Cagliari president Massimo Cellinos chances of taking over fallen English power Leeds were hurt by a tax evasion conviction on Tuesday. Cellino was ordered by a judge to pay a 600,000 euro ($800,000) fine for evading import taxes on a yacht he purchased in the United States and brought to Italy, the ANSA news agency reported. Eleonora Sport Ltd., which is run by the Cellino family, has been awaiting approval to purchase a 75 per cent stake in Leeds. However, the Football Leagues "owners and directors test" prevents anyone with a court conviction from being a director, a 30 per cent owner, or from exercising control over one of its clubs. A Football League statement said it had noted the outcome of the hearing involving Cellino. "We are engaged in an ongoing dialogue with his legal representatives in this country and cannot comment further at this time," a league spokesman said. Cellino denies wrongdoing and will probably appeal. Last year, Cellino was arrested as part of a stadium construction investigation. Zack Littell Jersey . Gonzalez participated in his final game on Sunday, Atlantas 21-20 defeat at the hands of the NFC South champion Carolina Panthers, having posted four catches for 46 yards. Tyler Duffey Twins Jersey . -- Caris LeVert had 14 points and a career-high 11 rebounds for his first career double-double, and No. https://www.cheaptwins.com/702t-torii-hu...rsey-twins.html. Sure, Josh Browns 45-yard field goal on the third drive of overtime lifted the New York Giants to a 23-20 win over Detroit on Sunday. But the Lions (7-8) dropped themselves out of the NFC North race by losing five of their last six games, blowing fourth-quarter leads in each setback. Jorge Polanco Jersey . Nothing pretty. But this is 1/4 World Cup. Usually plays out this way. Twins Jerseys 2020 . -- J.R. Sweezy was the one part of the Seattle Seahawks offensive line that had avoided injuries or having to change positions this season.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. Hi Kerry, In Game 2 of the Canadiens-Bruins series, could you explain how the interference to Tuukka Rask by Brandon Prust, which appeared to prevent him from getting back into position and be ready for Mike Weavers shot (which produced Montreals first goal) differed from the situation you described in the first series when Carey Price was interfered with and - as you answered then - was correctly waved off as a no goal? Thanks!Rhonda McClure Rhonda: The primary difference between the two plays, both of which resulted in significant contact with the goalkeepers inside their crease, is that Brandan Prust was pushed/cross-checked from behind onto Tuukka Rask by his defenceman (Andrej Meszaros) which negated interference on the goalkeeper as spelled out in rule 69.1 (If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for the purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.) Prust had no opportunity to avoid contact with Rask after being shoved from behind by Meszaros. It is also important to note that Prust did not delay in getting up off Rask and then immediately vacated the goal crease. On the other hand, Alex Killorn of the Tampa Lightning initiated contact with Carey Price when he crashed the net with a deke and attempt to jam the puck past Price. (David Desharnais was behind Killorn but did not push, shove or foul the Tampa player so as to cause contact with Price as Meszaros did to Prust!) Following contact with Prices skate and pad Killorn rotated and fell into the back of the net. IIf the puck were to have entered the net on this segment of the play the goal should be disallowed based on the goalie interference initiated by Killorn.dddddddddddd. Alex Killorn suffered double jeopardy once the second incident of contact in the blue paint was clearly initiated by Price when the goalie launched himself into Killorn as the Tampa player was attempting to vacate the crease. This action by Price demonstrates the flaw in rule 69.3 which states; "If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeepers ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed." Following this allowable contact initiated by Price the goalie was unable to regain his position to defend the subsequent shot and the referee disallowed the goal. There is definitely a need to tweak rule 69.3 when a goalie initiates contact with an attacking player. It might even require that the referee(s) exercise their best judgment to determine the intent of the goalkeepers actions when contact is initiated inside the crease. If contact is legitimately initiated "in the act of establishing his position" to defend a shot then the goalkeeper should be entitled to that protection. If contact is initiated by the goalkeeper for any other purpose, as Carey Prices actions might indicate here, then a goal scored following this "incidental" contact should be allowed to stand. Given the glove hand/arm contact initiated inside the crease by goalkeeper Henrik Lundqvist onto the stick of Evgeni Malkin, perhaps the referees are already exercising their judgment in this area? Based on the current rule James Neals goal that rolled down Lundqvists back following his contact with Malkin should have been disallowed. ' ' '