Leeds fans took to the streets to protest against the clubs owner Massimo Cellino on Saturday afternoon. Fake NFL Jerseys China . Around, 1,000 disgruntled supporters marched through Leeds city centre ahead of the Championship sides match with Reading at Elland Road.Fans carried banners calling for Cellino to quit the club and the group were joined by hundreds more fans opposed to the Italians ownership on the two-mile route through the Holbeck area. We are absolutely sick of our club being dragged through the media and looking like an absolute mess, a spokesman for the Time To Go Massimo group told the Yorkshire Evening Post.Its been taken through the gutter and everything he (Cellino) has done in the last two years has not been in the best interests of Leeds United Football Club.The group promoted the march on social media and by taking out an advertisement in the sports section of Saturdays Yorkshire Evening Post. Fans marched through the streets ahead of the match with Reading Time To Go Massimo mounted a sustained campaign to oust Cellino from Elland Road in February and earlier this week called on the 59-year-old to end this farce after former employee Lucy Ward won her claim for unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination against the club.Former academy welfare officer Ward - an ex-player and partner of former Leeds head coach Neil Redfearn - left the club last summer.Cellinos two-year reign in charge of Leeds has been littered with controversy and managerial sackings.The former Cagliari owner is currently on his sixth head coach while also appealing a second Football League disqualification for tax evasion. Also See: Leeds Utd video Leeds Utd fixtures Leeds Utd stats Get a ￡10 free bet! Fake NFL Jerseys Free Shipping . Acclaimed by world football leaders but held in contempt by many football fans. Blatter should arrive at the Itaquerao stadium in Sao Paulo to watch host Brazil play Croatia confident that this tournament -- his fifth as president -- wont be his last leading the worlds favourite sport. Fake Nike NFL Jerseys . In the opener of the World Group first-round series, world No. 18 Kei Nishikori defeated Peter Polansky of Thornhill, Ont. https://www.fakenfljerseys.com/ ., will experience this week. A year in which the Canadian curling championship has been pushed forward a week to accommodate the Winter Olympics was deemed the perfect chance to stage the event in Montreal for the first time since 1979.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, I was watching the Senators-Flyers game and in the third period, the referees waved off a goal scored by Kyle Turris that clearly had crossed the goal line entirely after a lengthy review. Steve Mason slid out of his net to challenge Bobby Ryan, who passed the puck up to Turris in front of the net. Nicklas Grossmann appeared to block it with his skate to save the goal, but replays clearly showed that Grossmanns skate was completely in the net and the puck hit the back of his skate. The ref waived it off right away on the play but reviewed it after the play was done. The overhead view was blocked by Grossmann, but two other angles showed the puck was fully in the net and hit the back of Grossmanns skate that was also fully in the net. After the review the goal was waved off without an explanation. The game was tied 2-2 at the time of the non-goal and the Flyers scored 2 goals shortly after that and Ottawa ended up losing. My question is how can the referee waive off the goal when there was clear, conclusive evidence that the puck had crossed the line? Usually the referee gives an explanation when they review a goal, but this referee did not do that. I know when it comes to reviewing goals they get it right most of the time but this one they obviously got wrong. I just cant understand how they can make that call when the replays tell a different story. Could you clarify why they might have made the call? Thanks! Haleigh Japp --- Hey Kerry! No doubt you will receive several emails from many upset Sens fans regarding Kyle Turris "goal" in Philadelphia. I understand that the NHL has certain perimeters and that it was ruled "inconclusive", but, I think anybody would agree that that puck was in the goal. Obviously, I dont blame the ref for not being able to tell on the ice because that would have been a tough call to make, but seriously, how can the NHL get this right next time? Cheers, Justin NHL EMAIL: At 9:27 of the third period in the Senators/Flyers game, the Situation Room initiated a video review to further examine a play at the Philadelphia net. Video review was inconclusive in determining whether Kyle Turris shot completely crossed the goal line therefore the referees call on the ice stands - no goal Ottawa. Haleigh and Justin, While it "appears" that Kyle Turris shot "quite possibly" crossed the goal line based on the heel position of Nicklas Grossmanns skate, various angles of video do not provide the necessary conclussive evidence to overturn referee Paul Devorskis initial call on the play and allow a goal. Fake NFL Jerseys Online. nbsp;While it is more probable than not that the puck crossed the goal line, the fuzzy depth perception that we gain once the puck deflected off Grossmanns left skate and went airborne provides a lack of conclusive evidence that is required to allow a goal through video review. The men in the NHLs Situation Room cannot make their decision based on any "logical assumptions" but must clearly see the puck enter the net. Even with various camera angles that are available, that process is made much more difficult once the puck leaves the ice surface and takes flight. The overhead camera shot was obstructed by the huge body of Nicklas Grossmann. Referee Devorskis sightline gained from behind the net was obstructed by the snowshoe-sized skate worn by Grossmann. The steeper angle provided by the front camera shot did not allow for conclusive evidence that the puck completely crossed the goal line once it flipped through the air. Grossmanns skate was angled back from tight to the post inside the goal line but moving as the puck deflected off his left skate. At that point, with the puck in the air, the overhead camera would be the only one that could provide evidence if the puck completely crossed the line. Some small element of doubt was created with this angle as the puck flipped in the air. Therefore the ruling had to be "inconclusive." In the absence of a clear video angle to determine the legitimacy of a goal on this play, there is a better alternative I might suggest. That is the sightline gained by the referee! Too often, I see referees attempting to judge a play with an obstructed view from below the goal line and especially behind the net. Unless a ref has X-ray eyes, from a position behind the net the goal frame, netting and the back of the goalie and skaters most often provide an obstructed view of the puck. When a player follows a shot at the net, he is coached to never skate past the goal line in order to play a potential rebound. In most situations, the same is true for a referee. In scrambles around the crease, the best sightline is gained from a position close to the goal, a step ahead of the line and looking into the net. From this location, even if the puck flips in the air, a referee has a much better opportunity to determine if the puck completely crossed the goal line. In this case, if the referee was looking into the net from just in front of the goal line, a different decision at ice level could have quite possibly been rendered. Had that been the case, any inconclusive review would have allowed a potential goal by Kyle Turris to stand?. ' ' '