Beta[Mn] » ecision on the play. In the end the right decision was rend

CLEVELAND - Ben Tate doesnt have to worry about losing carries with the Browns any longer. Corey Maggette Jersey . The team released the disgruntled running back on Tuesday, two days after he was given the ball just twice in a matchup against the Houston Texans, his former team. Tate signed a two-year, $6.2 million free agent contract in March with Cleveland to be the Browns every-down back. He rushed for 333 yards, but his playing time had been dwindling with the emergence of rookies Isaiah Crowell and Terrance West. Last week, Tate said he wasnt satisfied with Clevelands running backs rotation and the team decided to move on without him. Browns general manager Ray Farmer explained the move in a release. With all the transactions we make while constructing our roster, it will always be our intent to do what is best for our football team, Farmer said. This move is no different and we wish Ben the best going forward. On Sunday, Tate was made a captain for the game against the Texans, his team for four seasons. But he had just two rushes for minus-9 yards and initially declined interviews following the game. Tate began to leave the locker room without talking to reporters, but was coaxed to stay by a member of the teams media relations staff. Tate was short with his answers and got into a brief exchange with one reporter who suggested Tate didnt look happy. Did I tell you that? Tate said, with the reporter replying that Tate seemed unhappy. Oh it seemed. Do you know me personally? Tate said. Exactly, so you dont know. Youre assuming now. Tate, who made six starts this season, rushed for 124 yards against Tennessee but hasnt been as productive in recent weeks. On Monday, Browns coach Mike Pettine was asked what had happened to Tate. Nothing I would speak on here, he said before praising Crowell and West. The young backs — and Ive talked of this before about West — is that theres an explosiveness there with the young backs, just a little bit more pop. We wanted to see those guys out there. Sometimes its not a matter of a negative against a guy. Sometimes its more of a positive with the other ones, but we take everything into account when we discuss the running backs. ___ AP NFL websites: http://www.pro32.ap.org and http://www.twitter.com/AP_NFL Blake Griffin Jersey .Y. -- AJ Allmendingers journey is almost complete. Stitched Clippers Jerseys . 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. https://www.cheapclippersonline.com/1330h-landry-shamet-jersey-clippers.html . The Heat centre scored 10 of his 30 points early in the first quarter to silence the Toronto fans as Miami defeated the Raptors 113-101 on Friday night.In the Predators/Habs game Saturday night, Montreals second, go-ahead goal was ultimately disallowed after review (I believe the ref stated that after all four officials determined that the puck had not crossed the line). Now, correct me if Im wrong but I saw one official distinctly pointing at the net indicating a good goal but after an inconclusive review they overturned the goal. Shouldnt the ruling on the ice (good goal) stand after an inconclusive review? Why was this overturned? James Veaudry Pembroke, ON -- Hey Kerry, Youll get a lot of these, but why was the Montreal goal against Nashville Saturday night overturned? Eller puts the puck on net and the on ice ruling from the ref behind the net is a Montreal goal. After much delay, the same ref announces that after a review with all on ice officials, the ruling is the puck never crossed the goal line. How is this possible? Ive always believed that if the video review is inconclusive, which it obviously was, then the call on ice stands. How is the other ref from the blue line supposed to tell if a puck crosses the line? Let alone be able to overrule the ref inches away. The ref simply changed his mind after the play. Is that allowed? Sounds pretty shady to me. Thanks, Dave -- Hi Kerry! Last night I was bouncing out of my chair with excitement when the red light came on, Lars Eller celebrated and the referee pointed indicating a goal in the third period. Then suddenly the referees decided to review the play as there was question about whether the puck had actually crossed the line. After watching the replays myself, it was unclear whether the puck made it over the line or not because it was hidden under Rinnes body. Seeing this, I was all but sure that the goal had to stand, because from my understanding the referees needed undeniable evidence to over-turn an on-ice call. But that wasnt the case. The referee announced that "The four referees agree that the puck did not enter the net" which indicated to this viewer that, they too were unsure but had a chat about it, and I suppose used their judgment, to deicide the puck had never crossed the line. What I dont understand is how they can make this new judgment with inconclusive evidence? Moreover, how a referee can clearly call a goal a goal, and then change his opinion moments later? Could you clear up my confusion with the rules on this matter? Thanks! Rob -- To All Disappointed Habs Fans: Upon further information gathering from all vantage points on the ice by the officiating crew, including a seemingly definitive confirmation from the situation room video review, the referee on the goal line changed his initial quick reaction decision and correctly determined that the puck did not cross the goal line - no goal! At no time do we see the puck cross the goal line on thiis play. Pooh Richardson Jersey. The official statement found on the Situation Room blog posting at NHL.com is as follows; “Video review determined that Montreal Canadiens forward Lars Ellers shot did not cross the goal line. No goal Montreal.” (See Situation Room review here. Having witnessed referee Chris Rooney point to the net to signal a goal I trust it is the referees announcement that is causing you confusion (“The call on the ice by the four officials that the puck did not cross the goal line and that is confirmed (by video review)…”) and not the correct final decision that was ultimately rendered. All confusion would have been eliminated had the announcement by the referee simply been; “Video review has confirmed that the puck did not cross the goal line, the initial call on the ice is overturned - no goal.” Let me explain the protocol and how the process most likely worked in this situation. In the event that video review returns an “inconclusive” verdict the referees are required to make a decision (communicated with a point into the net or washout signal) from their vantage point when it appears the puck has entered the net. Sometimes the “vantage point” a referee has in that moment is not always the best one. For this reason, the four officials on the ice are required to conference and provide input from their respective vantage points as an added ‘safety check. This is in addition to video review that takes place. Through the conference process considerable doubt must have been created in referee Rooneys mind and caused him to change his initial reaction to the play. The obvious answer is the referee needs to see the puck cross the line before pointing to the net. In real time other factors can complicate this decision. In fairness on this play, the referees approach to the net was from the opposite corner from behind the goal line. This route caused an obstructed view looking through the net and the back of Predators sprawled goalie Pekka Rinne. The refs focus was also split between a penalty that he signaled to David Legwand for cross-checking Eller just as the Montreal forward flipped the puck toward Rinne. With Rinnes body position sprawled deep into the net and across the goal line, Rooneys gut reaction and instinct told him the puck had crossed the line from his vantage point. As required, the ref made his initial decision but once a consultation took place with the other crew members Rooney correctly changed his opinion on the play. It would have been less confusing and more efficient had the ref not communicated the result of the Officiating Crews ‘internal process that caused him to change his initial decision on the play. In the end the right decision was rendered. Sometimes the less said the better! ' ' '