referees cannot be expected to diagnose injuries like a doctor, it is imperative that they know the difference between a two-minute minor infraction and a five-minute major or match penalty. Over the past four seasons I have observed far too many situations where two referees on the ice in a game did not recognize a major infraction when it occurred or were reluctant to assess it for what it was. I often provide lectures at clinics for amateur refs, coaches and players and have compiled a video montage of examples from NHL games that I present for educational value. Several clips demonstrate major infractions that went un-penalized or where just a two-minute minor was assessed, only to result in subsequent suspensions imposed by the Player Safety Committee. The suspensions ranged from between two to five games. In one case the player served a two-minute minor, remained in the game and proceeded to score the winning goal in OT. The following day he was suspended for three games. Another player returned from a two-minute penalty for aa flying elbow to set up two goals to tie the game and then almost scored the winner in the shootout before he was suspended two games.dddddddddddd. The referees are the first line of defence in holding players accountable and to provide player safety by correctly enforcing the rules in the spirit with which they are written. If they have the slightest gut feeling the infraction was worth more than a minor my advice is to do the correct math and round up! Greg, I dusted off some old rules books I have on file. Following a prosecution and conviction in the criminal assault case when Dino Ciccarelli hit Luke Richardson over the head three times with his stick in 1988 and was sentenced to two hours of jail time, the NHL got pretty serious about high-sticking. The rule was changed to impose an automatic major and game misconduct for any high-stick that resulted in injury to an opponent (accidental or otherwise). That lasted a season or two when star players were ejected from games (especially playoff games) when they accidentally clipped a player attempting to lift their stick. A modified version followed that allowed for the referee to judge accidental versus careless high-sticking incidents and to keep players in the game. There were several new changes listed in the 1992-93 edition. Notably in response to your question Greg, and in an effort to address high-sticking incidents at the time, rule 58 (now 60) was altered rather dramatically by lowering the reference point of a high-stick from the shoulders to the WAIST. Rule 58 (a) marked as new that year stated, The carrying of sticks above the normal height of the WAIST is prohibited and a minor, double-minor or major penalty may be imposed on a player violating this rule, at the discretion of the referee. 58 (c) went on to specify if an injury resulted as a result of a player carrying his stick above the waist of the opponent a double minor was assessed if deemed to be accidental and a major and game misconduct was imposed when the high-stick was deemed careless. You might imagine what a disaster it became for the refs to differentiate between accidental and careless. Inconsistency resulted in the practical application of this rule depending upon the player involved and the game situation or the ref. Another tweak to the rule was made and the referee was to assess a double minor penalty for all contact that caused an injury, whether accidental or careless, which is as we have it in present day form. Some time prior to the 1998 season the reference point of a high-stick had also returned to carrying the stick above the SHOULDERS of an opponent. I fear history would be repeated Greg if your suggestion were ever to be implemented to assess a minor for accidental contact and anything deliberate would result in a double minor or major. A double minor addresses an injury that results from a high-stick. In more serious cases the referee has the ability to impose a match penalty for attempt or deliberately injuring his opponent. The refs just need to know the difference. If you care to examine some historical fact on how rules might have been added based on the violence associated with bench clearing brawls and excessive stick work, including high profile court cases such as Ted Green-Wayne Maki (1969), Dave Forbes-Henry Boucha (1975), Ciccarelli-Richardson (1988), and others I have attached a link to a paper written by Alex Tepperman that you might find interesting. 1. Players On Thin Ice: Hockey Violence and the Canadian Law Cheap Buffalo Sabres GearWholesale Calgary Flames JerseysCheap Adidas Colorado Avalanche JerseysMontreal Canadiens Outlet StoreWholesale New Jersey Devils JerseysAdidas Arizona Coyotes JerseysCheap Adidas Boston Bruins JerseysCheap Adidas Carolina Hurricanes JerseysChicago Blackhawks Shop Free ShippingWholesale Columbus Blue Jackets JerseysDallas Stars Shop Free ShippingCheap Adidas Detroit Red Wings JerseysAnaheim Ducks Jerseys ChinaWholesale Edmonton Oilers JerseysFlorida Panthers Shop Free ShippingWholesale Los Angeles Kings JerseysMinnesota Wild Outlet StoreCheap Adidas Nashville Predators JerseysCheap Adidas New York Islanders JerseysNew York Rangers Winter Classic JerseysCheap Adidas Ottawa Senators JerseysCheap Adidas Philadelphia Flyers JerseysWholesale Pittsburgh Penguins JerseysCheap Adidas San Jose Sharks JerseysSt. Louis Blues Winter Classic JerseysWholesale Tampa Bay Lightning JerseysToronto Maple Leafs Outlet StoreVancouver Canucks Outlet StoreCheap Adidas Vegas Golden Knights JerseysCheap Adidas Washington Capitals JerseysCheap Adidas Winnipeg Jets Jerseys ' ' '