James Anderson took a third Test 10-wicket haul as England thrashed Sri Lanka by an innings and 88 runs in the first Investec Test at Headingley. Rod Carew Jersey . Anderson ended with match figures of 10-45 on Saturday as he took 5-29 in Sri Lankas second innings to go with his five-for in the first.For a large part of the third day though, it looked like England would be frustrated in their push for victory by both the weather and some determined Sri Lanka batting.Though Anderson removed Dimuth Karunaratne for seven in the third over, and opening partner Kaushaul Silva (14) in the 11th, the visitors doggedly fought to 77-2 at lunch, with Stuart Broad and Steven Finn failing to find their straps early on, and Ben Stokes off injured.Kusal Mendis - 47 not out at the time - was dropped by James Vince off Broad with the final ball of the first session to further frustrate England after Bairstow had earlier put him down on 29. James Vince dropped Kushal Mendis on 47 with the last ball before lunch Rain had taken the players off early and when play did finally resume after an extended interval, Mendis (53) notched a deserved maiden Test fifty, but a reinvigorated England started to make regular inroads.Moeen Ali removed Dinesh Chandinal - bowled chopping on - in his solitary over and the first following the break.Sri Lanka skipper Angelo Mathews and Mendis then fell in consecutive overs, with the former edging Broad (1-57) behind to Bairstow and the latter playing Anderson onto his stumps. Moeen Ali bowled only one over in the Test but took a wicket in it Bairstow added a ninth catch to his impressive first Test haul as Anderson took the wicket of Dasun Shanaka, while Finn picked up his first of the series shortly before tea, Rangana Herath caught at cover.Sri Lanka didnt last long after the interval, Finn taking the wickets of Dushmantha Chameera and Lahiru Thirimanne (16) in the first over back, before Anderson sealed Englands win and secured his 10-for by bowling Nuwan Pradeep.Catch highlights from day three of the third Test from 8.30pm on Sky Sports 1, with The Verdict following immediately after at 9.30pm. Bert Blyleven Jersey . Lack made 20 saves for his third shutout of the season as the Canucks blanked the St. Louis Blues 1-0 in the first post-Olympic game for both teams night. Kent Hrbek Jersey . However, Therrien added that Galchenyuks status for next Wednesdays game against the Detroit Red Wings is questionable. Galchenyuk has been out since Jan. 6 with a broken right hand. http://www.cheaptwinsjerseys.com/ . Trailing 2-1 from the first leg, Fiorentina levelled on aggregate in the 14th minute when Joaquin Sanchez Rodriguez headed back a long ball from David Pizarro and Pasqual smashed home an angled volley.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. Hello Mr. Fraser, Im watching ?the Toronto/San Jose game on Thursday and Im pretty sure that I just watched a blatant violation of an official rule. On the second goal at about 9:00 in the first period, officially awarded to Patrick Marleau, Matt Nieto drives the net going after the puck behind James Reimer and hits Reimers right pad with his stick and then ?Reimers pad pushes the puck is. This apparently is okay according to Rule 69.6 (I think) which says that if its incidental contact with the goalie in the crease, a goal that results is perfectly legal. On the other hand, 69.3 says that if a goal results from a player making contact with the goalie inside the crease, incidental or not, the goal is disallowed. It seems to me that the goal shouldnt count but it did. Am I missing something or is that correct? Cheers, Joe McLaughlin Joe, This is not a good goal as reported by referee Brad Watson following video review but more appropriately described as a dirty goal. The goal was credited to Patrick Marleau because he was the last San Jose Sharks player to touch the puck before the pad of James Reimer propelled the puck into the net. At least the player most responsible for the goal, Matt Nieto was credited with an assist after he contacted the puck on a one-touch pass in the neutral zone to Marleau. The reason Nieto wasnt credited with the goal is because he did not legally propel the puck into the net with his stick or by a deflection off his body. Rule 78 credits a goal in the scoring records to a player who shall have propelled the puck into the opponents goal. A goal shall be scored when the puck shall have been put between the goal posts by the stick of a player of the attacking side. The rule also states that a goal shall be scored if the puck is put into the goal in any way by a player of the defending side and the player of the attacking side who last touched the puck is credited with the goal. Two rules are potentially at play here, Joe, that in my judgment, should negate this goal. First, I do not believe the incidental contact application found in Rule 69.6 would apply. It states that in a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a resullt thereof will be allowed. Jose Berrios Jersey. Nieto was not, by his actions, playing a loose puck. I doubt very much that he even saw the puck that was positioned behind the right pad and between the legs of Reimers butterfly set. Nieto deliberately struck and pushed Reimers lower pad and skate. This was a net crash on the goalkeeper that caused the puck to cross the goal-line. The actions of Nieto are more appropriately described in the spirit and intent of the second paragraph of Rule 69.6 that says, 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. I say spirit and intent because while the force exerted by Nieto to Reimers pad was sufficient to cause the puck to be propelled into the net but the goalkeeper was not. If a common sense extension of this segment of the rule is too much for anyone to envision, the language found in Rules 69.1 and 69.3 offer more clear evidence as to why this potential goal should have been disallowed. The smoking gun is found in Rule 69.1. The rule states that goals should be disallowed if an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his crease. For purposes of this rule, contact, whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review. Disallowing this goal is further supported by the specific language contained in Rule 69.3 (Contact Inside the Goal Crease) as you suggested, Joe. From his position behind the net, referee Watsons initial instinct was to wave off the goal. Something obviously didnt smell right for him as he looked through the back of Reimer and Nazem Kadri. The ref immediately looked for input from the other members of the officiating crew. A decision to allow the goal must have resulted from that conference. Since video replay is unable to rule upon a potential violation of goalkeeper interference, their only input on this play was to establish that the puck entered the net, hence the good goal terminology. General managers, please provide the referees with the capability to more accurately determine the presence of goalie interference through a video monitor located in the penalty box. Your team just might be recipients of the next dirty goal that is allowed unjustly. Cheap Steelers Jerseys Cheap Patriots Jerseys Cheap Bills Jerseys Cheap Jets Jerseys Cheap Giants Jerseys Cheap Redskins Jerseys Cheap Bears Jerseys Cheap Eagles Jerseys Cheap Cardinals Jerseys Cheap Jaguars Jerseys Cheap Raiders Jerseys Cheap Dolphins Jerseys Cheap Panthers Jerseys Cheap Lions Jerseys Cheap Browns Jerseys ' ' '