The FDA Certification must approve any beverage container with a nutrition or health claim under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”). If you market your product in the United States, regardless of where it’s made, you could be held accountable under the FDCA for making sure your label statements are true and not misleading. If the FDA determines that your claim is “false and deceptive,” it has the authority to require you to stop selling the product with that labeling. In some situations, the FDA may even request that the Department of Justice seek criminal charges.
top of page
bottom of page
By the time Mike Fisherwon Game 4 of the Predators'Western Conference semifinalagainst the Sharks,it felt like the game should have been over a handful of times before hisgoal at 11:12of tripleovertime to give Nashville the 4-3 victory inthe longest game in franchisehistory.
Incredible saves, puck-on-post crime and a truly baffling no-goal-video-review sequence made for an insane start to sudden-death overtime.
MORE:
First came all these flailing bodies at 4:05of the first overtime with the puck from Joel Ward's shot somewhere underneath the pile and a whistle that seemed like it was never going to be blown.
Predators goalie Pekka Rinne madethe initial save, but in doing so went wayout of position, with his back to the rebound. He thenlooked like he had no idea where the puckwas, so he just laid out and hoped for the best.Other Predators just started falling to the ice to help him while the Sharks kept whacking away.
no idea how that's not illegally under a Pred, but apparently it was not
Stephanie (@myregularface)
Le s Mike Schmidt Jersey than a minute later, Predators forward Ryan Johansen fired a shot that was ooooohhhhh so close.
Johansen hits the post
Stephanie (@myregularface)
At 13:15, JoePavelski's shot went into the Predators' goal.
Stephanie (@myregularface)
Over, right?
Sharks bench so confused
Stephanie (@myregularface)
NOT SO FAST!
The goal was immediately waved off for goalie interference and it was unclear when the officials went to review the play whether they were looking at the interference or if Pavelski had put the puck in with his glove. The net camera revealed Pavelski did get his stick on it, so that wasn't an i sue. But they did "confirm" the goalie interference.
MORE:
The problem? Predators forward PaulGaustad cro s-checkedPavelski in the back, which caused him to fall into Rinne.
According to NHL Rule 69 regarding goaltender interference, these are the situations and outcomes ofincidental or "other than incidental" contact with a goaltender whena goal is scored:
The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, makes contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored. (Thegoal is allowed)The contact by the attacking player with the goalkeeper is other than incidental and the attacking player, in the judgment of the Referee, did not make a reasonable effort to avoid such contact at the time a goal is scored. (A minor and/or major Jean Segura Jersey penalty may be called at the discretion of the Referee plus a se sment of whatever other penalties may be appropriate up to and including supplementary discipline and the goal is disallowed.)
In reviewing the play, officials were looking to determine whether Pavelski made a reasonable effort to avoid contact with Rinne. If he made a reasonable effort, the goal should have counted. If he did not try hard enough to avoid Rinne, the goal should not count. The goalie must be allowed to attempt a save.
This is a purposely vague rule because instancesof goalie interference are all different. It waswritten to leave room for judgment by the officials. With video replay, and a situation room in Toronto,there's no way they could me s it up, right? WRONG!
MORE:
There are many times when it would be difficult to determine the degree to which a player tried to get out of the way, even with replays, but this was not one of those situations. How could Pavelski have made a reasonable effort to get out of Rinne's way Chase Utley Jersey when he was pushed from behind into Rinne?
From the NHL's situation room video, the official explanation was:"After reviewing all available replays and consulting withNHL Hockey Operations staff, the Referee confirmed that San Jose's Joe Pavelski made incidental contact with Nashville goaltender Pekka Rinne before the puck cro sed the goal line, preventing Rinne from doing his job in the crease."
How the referee and Hockey Ops staff all looked at this replay and didn't see thatGaustad's cro s-check on Pavelski was the reason Rinne couldn't do his job as opposed toPavelski's unwillingne s to get out of Rinne's way is puzzling and maddening.
A line in the rules that addre ses"a defender pushing an attacker into the goalie negates the attacker's ability to avoid contact with the goalie" would help bring some clarity to these types of situations, but the bottom line is there's an expectation that common sense is going to be applied to a vaguely written rule. In this case, common sense was nowhere to be found.
The Sharkswere not happy, but they were 100 percent right.
DeBoer on OT goalie interference: "Rule has been clear as mud to every coach in the NHL all year so why should it be any different tonight?"
Greg Wyshynski (@wyshynski)
Couture on no-goal: "If youre reaching up to get a puck and getting cro s-checked from behind, I dont know where you find time to stop.
Kevin Kurz (@KKurzCSN)
The Predators challenged Logan Couture'sgoal in the second period, arguingWard was offside. Even though it appeared Wardwas offside, he was in the act of trying to get back onside when the puck entered the offensive zone and no one from the Sharks touched the puck until he did. So this was an instance of replay working in the Sharks' favor.
The same cannot be said for Pavelski's goal that wasn't. The Sharks should be going home for Game 5 with a 3-1 series lead; instead,they are going home with two more hills to climb Zach Eflin Jersey , and they have every right to be furious.