NEW YORK -- Overcome by heat and humidity in the second set of her U. Alex Pietrangelo Jersey .S. Open semifinal, Chinas Shuai Peng paused between points to clutch at her left thigh and put her weight on her racket as if it were a cane. Still, she tried to continue Friday against Caroline Wozniacki. One point later, Peng dropped her racket and grabbed at her right knee, then staggered toward the wall behind the baseline and leaned against it, wiping away tears, until a trainer ran to her side. Others arrived, too: a doctor, the chair umpire, a tournament official, a security guard, a ballkid with an umbrella to offer shelter from the sun. Fighting pain in both legs and her back, a limping Peng was helped over to a hallway adjacent to the court, where it was determined she had heat illness and needed treatment. In all, it was a 10-minute delay, which Wozniacki used to practice serving. Yet again, Peng tried to play on. She stuck it out for six more points, before collapsing to the ground, resting on her hands and knees as Wozniacki walked around the net to check on her. Peng stopped while trailing 7-6 (1), 4-3, allowing Denmarks Wozniacki to reach her second Grand Slam final. At a news conference more than four hours later, Peng said she was feeling better. She was not sure whether, in the end, she was the one who said she had to retire or was told to (although tournament director David Brewer said it was Pengs decision). Peng, who is 28, did recall how she reacted when the doctor suggested it might be a good idea to quit. "I said, No, no, no. I dont want to give up. I want to try one more time," said Peng, who was playing in her first semifinal in 37 career major tournaments. "I knew Im not going to stay maybe too long, but I just want to try, you know. I just wanted to challenge her one more time." Eventually, Peng was taken away in a wheelchair, closing the scary and surreal scene. "It was really hard to watch," said the 10th-seeded Wozniacki, who lost the 2009 U.S. Open title match. "To see her struggling out there -- I just wanted to make sure she was OK." In Sundays final, Wozniacki will face good pal Serena Williams, who overwhelmed 17th-seeded Ekaterina Makarova of Russia 6-1, 6-3 to extend her U.S. Open winning streak to 20 matches. If she can make that 21 in a row, the No. 1-ranked Williams will become the first woman since Chris Evert in the 1970s to win three consecutive titles at the tournament. "I can say: Yes, shes much better than everyone," Makarova said, when asked to compare Williams to todays other top players. Seeking a sixth U.S. Open championship and 18th major singles title overall, which would tie her with Evert and Martina Navratilova, Williams has won all 12 sets shes played these two weeks. While warming up for her semifinal -- in which she won nine straight games and 22 of 24 points in one stretch -- Williams saw on TV what was happening to Peng. "I was really, really, really saddened by it. Shes such a great person. We train sometimes at the same academy," Williams said. "You never want to see anyone go out like that." Peng, who spoke during the tournament about nearly being forced to quit tennis after having heart surgery at age 12, began showing signs of distress early in the second set, rubbing her legs between points. When things got really bad, she said, she felt cramping that made it hard to breathe. Players are not allowed to get medical treatment from a trainer or doctor in the middle of a game if all that is wrong is cramping. If thats what makes them take a break during the course of play, they can be docked a point -- or even a full game -- for taking too much time. But a broader diagnosis of heat illness does make a player eligible for treatment. "It was determined that it would not be physically harmful for her to go back out and try to play tennis again," Brewer said. Wozniacki did not complain -- while all of this was happening or later at her news conference -- about the lack of a penalty for time violation. She was, however, thrown off a bit by the whole scene. "First of all, you want her to be OK," Wozniacki said. "Then you also are thinking she might still be able to compete, so you have to kind of ... try and think about yourself as well and just say, OK, she might just go out there and start to hit winners. So you have to be ready for everything." Patrice Bergeron Team Canada Jersey . -- Center Max Unger and tight end Zach Miller are both probable for the Seattle Seahawks on Sunday against the New York Giants and Percy Harvins recovery continues to be slow. Corey Perry Jersey . Nyquist had two goals and Jimmy Howard made 31 saves to help the Red Wings hold on to beat the Toronto Maple Leafs 3-2 on Tuesday night.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, "Goalie interference, no goal" http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=2013020977-X-h Devils defenceman bumps/trips Flyer towards the net, both touch goalie. "Good goal" http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=2013020984-X-h (the Burns goal) The goalie was being held on the ice by an attacking player - isnt that textbook goaltender interference? Brian Hi Kerry, I have a question about the Sharks 2nd goal tonite. The ref blew his whistle and waived off the goal, seemingly indicating there was a reason why it wasnt a goal. If he only believed the puck had not entered the net, wouldnt the play go on as the puck was still live? Seems to me that was a give-back for the blown call minutes earlier where San Jose was robbed of a goal by the refs quick whistle. Love to hear your perspective. ThanksDavid Brian and David: Thank you very much for submitting your questions as to why contact with the goalkeeper in Philadelphia resulted in a crucial disallowed goal, yet in San Jose the Sharks second goal was allowed to stand. This is not an example of inconsistency, as some might suggest, but the referees correct decision on both plays is supported in the language and interpretation found in Rule 69. With the Flyers net empty for an extra attacker, the puck was kicked out of a high scrum of players and thrown across ice by Kimmo Timonen to Jacub Voracek. Scott Hartnell broke for the net with Anton Volchenchov in close pursuit from behind. There was some minor contact exerted by Volchenkov on Hartnell as the Flyer extended to redirect Voraceks pass at Martin Brodeur from outside the crease. Brodeur made the initial save but offered up a rebound as Volchenkov lost his balance and fell to the ice with a slide toward the goal. There was no push, shove or check delivered by Volchenkov on Hartnell and their contact was incidental in nature. Scott Hartnell remained on his skates in a path that took him into the goal crease. Hartnell repositioned his body and began to throw snow in a stopping motion. It appears at this point that Scotts skate contacted the puck and directed it back into Brodeurs stacked pads. Scott Hartnells forward momentum then took him deep into the goal crease. Hartnell initiated a hip bump at the point of contact with Martin Brodeur that knocked both the goalie and the puck into the net. Referee Tom Kowal, with very good position to see the contact, utilized Rule 69.6 to immediately wave off the potential goal. (69.6: 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.) Kowal correctly ruled that the contact by Hartnell was "incidental" as opposed to deliberate thereby resulting in no goal and no penalty on the play. This is not a reviewable play. The deciision made by the Toronto Situation Room to initiate a review and the subsequent announcement the referee was forced to make did not bring clarity or support the decision made on the ice by referee Kowal. Roberto Luongo World Cup Jersey. The delay in getting the game resumed quickly, in addition to the announcement, "Following video review its confirmed its not a good hockey goal. Its no goal" further infuriated Flyers fans in the building for no useful purpose since video review could not overturn the referees decision. Bottom line is that in the judgment of the referee, Martin Brodeur and the puck were knocked into the net through incidental contact exerted by Scott Hartnell. The call made on the ice by the referee was both correct and courageous - end of story! In San Jose, Joe Thornton was positioned to the side and above the goal crease when Tim Gleason of the Leafs checked Thornton from behind with solid contact. The hit caused Thornton to lurch forward into Dion Phaneuf positioned at the top, middle of the crease. Phaneuf pushed back on Thornton, causing Jumbo Joe to enter the blue paint. Thornton was conscious of avoiding contact with Leafs goalkeeper James Reimer, as demonstrated by his effort to straddle Reimer with a wide stance. Thorntons forward momentum from the Phaneuf push, combined with Joes wide stance, caused his upper body to veer forward with a loss of balance. In an effort to regain his balance, Joe had no alternative but to place his hands on the back of James Reimer. Thornton quickly pushed himself up and off Reimer and then immediately exited the goal crease prior to the shot entering the net. The referees decision is supported by 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 purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.) Joe Thornton made more than a reasonable attempt to avoid James Reimer after being body checked by two Leaf players at the edge of the goal crease. The speed with which Thornton exited the crease is also of significance. Had he delayed his departure and remained in contact with the goalkeeper a different decision by the referee would most likely have been rendered. The referee waved the goal off because he thought the puck hit the crossbar on the shot by Brent Burns. Video review subsequently confirmed that the puck did enter the net on the shot. The refs initial decision on this play had nothing to do with the previously disallowed goal when he ruled the puck was covered and play dead prior to Scott Hannan jamming the puck from under James Reimer. In Philadelphia and San Jose, two distinctly different plays involved contact with the goalkeeper and resulted in the correct decision being rendered by both refs based on two separate rule applications contained in Rule 69. Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys China Cheap Jerseys From China Authentic China Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys China Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys' ' '
