We often speak of moments when it comes to football. Hayes Pullard Jersey . The 90-plus minutes of play are about trends and approach. A lot happens in that span, altering the course of a game. There is an epidemic emerging among onlookers focusing on useless stats, some with meaning but few telling the true story. Its the moments that define a match and decide its fate. Two particular moments Sunday not only defined their respective matches, but also the tournament as a whole. No minute played will ever encapsulate the positive nature of this tournament better than in time added between Switzerland and Ecuador in Brasilia. With the match level at 1-1, the South American side saw weakness in an underperforming Swiss team and nobly was pushing for a winner. Antonio Valencia found space down the right side and played a good ball to Michael Arroyo inside the top of the box. Arroyos touch was heavy and the Ecuadorian hesitated. That moment of indecision gave Swiss central midfielder Valon Behrami time to get stuck in, coming to the rescue with a picture perfect game saving tackle. Behrami, who struggled throughout the match, didnt stop there. He started the counter-attack from inside his own box with purpose, sprinting with the ball down the middle of the field. Behrami was met by a crunching challenge, a clear foul by any standard. Behrami went down but wasnt out. Many players in that situation would have stayed down, waited for the whistle and killed off the match and settle for the point, but not Behrami. The midfielder immediately jumped to his feet and carried on his run. Huge credit goes to the referee, Ravshan Irmatov of Uzbekistan, who refereed a very good match. No moment was better than allowing play to continue after the foul. Advantage earned, advantage given. So many officials in the game are over-anxious, especially when a player goes down, to blow their whistle and halt proceedings. Irmatov read the play, was patient and the game carried on. It was truly expert officiating. Switzerland carried on their move. Within seconds, the ball was played wide right by Behrami. The ball kept moving, with the switch of play on. Ricardo Rodriguez had been flying down the left flank all day long. He was open and he got the ball. Rodriguez took a touch, brought his head up and played a perfect ball to the near post. Substitute Haris Seferovic obliged, making the near-post run, getting on the end of the weighted pass to knock in the winner with seconds to play. It was spectacular football in all phases of the build-up and worthy of the game winning goal on any occasion, let alone in World Cup play. It was excellence personified, from the tackle to the fair play, from the officiating to the counter-attack and the finish. The end result may be harsh on Ecuador. They deserved something from a match well played. A goal in such a manner can only sting so much. It was a defining moment for all thats good and right in the game of football. The second defining moment came between France and Honduras in a rugged, physical match where Honduras was content to kick and hack. The ‘H on their jerseys must stand for hatchet job. It was largely disgraceful. Nevermind the overall quality of the match, it was the moment goal-line technology made its true arrival at the World Cup and signals progressive change, benefiting the game to the highest degree. In the 48th minute and France up 1-0, Karim Benzema broke in and put the ball off the post, rebounding off goalkeeper Noel Valladares before it appeared to cross the goal-line. Benzema celebrated, but was it a goal? In a matter of seconds, referee Emerson De Carvalho pointed to half and the goal was ruled ‘good. De Carvalho was notified immediately of the good goal call and pointed to half. The viewer may have been confused, but there was no indecision by the officiating crew. It took a minute and ten seconds for the video replay to show on the screen. Initial panic on Twitter was complete nonsense, as the first goal-line review showed ‘no goal. Those who were patient enough came to realize the first adjudication had nothing to do with the ball of the post, and that two goal decisions using the technology were needed. The second review came after the ball went off the back of Valladares. By the slimmest of margins, the video showed the ball had crossed the line. The margin for error with the technology is said to be plus- or minus-1.5cm. The ball couldnt have crossed the line by much more than that. But we have to trust the technology. There is no point using it if we dont. Honduras Head Coach Luis Fernandez Suarez unsurprisingly protested. French Head Coach Didier Deschamps tried to explain, but how do you plead for common sense to someone acting irrational? Arguing against goal-line technology is like arguing against gravity: It is nonsensical. The call was right. There is no point arguing. After the protests ceased, the match carried on. It took two minutes, thirty seconds total to go through the process, celebrate and calm emotions. Two minutes, thirty seconds to make sure the call was right. This was no Frank Lampard foot-over-the-line in Bloemfontein we are talking about here. It was mere centimeters. The debate is done. Good goal and we move on. This stands as a watershed moment for FIFA and world soccer. For goal-line technology to work so effectively on the world stage is a testament to progression in the game. It is an overwhelming success and must be instituted in all major leagues, worldwide. It begs the question what else this technology can be used for and how far the game is willing to go with technology. Offside calls? Perhaps thats the next step in the evolution of the game, to get the call right. These were two very different moments, but two tremendously important ones. The World Cup continues to live up to all the hype. There have been 37 goals in 11 matches, the most through this many games since 1958. Three goals or more have been scored in 10 out of the 11 matches played and in the game there were not three goals, two were disallowed that should have stood. The tournament has been spectacular. With moments like these, we can truly call it the beautiful game. Sit back and enjoy. Contact Gareth Wheeler: gareth.wheeler@bellmedia.ca Twitter: @WheelerTSN Jahleel Addae Jersey . In their first meeting for six years, the Frenchmen dropped serve twice in the first set, but Giquel broke Simon two more times in the second. Gicquel moves on to face sixth-seeded Jarkko Nieminen of Finland, who advanced with a 7-6 (5), 7-6 (5) win against wild card Pierre-Hugues Herbert, despite the Frenchmans 23 aces. Jason Verrett Jersey . Miikka Kiprusoff had just announced his retirement after a decade-long run in Calgary and it would be up to Berra and Ramo to fill the void. http://www.chargersauthenticshop.com/Chargers-Justin-Jones-Draft-Jersey/ . -- Craig Anderson has quite a record against his former team, the Florida Panthers.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. Hey Kerry, I need you to explain this to me. How can you call opposite, offsetting penalties at the same time? By this I mean calling a diving penalty right alongside and tripping penalty? In Saturdays Canucks-Flames game, there was an offsetting penalty called against Kevin Bieska and Markus Granlund. Bieksa was called for hooking while Granlund was called for holding the stick. My question is how you can call these penalties? How can a player be called for tripping if the other player was diving?? How can Kevin be called for hooking when the Calgary player clearly had a hold of his stick? For me this does not make sense. If I dive, then you clearly did not trip me. If I tripped you, then clearly you did not dive. Please help clarify this so I do not have to yell louder at the TV while watching games. Thanks, Justin Clark, Vancouver Justin: First, let me explain how offsetting penalties can in fact be called on a play, after which I will provide my take on why that should not have been the case once Markus Granlund grabbed and pulled Kevin Bieksas stick under and through his own arms. Justin, you cited diving as a secondary penalty which often leaves fans confused and scratching their heads. Diving/embellishment is a current hot-button-issue that has been allowed to flourish in recent years. Embellishment thrived in epidemic proportions during the playoffs last season and drew comparisons to poor theatrical performances demonstrated in soccer. Until this current season, the referees have not been given the full support of management that they required to eradicate diving from the game. Had the refs received the necessary support, I am confident embellishment would have been greatly diminished similar to the successful measures taken to deal with obstruction a few years ago. Any previous lack of support however, appears to have changed through a strong mandate given to the officials at their training camp in September and continued to this point of the season. Players are being held accountable for unnatural falls to various forms of restraint (illegal or otherwise). While it is not often that we see a stand-alone diving penalty, they have been assessed with more frequency this season than in the past. Repeat diving offenders are not only being fined but are subjected to public embarrassment and additional scrutiny by the officiating community by having their names published. Let me explain how a referee can call a tripping infraction and a diving penalty on the same play. Once the referee raises his arm to signal any infraction that he determines has been committed, the resulting actions of the player fouled are also under close scrutiny. Nothing used to annoy me more than when I responded immediately to a legitimate infraction only to have the player that had been fouled attempt to sell it through embellishment/diving. Players that embellish must be held accountable ffor their dishonesty along with the ultimate embarrassment they heap upon the game. Dan Feeney Jersey. The referees are charged to use their authority and discretion wisely when determining if a player resorts to embellishment. I support them in their efforts. While I fully support the referees cause to eliminate diving and readily admit that offsetting penalties are sometimes deserved, I do not believe that Kevin Bieksa committed a hooking violation on this play. Bieksa cut across from his right side defence position, just inside the Canuck blue line, to accidentally deflect a loose puck onto the stick of Granlund who was attacking the Canuck zone from his right side. Bieksa responded by bringing his stick down and across the thigh pad of Granlund in an effort to apply a legal stick-check. The stick of Bieska did not hook or impede the hands or body of the Flames attacker at this point but instead bounced off Granlunds thigh pad. Bieksas stick was then firmly grabbed and controlled by the left hand of Granlund. Referees are instructed to apply a catch and release standard whenever a player uses his hand to relocate a stick that is placed in a vulnerable or unsafe location about his body. The legal catch and release (closing hand on the stick for safety measures) is distinctly different from fending off an active stick check with an open palm or forearm designed to protect the puck. Both maneuvers are deemed legal so long as the closed hand on the stick is executed quickly and only designed to move an opponents out of harms way. If the stick is held for any extended time to gain an advantage then a minor penalty should be assessed to the attacking player for holding the stick. (Rule 54.2) On this play the referee did not react to Bieksas initial stick-check action, nor did he respond by raising his arm when Granlund firmly grasped the stick in his hand and continued attacking toward the net. Bieksa had no choice but to raise his right arm in surrender and ultimately give up on the play, aside from continuing to move his feet, once his stick was effectively taken from him. Granlund could have avoided a penalty if he had released and pushed the stick away from his body in this moment. Instead, Granlund used his hand to further relocate Bieksas stick under his left arm and across his body. At this point of the play the referee had still not yet raised his arm to signal an infraction for either hooking (Bieksa) or holding of the stick (Granlund). It wasnt until Granlund attempted to make a play near the net and lost the puck that the referee raised his arm and assessed offsetting minor penalties. The only infraction committed on this play was by Markus Granlund. Since Granlund had possession and control of the puck at the time he grabbed, relocated, and clamped down on Bieksas stick the whistle should have been blown to impose a holding the stick penalty prior to any subsequent attempt by the Calgary attacker to make a play with the puck. There are situations when offsetting penalties are most appropriate Justin, this just wasnt one of them. Cheap Denver Nuggets Jerseys Cheap Minnesota Timberwolves Jerseys Cheap Oklahoma City Thunder Jerseys Cheap Portland Trail Blazers Jerseys Cheap Utah Jazz Jerseys Cheap Los Angeles Clippers Jerseys Cheap Los Angeles Lakers Jerseys Cheap Phoenix Suns Jerseys Cheap Sacramento Kings Jerseys Cheap Dallas Mavericks Jerseys Cheap Houston Rockets Jerseys Cheap Memphis Grizzlies Jerseys Cheap New Orleans Pelicans Jerseys Cheap San Antonio Spurs Jerseys Cheap Golden State Warriors Jerseys ' ' '