Commentary: Replay Call Wrong

Audio Spotlight

• Notre Dame's Lawson on disallowed goal
  Notre Dame defenseman Kyle Lawson talks to CHN's Mike Machnik about his disallowed goal in the NCAA Championship Game.

I agree that it was a bad call and even as a Notre Dame follower I will admit it probably didn't change the outcome of the game. Since I am also a Wisconsin fan, I've been stricken twice now by the replay bug. The common thread WCHA officiating, although I think all sports fans can agree this happens in all levels of sports with replays most notably the NFL. I think the official's egos get in the way and sometimes they aren't willing to admit things are inconclusive. Bottom line the correct rules are in place as far as reviewing goals the officials just need the guts to sometimes say "I can't tell." Although after the two horrible calls against St. Cloud and Wisconsin this one was not as clear cut one way or the other.
Apr 13 2008, 12:39 am by

After watching the various replays numerous times, my impression is that this 'no-goal' unfolded much as Adam described it, and yet as time dragged on ... and on ... and on ... it was clear Notre Dame was about to get hosed. I feel for the Irish and their fans, but certainly NOT for Jeff Jackson, as to my mind this is simply karmic pay-back for the tie-breaking "goal that wasn't" (pre-video review) late in the 3rd period of the 1994 West Regional game between Lake Superior State & N'Eastern. This was the potential game-winner that LSSU goalie Blaine Lacher later described (with a big grin) as having crossed the goal line 'all except for the A in Czechoslovakia' (then commonly printed on pucks). Jackson and his Lakers would go on to win that game on their 1st shot in ot, and eventually bring home the Big Trophy too, Jackson's 2nd National Title. But IMHO he / they 'won' vs. N'Eastern only by dint of a fortunate break from the officials, and now - what goes around, comes around. Heh ...
Apr 13 2008, 1:37 am by JL, upstate NY

Shepperd blows and Notre Dame got screwed....once again the Shepperd family line makes the WCHA refs look completely incompetent.
Apr 13 2008, 2:12 am by J, Denver

I saw the call from several angles and slow-mo...and that was a BAD CALL.
Apr 13 2008, 2:29 am by Chris H, Grand Forks ND

Terrible call. Once again, WCHA refs got it completely wrong.
Apr 13 2008, 3:47 am by EO, Rochester, MN

Have to agree, Adam. At this point, if the NCAA can't get officials who understand and can apply the rule as written, maybe they need to remove judgment from the equation entirely and either decide that no goal can go in off an offensive player's skate, or that it doesn't matter if the puck goes in off a skate at all, no matter the player's intent. The phrase "kicking motion" is problematic. It doesn't seem to imply contact at all, which from my perspective would seem to be a necessary element. As you mentioned, Lawson did try to kick it, but missed. The previous motion from his skate was not a "distinctive kicking motion" at all, but merely a deflection. With all the time and equipment at their disposal in the most important game of the year, the officials can't get this right-- what hope can one have for every other game?
Apr 13 2008, 6:47 am by David Josselyn, Andover

The replay official substituted his judgment for that of the on-ice officials, which is inappropriate in the absence of conclusive error. Obviously, there was no "conclusive" error. BC played like champions. It is a shame to have their "victory" tarnished by the fact that it was handed to them by an overzealous replay official. The better decision would have been to let the on-ice decision stand, and let the game be decided by the skaters. Clearly, the replay official had to know that he was effectively deciding the game...from the booth...on a disputed call. This is poor judgment.
Apr 13 2008, 6:49 am by MTM, Downstate IL

This is not the first super-slo-mo replay Greg Shepherd has blown, and it won't be the last...unless he's somehow removed from that position. In addition to his lack of visual acuity looking at frame-by-frame replay, he's virtually sightless out on the ice. I'm not sure he knows what constitutes holding, elbowing, or hooking. Apparently we can add "kicking motions" to that list.
Apr 13 2008, 7:32 am by Siouxfan, Duluth

I think you could flip a coin on this call. Since BC won the game, this wouldn't be mentioned but what about 50% of the penalties called on BC? They looked like some BAD calls!
Apr 13 2008, 8:00 am by Sr.Atlanta, Atlanta, GA

The nepotism that the WCHA and the NCAA allows to happen with the Shepard family is very irresponsible. They are unprofessional and spend most of their time protecting each other, rather than the entire officiating fraternity. Other refs will not speak out due to Greg Shepard's intimidating style. They are poor refs. Derek Shepard was terrible in the NE regional and his brother was in the way on countless plays as the linesman. Terrible call last night, terrible situation with Daddy protecting two poor officials (his sons)!
Apr 13 2008, 9:15 am by

After watching the replay, Notre Dame got screwed. Once again the refs make their bad call which could have caused the outcome of the game to be in Notre Dame's favor. That call caused the momentum swing from Notre Dame to B.C. So final outcome: Notre Dame got screwed!
Apr 13 2008, 9:47 am by Big Al, CT

How would you like to have spent an ENTIRE SEASON suffering through this kind of crappy officiating and lack of 'vision' as WCHA fans?! While I have my issues with Todd Anderson's demeanor and lack of consistency, at least he got the initial call correct. Inconclusive = on-ice calls stands -- as it should have. I agree about the unfortunate tarnish on BC's victory (they smoked our Sioux and looked poised to do the same at times to the Irish) -- but it was entirely avoidable. All three of the Shepherds have been some of the worst officials for years (no question where the youngest gets his lack of insight and temperament!) -- but they in turn make Randy Schmidt the scapegoat. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES -- AND NO VISION (nor do the "princes")!
Apr 13 2008, 11:21 am by Sioux_Me, Grand Forks

The one major problem I have with replay is that even with clear evidence they still can't get the wrong right. Overall, I think I was more disappointed with the finals matchup. No offense, but I must admit I had little interest in ND being in this game. It wasn't good for the promotion of the game of hockey to have their "style of play" in the NCAA's showcase game. Odd that I love fundamentally sound basketball, but want up and down the ice hockey games.
Apr 13 2008, 11:37 am by L. Loomer, La Crosse WI

Did Shepard have any angle besides the overhead? Form the overhead, I can see that it looked like he kicked the puck. The other angles show that he didn't 'kick' his foot until after the puck deflected off. He was directing the puck with his skate, but that is allowed.
Apr 13 2008, 11:37 am by

Now you can see what the rest of the WCHA has been complaining about all season long. Does anyone have an video of it? I was looking over on YouTube and I haven't found it yet.
Apr 13 2008, 11:55 am by WCHA fan in ND

Questionable call; in the replay it looked like he did swing his foot towards the puck as it went in, did he actually touch the puck? Not sure, but that is the game of hockey, no one is perfect even in replay. I'm glad BC won being a Hockey East fan. The best part of college hockey is the up & down skating of fast strong teams. I congratulate Notre Dame for their wonderful heroic effort getting this far, but I do not care for the trap style of hockey they play at center ice. It slows the game down too much. In Hockey East you have teams in the past like UMass - Amherst, Providence & Vermont playing that style of hockey and it leads to very boring games. Bottomline; BC played well, scored more goals and I believe would have won this game even if the goal had been allowed. Now let's stop doing our 20/20 hindsight review, remember how great the season was and enjoy the summer. The team I love UNH layed an egg AGAIN this year in the NCAA's, but life goes on. Peace to all.
Apr 13 2008, 12:29 pm by Charlie in N.H.

How was this a no goal?
Apr 13 2008, 1:58 pm by Jeff

Now the rest of the nation can see the terrible officials we have in the WCHA. And Greg Sheppard, who botched the call, is proving that that our terrible officiating starts at the top!
Apr 13 2008, 2:10 pm by UNDAlum_GoSioux, Fargo

This is the same Greg Shepherd who in 1998 had to publicly apologize to two youth baseball teams for yelling at them to get off a field. This is the same Greg Shepherd who disrupted the 9 and 10 year-old boy's championship at the West St. Paul Sports Complex on Father's Day, June 17, 2007, when he yelled at an umpire. This is the same Greg Sheperd who judged the skills contest on Friday at the Frozen Four and fupped duck on those. This is the same Greg Sheperd who was a former city councilman in W. St. Paul who was always in the general direction of a fishy news story. It's too bad this story won't pick up any legs.
Apr 13 2008, 2:59 pm by Frank, W. St. Paul, MN

ND got screwed. That was the worst call I had seen. I'm a MN-Duluth hockey fan but watch the tourney anyway because I love college hockey. How about the BC player diving on an ND player's back and tackling him to the ice during a power play which would have given ND a 4 on 2? No call there either.

What makes Shepherd look really bad is that he sent a note to the announcer's booth for Gary Thorne... trying to explain away his position. He botched that too.

Hockey needs to get rid of him.
Apr 13 2008, 3:06 pm by Jody, Duluth, MN

Can't comment on the WCHA refs or the style of ND hockey. From a novice's standpoint, the last 15 minutes of the game was a waste of time. It was obvious that the call took a potentially exciting finish and ruined it. Haven't seen the replay, don't care. Games like this shouldn't be decided on replay. Let the players and the on ice officials do their jobs. Why review just the goals, why not the penalties or the offsides calls for that matter? Why not have a replay for baseball and review balls and strikes and close plays? Baseball is smarter that's why. Allow some on-ice human error and replace incompetent refs with good ones. People make mistakes and miscalculations from time to time, and that's how some goals are scored (turnovers, deflections, etc), not taken away by some Wizard of Oz behind the scenes. ND was affected by the ruling, the fans were taken out of the game, and I was disgusted with the delay. This is a shame. Congrats to BC for their title.
Apr 13 2008, 3:15 pm by Mike, Los Angeles, CA

He has it right. The puck was NOT kicked in the net but rather deflected in. I have watched all the replays and the Referee on the ice got it right. Oh well. I loved the way BC out hustled the other teams. One and out is tough on everyone. Looking forward to next year.
Apr 13 2008, 3:23 pm by Thomas J. Setter,Anthem, Arizona.

Can we PLEASE get this family out of the Referree business!!! I am so tired of watching them screw things up and make everyone skeptical of the WCHA ref's.
Apr 13 2008, 6:27 pm by Dave, Duluth

Thanks, Adam, for giving this huge story the attention it deserves. It was, to put it mildly, a travesty. Kids work their whole lives to make it to this point, parents sacrifice, coaches mold teams, competition is intense...then a national championship played before a packed house and watched by many more on ESPN is decided by the likes of a Greg Shepherd, just one of the 'old boys club' who gets to make mistake after mistake without any consequences. If we want college hockey to be taken seriously, and gain a larger audience, we need to improve the overall quality of officiating...and eliminate the frauds like Shepherd.
Apr 13 2008, 8:45 pm by JP, Minneapolis

How do so many people get the mistaken impression that ND plays a trap? Jackson stresses playing fundamentally strong defense, certainly, but that's a different matter than playing to trap and slow the game down. ND was one of the top offensive teams in the country before our offense disappeared in January; we haven't spent the whole season trying to win games 2 - 1. Gary Thorne noted, correctly, early in the Michigan game that both teams skated well and liked to get out in transition.
Apr 13 2008, 11:50 pm by Craig, South Bend

I was at the game at Munn arena in 1994 tha JL referred to. You couldn't tell from the stands because the puck was under Lacher but it had to be close....I'm not sure he knew either. However, in the 1993 final the Lakers Sean Tallaire apparently scored the tying goal with 30-40 seconds left in the game. It hit the back top and was in and out so fast no one saw it but he swore it was in. No above goal cams then but if you watch the ESPN game tape, the puck disappears for 3-4 frames and then reappears in front of the crossbar. So maybe 1994 was the payback. I agree that there was not enough evidence to negate the ND goal.
Apr 14 2008, 7:46 am by JB, Mich

It was a WCHA referee, of course they got it wrong.
Apr 14 2008, 8:52 am by Aaron, Moorhead

This was an outrageous call and totally turned around the game. ND was coming on, and at 3-2, anything could have happened in the final 15 minutes. It seems to be a case of someone wanting to feel powerful and have an influence on the game. And how could the 'evidence' be strong enough to overrule the goal, if it took 10 minutes to evaluate it. Ridiculous. It makes our sport look like a joke.
Apr 14 2008, 8:52 am by Lifelong fan, Midwest

As a avid fan cheering BC on to their win (finally) this call really ruined the mood in the room for us. We don't have HD or anything but it was obvious enough he completely whiffed with his right foot. Hell half of us were drunk and we could figure it out after they replayed it once at the right angle. wcha refs once again managed to job TWO teams not in their league and will probably get away with it...
Apr 14 2008, 10:08 am by Ryan, Boston

It may have been a bad call, but it was not the reason Notre Dame lost the game. If they could've taken advantage of at least one of the eight PP's they were given, it would have been a closer game. But, they let the game get away from they after the goal wave-off, BC scored, game over.
Apr 14 2008, 12:41 pm by LH, Medford, MA

My real question is how the WCHA conned themselves into being able to referee the semifinals and finals games in the first place. Everyone knows that Greg Shepard just watches out for his two sons and (somehow) loves Todd Anderson, who is a complete tool and joke of a ref. The WCHA needs to clean house from top to bottom, not be able to screw up calls in the most important of games.
Apr 14 2008, 4:08 pm by Jack, Minneapolis MN

That's right. In all the hubbub over Shepherd's horrible call, we almost forgot about Anderson, who was really clueless for much of the two games he called. Absolutely inconsistent, to the point the players don't know what to expect next. Whatever Red said to him after Thursday's first period must have worked, because Michigan got away with everything they wanted in the second period. I thought I was watching a Mich-ND football replay, there was so much tackling.
Apr 14 2008, 5:43 pm by JP, Minneapolis

We should all send in applications to McLoud for the WCHA Head of Officials job. Make them serious or humorous, whatever you want. his email Add. I believe is bmcloud@du.edu
Apr 14 2008, 5:45 pm by Tom, Fargo

I agree that this was a goal. However, the only reason I'm not as angry about it as I could be is because Lawson was attempting to kick it in. He just got lucky that it bounced off his skate before he started the kick.
Apr 14 2008, 7:00 pm by Randy, Denver

I agree that he was attempting to kick but he was likely trying to kick it to his stick to tap it in. The BC player tied up his stick , Lawson missed the puck and it rolled into the net. What player would intentionally kick it in knowing it wouls be replayed to death. Shoulda been a goal....would have made for a heck of a finish, too.
Apr 14 2008, 7:52 pm by JB, Mich

Craig in South Bend, How do people get the "mistaken impression" about ND playing the trap? By watching the game and seeing them set-up in a NZ trap. It isn't a mistake. They trapped in every game I saw them play.
Apr 14 2008, 11:14 pm by Donald, Anchorage

A terrible call, yes B.C. probably would have still held on to win but as you know hockey is a game in that there are several momemtum changes and especially in a title game. Once again a wcha ref blew a call in an ncaa title game, how many times can that happen?
Apr 15 2008, 8:50 am by Dave, Tilton,N.H.

he kicked the puck with his left skate and directed it with his right. The move with the right skate was legal, but the goal only counts if the propulsion of the puck had been initiated with a stick, it was not, it was done with a distinct kicking motion with his left skate. Adam, you are a pretty knowledgable commentator, and surely knowledgable enough to know that you should not be poo pooing a ref who knows more than you in an open forum. (rules interpretation is up to the officials and the rules committees. Shep got the call right).
Apr 15 2008, 11:32 am by Tim, Bangor, ME

Tim, Please feel free to watch the video of the play here: ... http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=3344489 ... You can watch that video 100 times, and you will NEVER see him kick the puck with his left skate either. He does the SAME thing with his left as with his right -- he *directs* the puck. Never made a distinct kicking motion at all.
Apr 15 2008, 12:10 pm by Adam W.

Actually, here's the better link, which I also put in the article above. Should've done this sooner. ... http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?&brand=null&videoId=3344424&n8pe6c=2
Apr 15 2008, 12:18 pm by CHN Editor

Just quickly -- Adam and I have discussed this so he knows my view. If you listen to my interview with Kyle Lawson in which we discuss the play extensively, he refutes the idea that he was trying to kick the puck to his stick. In fact, he basically says the play happened too fast for many of the things people are suggesting occurred. Remember we have the benefit of frame by frame slow motion replay. Watch the play again without slow motion and you'll see it as he saw it. That said the replay shows me that the puck hit his left skate and then his right, and as it hits his right skate, the skate is moving forward. Lawson said that was just his momentum and I agree, but I think to an official reviewing the play, it could look like evidence of a kicking motion. "Distinct" -- two different people may have different views. And so it comes back to this being a close play and a break, one that didn't go ND's way. My biggest concern is the time. There needs to be a time limit on reviews.
Apr 15 2008, 1:50 pm by Mike Machnik, CHN

And as I've said to Mike in regards to his interview ... I'm sure that what Lawson says is true, but it happened so fast that he himself probably isn't sure what happened. I'd have to think he was just acting on pure instinct ... so even if consciously he wasn't trying to "corral" the puck, it seems pretty clear from the video that he was physically turning his feet in the direction of his stick for the intent to shoot it - even if he did so just on instinct. It's clearly not just a momentum thing - regardless of what he says. .... Finally, if you see the angle they showed on TV on Saturday, it's abundantly clear there is no kicking motion until AFTER the deflection is already made with the right skate. Then he tries to kick it at, but MISSED. ... The video we link above refutes the point about the left skate made by "Tim" - but that angle doesn't show as clearly the fact that his "kick" MISSED. That's on another angle. I'll see if I can find that video.
Apr 15 2008, 1:58 pm by Adam W.

OK NCAA: Why can't you get your **** together? First, idiot Schmidt majorly pukes this year, not once but twice!!!!!! And now another bad call!!!!!! There are some real idiots in this world and it seems that the most of them are employed for the NCAA hockey officials!!!! Glad you are not holding a majorly, crucial, life-threatening or life-ending position.
Apr 15 2008, 3:28 pm by

The rule is defined a "kickin motion towards the goal". Was his foot moving towards the goal? YES. Did it go from one skate to the other without touching his stick? YES. So how is it a bad call? The rule is the rule and it was upheld.
Apr 15 2008, 4:00 pm by Joe, Boston

Not being a ref myself, the real question remains - is contact between the foot and puck a requirement to disallow the goal based on this rule? In other words, to make things easy on officials, is ANY kicking motion (whether you touch the puck or not) enough to negate the goal. I think this is the only scenario under which this rule negates the goal. I don't think his skate touched the puck during the kicking motion (the puck clearly touched both skates while they were planted on the ice) it, but even if he might have touched it with his skate, he didn't CLEARLY kick it so the on-ice ruling should have stood.
Apr 16 2008, 1:50 pm by Ryan J - Central, WI

Ryan -- I've read some speculation that the goal was disallowed due to the kicking motion of his right foot after the puck hit it, and asking the same question you did. I don't think so. I really think it was just that his right skate was moving towards the net when the puck hit it, and that was reason to disallow the goal. Oddly enough I watched the whole review sequence last night again and there are two angles that seem to show different things. The one from straight on seems to show the puck hitting the left skate and then the right one, with neither moving, until after the puck bounces away. But the overhead view seems to show the right skate moving towards the net as the puck hits it. I believe this is the angle that decided the call. However depending on which angle you concentrate on, I understand why there are differing views on this.
Apr 16 2008, 2:01 pm by Mike Machnik, CHN

And as I've told Mike, I believe the skate does not kick or even move towards the net until *after* the puck deflects off his right skate, and that the overhead view is not conclusive, or just an optical illusion caused by the lack of 3-D or the leg partially blocking the puck. ... And if the replay officials used one angle and not the other, and decided that it was conclusive, then shame on them. That means it's not conclusive, by definition.
Apr 16 2008, 2:08 pm by Adam W.

I think the reason they show different things is that in the straight on view, his leg is moving directly towards the camera, so you won't be able to see much movement in that direction. Versus the overhead view which does seem to show it more clearly. That makes sense to me. At any rate.
Apr 16 2008, 2:18 pm by Mike Machnik, CHN

I disagree. I think the reason they show two different things is because in the overhead angle, the skate blade is blocked from view, so you don't see when it deflects off of it. It deflects off of it *before* the kick is attempted.
Apr 16 2008, 2:20 pm by Adam W.

My understanding of the rule is that, to cut down on the judgment call of "kicking motion," the refs were told ealrier this year to call no-goal if the players foot is moving towards the goal line when they contact the puck. The puck hit the ND players skate once when the players momentum was carrying his skate towards the goal (no kick but his foot was going forwards) and the puck, after hitting the first skate, started going towards the goal and then hit the players other skate (but would have gone in even if it missed this second skate) and went in. It seems the refs were ONLY checking to see if the player touched the puck with his stick, and had no doubt if no stick contact was made that it was no goal. One may not like that rule and want the refs to look for a "kick," but the refs were told to call it that way. ND got blown of the ice, were just outclassed, and did not belong in the same building as BC. 8 power plays and no goals? SAVE IT. The REAL fighting Irish won.
Apr 16 2008, 5:00 pm by Jim Hayes Boston MA

The Shepherd's should be removed from all aspects of officiating at any level and go into porn so they can get screwed as much as they have screwed the WCHA teams.
Apr 16 2008, 7:16 pm by Chad

The thing that get lost in this whole discussion is that the second the puck went in Muse went straight to the official. He basically watched the puck go in thinking it was going to get waived off. Plus, once it hits lawson's right skate, it lifts off the ice in a kicking motion. He's obviously redirecting it toward the goal, and the fact that he was kicking it to his stick rather than to the goal doesnt mean that it was a legit goal anyway.
Apr 18 2008, 3:28 am by Andrew, Buffalo

Gary Thorne explained, during the long wait for a reason to disallow the goal, that this situation was discussed at a meeting the previous day. Evidently, the NCAA, officials, coaches, media specifically discussed kicking the puck to get a precise clarification of the rule. (That question alone must have made the NCAA committee nervous, as the word ambiguous best describes NCAA hockey rules and interpretations). Anyway, Gary Thorne was pretty specific in giving the answer to the question about kicking the puck. To summarize, since I can't quote Gary accurately, Gary stated that - a goal would be disallowed if a puck was propelled into the net by a kicking motion toward the goal line. There clearly was no kicking motion toward the goal line. Both announcers on ESPN seemed to be as surprised as the rest of the world at the replay decision. BTW - I really like Gary Thorne as a hockey announcer, and baseball announcer. I wish ESPN would get the NHL back so we could hear him more often.
Apr 18 2008, 8:36 am by Al, Michigan

terrible call
Apr 21 2008, 2:03 pm by Sioux

I think where the kicking motion rule fails to address is what cost Notre Dame this goal. There is a picture that I have seen behind the Notre Dame player, and his foot was moved towards the goal LINE, by the defender that was on him. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the rule says that a kicking motions towards the LINE means "no goal." The kid's foot was going the opposite direction from the goal MOUTH, but towards the line on the OUTSIDE of the netting, which is why they were able to "go by the book" and screw Notre Dame out of a goal.
Apr 22 2008, 7:12 pm by Josh, Fargo ND

The NCAA issued a clarification on this rule in its pre-season video to officials. In the video it is clearly explained that any motion "toward the net" shall be deemed a distinct kicking motion. There was a specific play from last year which would have been ruled and was ruled "goal" on a puck deflected in off of a skate. The play in question that was shown was a stationary forward turning his foot from a position parallel to the goal line to a position perpindicular to the goal line. The leg itself never moved toward the goal but the rotation of the player's foot was shown to be moving "toward the net" and thus was a distinct kicking motion. The problem is that the NCAA makes these interpretations and clarifications of its rule books, but because this was the 2nd year of a 2 year rule book there was nothing put into print that would allow journalists, commentators or fans to understand the reason this call was made in the national title game. Check the NCAA Video & then decide.
Apr 26 2008, 10:27 pm by Ref, Refville

There was a distinct kicking motion and if I am not mistaken, the "toward the goal" language is NHL only, not USA hockey and not NCAA, but there was a distinct kicking motion. (one foot planted, the other foot swinging and contacting the puck, propelling it in a desired direction) Then the puck was directed with the other (stationary, but properly-angled) skate. The directing of the puck is allowed, but distinct kicking motion is not. Adam, if you can, watch the other Lawson (Me vs. UNH) score with seconds remaining in OT. He is on one skate as the puck caroms off his stake. While he was on a single blade, there is no kicking motion possible. THAT was a legal goal. (Whether Hendrickson likes it or not.)
May 11 2008, 4:58 pm by Tim, Bangor Me.

This crazy Canuck can't stand video review in any sport. Mistakes are a part of the game, and there is no worse sight than some ref standing at center-ice with those ridiculous headphones waiting for some TV replay geek to tell him what to do. One thing I love about MLB, they keep the game on the field and in the hands of those closest to the play. The only thing worse than the review upstairs debacle is the two-referee system. The NHL game, dear to any Canadian's heart, is tough to watch with the two stripes trying to out-call eash other.
May 30 2008, 4:03 pm by John Portwood, Medicine Hat, Alberta

Log in or register to comment.

Or log in with your Facebook account: