Every night of the Stanley Cup playoffs, TSN hockey analyst and former NHL goaltender Jamie McLennan breaks down each goalies performance. Cheap Adidas Nmd Womens . Jamies number grades given are out of five, with five being the best mark. Marc-Andre Fleury, Pittsburgh (3) - It was a nightmare the last 10 minutes with three goals against in five minutes. The Anisemov goal was through the body short side, which is not great, but lost in the anxiety of the everyone watching was the big save on Calvert at 4-3 with a few minutes left. But he found a way to keep it on the rails and win a round. Not convincingly but he got the job done and its one to build on. Sergei Bobrovsky, Columbus (2) - It was not a very good series. He was beaten all four times on the blocker side in Game 6. He could have been the difference in the series if he was at the top of his game. Semyon Varlamov, Colorado (3) - The second goal was a tough 5-hole goal that he had a stick/pad malfunction. There was no chance on the other two deflected shots by Parise. Now its on to Game 7. Darcy Kuemper, Minnesota (4) - Poise comes to mind in watching his game with strong rebound control. He had no chance on the backdoor goal to Holden but made big saves on Parenteau, Stastny and OReilly in tight. This kid continues to impress. Jonathan Quick, Los Angeles (5) - He was brilliant again. He should have gotten a 4, but facing three elimination games shows mental toughness beyond explanation, plus no chance on the goal against which was a double deflection. He made huge saves on Burns, Marleau and Thornton. Alex Stalock, San Jose (2) - He wasnt a difference maker in the game. There was not much he could do on the goals against, especially the Williams goal, leaving you wondering who starts Game 7. I say Niemi. Stalock didnt convince me he should start. Adidas Springblade China . Cammalleri suffered a concussion in the Flames 2-1 loss to the Pittsburgh Penguins on Saturday. The 31-year-old forward did not travel with the team to Carolina. Cheap Mens Nmd Shoes . Wiggins, a 6-foot-8, 200-pound forward who plays his first exhibition game on Wednesday against Pitt State, was the top prospect in the class of 2013. http://www.nmdsneakerssale.com/ . Of course that doesnt mean hes ignoring it. Thats actually rather impossible given the behind-the-scenes access to the Toronto Maple Leafs the network is getting.On this weeks TSNFC podcast we spent a long time discussing the handball decision that effectively ended Vancouver Whitecaps season. Much has been said and written about whether or not World Cup referee Mark Geiger made the right call to penalize Kendall Waston in last weeks playoff match at Dallas, with many differing opinions on the matter. There doesnt seem to be a consensus, although Geigers boss - referees chief Peter Walton - said it was the correct decision and a standard call. As a veteran Premier League referee who now runs the Professional Referees Organization in North America, Waltons opinion should be respected, but the controversy surrounding the decision - and many other handball decisions we see all over the world each week - could easily be avoided if there were a change to the law. In my view, there are two things wrong with the current law. Firstly, the punishment doesnt fairly reflect the size of the crime. Secondly, there is too much room for interpretation of the referee which makes consistency of decisions almost impossible. Here are the main points of the current FIFA Law: Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration: ? the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) ? the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) ? the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement Deliberate - done consciously and intentionally I dont think Kendall Waston made a conscious and intentional decision to handle the ball inside the penalty area in the last 10 minutes of a playoff match. In my mind it was a momentary lapse in concentration from the towering defender rather than a deliberate act. In relation to this law, it seems deliberate can also mean a player didnt react quickly enough to move his hand/arm out of the way of the ball. But the fact the law allows such ambiguity means officials are in the spotlight more than necessary whether or not they get the decision right. There must be a bettter way. Yeezy Boost 350 Wholesale. Although video replays will certainly assist officials decision making in other areas, in the instance of Waston it wouldnt have made much difference because even with review, the decision would have been made depending on the officials interpretation of the law. One suggestion I have seen is to award a penalty anytime the ball hits a hand or arm inside the area whether it is intentional or not. A clear rule - it doesnt matter how it happens, if the ball strikes the hand, it is a penalty. Theres very little room for argument and interpretation there, but I think it would lead to far too many penalties and also an excessive number of game changing moments. Again, the punishment wouldnt match the offence. New Law So how about this. In order to provide clarity, I would be in favour of a rule change along the following lines: Anytime a player makes contact with the ball inside the penalty area with his hand or arm, an indirect free kick will be given. There is no room for interpretation - if it hits the arm or hand whether deliberate or not, it is an indirect free kick. There is one exception. If a player handles the ball to prevent a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity, a penalty is given. With this rule applied, Kendall Wastons handball would have been penalized with an indirect free kick, still giving the opposing team the benefit of a set piece close to goal but eliminating the need for a referee to award a penalty for an incident that was not going to end in a goal. For me, that far better reflects the size of the infringement and also would remove much of the debate surrounding penalty kicks awarded for handball. Im not na?ve enough to expect that changing the law would eliminate all problems. Im sure in some instances there would still be controversy and debate surrounding what is or isnt an obvious goal scoring opportunity. But I believe it would drastically decrease the amount of times a game is decided by a referees decision and therefore lead to more post-game talk about players instead of officiating – and that can only be a good thing. ' ' '