Washington, D.C. (SportsNetwork.com) - The Georgetown Hoyas will attempt to secure a statement win on their home floor when they host the 10th-ranked Kansas Jayhawks in a non-conference duel at the Verizon Center. Kansas has recovered nicely from the 72-40 pounding it took at home against No. 1 Kentucky in mid-November. The Jayhawks have rattled off five straight wins since, including a 71-65 come-from-behind victory against Florida last Friday. They are 6-1 overall, with this game serving as their first true road test. They take on No. 13 Utah next. Georgetown bounced back from a two-game slide in a big way last time out, running over Towson, 78-46, to begin this four-game homestand. The Hoyas own a 5-2 overall mark, including a 4-0 success rate at home. They will host Radford in their next venture. These are two of the most historically successful programs in college basketball, but they have rarely faced off. Kansas has won two of three all- time meetings, including an 86-54 rout last season. At halftime, Kansas was on the wrong end of a 39-24 deficit against Florida. However, the Jayhawks came storming back in the second half, jumping from 34.8 percent shooting in the first half to 48 percent in the second. They also knocked down 21-of-24 free throws in the final 20 minutes, while the Gators had 10 foul shots all game. Wayne Selden Jr. poured in 21 points and Cliff Alexander had 12 points and 10 rebounds off the bench. Despite its elevated ranking, Kansas has not been all that impressive offensively. The Jayhawks are averaging only 69.4 points per game on 41.9 percent shooting, ranking outside the top-100 nationally in both categories. They have had a bit more success on defense, letting up 62.7 points on 40.2 percent accuracy. Perry Ellis (14.6ppg, 6.7 rpg) is the leading scorer and rebounder for the Jayhawks, with Frank Mason (10.1 ppg) and Alexander (10 ppg, 6.6 rpg) the only other players averaging in double figures. DVauntes Smith-Rivera scored 16 points to lead five players in double figures in Georgetowns demolition of Towson. The Hoyas sank 54.9 percent of their shots from the floor, including an 11-of-22 effort from 3-point range. They locked up on defense as well, forcing 17 turnovers and keeping the Tigers scoreless from beyond the arc (0-of-12). Georgetown seems to always be a tough team to score against. The Hoyas have continued that trend this season, limiting opponents to 61.9 points per game on 38.4 percent from the floor. While they may not turn up the heat in terms of scoring themselves (72.6 ppg), they are netting 50.1 percent of their own field goal tries. Smith-Rivera (14.4 ppg, 3.3 apg) is one of the most underrated players in the country and Joshua Smith (12.7 ppg, 6.9 rpg) has the ability to be a a real force in the paint. Fake Yeezy Store Near Me . The deal will pay Hainsey $3 million for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons and $2.5 million in 2016-17. Fake Yeezy 700 Hospital Blue .The Los Angeles Lakers star passed Michael Jordan for third on the NBAs career scoring list Sunday night in a 100-94 victory over the Minnesota Timberwolves. http://www.yeezy700outlet.com/discount-y...ack-online.html. Five straight losses (and six in the past seven) now dot the schedule – matching their longest skid of the year – after they fell again in New Jersey on Sunday night, topped 3-2 by Cory Schneider and the Devils. Yeezy 700 Geode Online . Goldeyes third baseman Ryan Pineda drove in three runs and the pitching staff didnt allow an earned run, as Winnipeg downed Kansas City 6-3 in American Association exhibition action at CommunityAmerica Ballpark in Kansas. Cheap Yeezy 700 Inertia . He had spent 16 days on the disabled list before being activated Thursday. He was batting just .203 when he came to bat in the 11th inning on Sunday.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 the first and second period of the Ottawa-St. Louis game last night, there were two disallowed goals against Ottawa, one on Erik Condra and one on Chris Neil. Im just wondering if you agreed with the referees call on the ice. First disallowed goal: Condra is on the rush and gets a squeaker through Brian Elliott. The puck was never covered, nor frozen, but the play is called dead by the referee behind the net, where he can see the puck at all times. I think that this is a make-up call because of the disallowed goal against St. Louis not long before. Second disallowed goal: A shot is taken, there is a scramble in front of the net. Chris Butler on St. Louis knocks over Elliott and the puck is loose. An Ottawa player then gets a shot off and the puck is near the goal line. It is at this point where Butler kicks the puck into his own net. The puck is already half way to the back of the net before the whistle was blown. Incidental contact with the goalie. The only person that made direct contact with the goalie was Butler. Just wondering. Andrew S. from Renfrew, ON ----- Hey Kerry, Id love to get your expert opinion on all the disallowed goals in the Ottawa-St. Louis game and overall absolute inconsistent officiating in this game in general! The first Ottawa goal was clearly a case of a loose puck - where Brian Elliott was still searching up until it was in the back of the net - both Erik Condra and Ian Cole were still looking for the puck - I was in disbelief that the whistle went. The second goal - clearly a case where a loose puck is pushed to the side of the net vacant to Elliott as Chris Butler cross-checked Condra to the opposite side as well, while catching the right leg of Elliott. It is very clear as well on this play that Condra stopped up and both he and Neil were looking for the loose puck while colliding with the Butler and the several back checking Blues forwards. You can pull the rule book and say the goalie has to be able to make the save and play within his crease and the official blows his whistle when he decides to. But theres has been such a distraught and overwhelming response to the inconsistency of the no-goal and goalie interference/unable to do his job by fans this season, because every single time in every different game, on any given night, the rule seems to change or have a different outcome. I would love to hear your take on these calls. I have asked for your opinion many times, especially concerning the craziness around goalie related calls! Cory Bicker Hi Andrew and Cory: There was also a Blues disallowed goal scored by Jaden Schwartz just 2:42 in before a quick whistle negated a legitimate shorthanded goal scored by Erik Condra. Fair is fair gentlemen, so we must credit referee Dan ORourke for making an excellent, decisive judgment to disallow the Schwartz goal following the incidental contact initiated by Jori Lehtera of the Blues. Whats important to note is how the referee positioned himself in such a manner ahead of the goal line halfway between the side boards and the near goal post. From this prime real estate the ref had a face-on view through the goal crease where Lehtera made himself bigger with his right elbow to turn Ottawa goalkeeper Robin Lehner, in addition to what was taking place on the opposite side of the net. In the instant goalie interference resulted, the puck was travelling to the opposite side of the net onto the stick of Schwartz for a gimme-redirect off a nifty pass from Kevin Shattenkirk. Far too often we see referees become puck watchers! This play demonstrates a textbook case of how a referee set himself to take in the entire play from the first pass to goalie interference to the puck entering the net. Referee ORourke followed the No. 1 rule of real estate - location, location, location and his keen awareness paid dividends. A couple of minutes later we saw a different result when referee Frederick LEceyer saw the initial shot by Condra, on a shorthanded rush, appear to be gobbled up and covereed by Brian Elliott in the butterfly position.dddddddddddd Elliott remained statuesque and the referee assumed that the puck was covered as he looked through the left pad of the goalkeeper from a distant position gliding below the goal line. Condra had the lead lane close to the top of the goal crease and ahead of Blues defender Ian Cole. A probable concern was created in the mind of the referee that Condra might crash into Elliottt thereby knocking the puck and the goalkeeper into the net. The still picture shows the whistle being blow by the referee with an obstructed view of the loose puck located between Elliotts open pads. Hindsight is 20-20, but the young referee should have demonstrated more patience with his whistle while moving his skates quickly toward the back of the net to make sure the puck was not exposed and available to be played. If Condra happened to dig at Elliotts equipment or initiate contact with the goalie the referee still had the option to blow his whistle at that point and/or disallow any resulting goal. There is no sugar-coating that the whistle was blown prematurely and in error by the referee. If he could have sucked the wind out of his whistle Im quick certain he would have done so. The expanded and broader discretion granted to video review could not be utilized in this case to allow the goal since it was not one continuous play. The whistle was blown prematurely following Condras initial shot. Condra then made a second play on the loose puck to put it into the net. Rule 38.4 (viii) allows video review to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (to ensure they are good hockey goals). This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play). Im still waiting for a quick whistle situation to be determined by video review that a good hockey goal will result. The disallowed Ottawa goal with 6:02 remaining in the second period was also a good hockey goal and should have been credited to Chris Neil after Chris Butler kicked the puck across the goal line. There was way too much going on in the goal crease on this play for any referee to have even less than 50-50 chance at getting the call right. While the still photo demonstrates that referee ORourke didnt have the best position and attack angle to make an accurate judgment on this crease scrum it does highlight the need for either a referees video review of potential crease violations or a Coachs Challenge. Any incidental contact and subsequent injury that Blues goalkeeper Elliott suffered was as a result of his own player, Butler, shoving Condra from behind and onto the goalies right leg. Condra was outside the blue paint when he was pushed from behind by Butler and launched into the crease. You dont want me to pull the rule book out Cory, but Rule 69 supports your claim that a legal goal resulted where it states: 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. Condra was clearly pushed by Butler onto Elliott. Condra had no option to avoid contact with the Blues goalkeeper, reasonable or otherwise. For the past three years I have recommended that the referees need the opportunity to review these types of plays from a monitor in the penalty box. Brian Burke and Brian Murray recommended the implementation of this very process at a meeting during the summer. It would appear studies are ongoing? The very best real estate from which the refs could get this call right was from a secure location inside the penalty box looking at a review monitor. ' ' '