to assure fans that we will fight for the rights of the club,"

A group of womens soccer players have filed a gender discrimination lawsuit in Toronto against FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association over their plans to play the 2015 Womens World Cup on artificial turf. The complaint was filed Wednesday morning with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, TSN has confirmed, days after FIFA officials started to inspect the six venues that will host the June 6-July 5 competition. The tournament will be held in Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Moncton and Montreal. The complainants include Abby Wambach of the U.S. and Germanys Nadine Angerer, FIFA players of the year for 2012 and 2013, respectively. The players who filed the complaint charge FIFA is discriminating against women by having the tournament on artificial turf since the 2014 FIFA World Cup for men in Brazil was played on grass. Some professional football leagues, including Major League Soccer and some FIFA World Cup matches, are played on artificial turf. Canada won the right to host the 2015 Games when the only other finalist, Zimbabwe, withdrew from consideration. The leaders of CSA and FIFA are embarrassing the game and, even more, themselves, Hampton Dellinger, a lawyer for the complainants, wrote in a statement. The gifted athletes we represent are determined not to have the sport they love be belittled on their watch. Getting an equal playing field at the World Cup is a fight female players should not have to wage but one from which they do not shrink. Ted Charney, a Toronto lawyer who has argued cases before the tribunal, said he doubts the women would win their case – or that it would be decided before next June. Soccer officials have said natural grass surfaces arent practical because some of the stadiums used for the World Cup are also scheduled to be used next summer for preseason and regular season Canadian Football League games. Its tough to ensure a grass field is in good shape for soccer the day after a football game, the officials have said. Cases at the tribunal are not expedited very often, Charney said. I think this is a question of availability. If this was a mens tournament being played here at the same time and they, too, were playing on turf, then this becomes a question of availability, and I dont see how theres a violation. But theres no downside since the loser at the tribunal does not have to cover legal costs for the other party, he said. Its a free ride, a chance for the women to make a political statement. David Wright, another lawyer for the players, told TSN that there are methods to overlay grass on top of turf, and that FIFAs overall costs to outfitting fields with natural grass wouldnt amount to more than a few million dollars. Wright also said that no Canadian women are among the complainants because some worry about what the CSA might do after the fact. There is some concern on the part of players of going against the soccer association, Wright said. There could be various sorts of reprisals. The CSA controls the future of these players. Georgia Trifonidis, a spokeswoman for the tribunal, said that it can take several months once an application is received for it to be referred to a mediator. Mediation can take at least several months, and if the case is not settled there, it moves to a hearing by an adjudicator. Once a final decision is made, and the adjudicator can, indeed, demand the CSA and FIFA make changes to eliminate gender discrimination, either of the parties can still file a reconsideration request with the tribunal or take the case to Ontario Superior Court. Dedryck Boyata Belgium Jersey . A lawmaker is hoping the buzz from California Chromes run for the Triple Crown might build support for a bill that would place the U. Adnan Januzaj Belgium Jersey .Y. - Sven Andrighetto scored once and set up two more as the Hamilton Bulldogs hung on to defeat the host Adirondack Flames 5-3 on Tuesday in American Hockey League action. http://www.soccerbelgiumteamonline.com/Customized/ . And follow TSN.ca right through Wednesdays 3pm et trade deadline for all the updates. Blue line help for Red Wings? In addition to what he reported in Insider Trading, TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun wrote on ESPN. Romelu Lukaku Jersey . - Carter Verhaeghe scored the winner with 41 seconds to go as the Niagara IceDogs edged the North Bay Battalion 3-2 to even their first-round series at a game apiece in Ontario Hockey League playoff action on Sunday. Michy Batshuayi Belgium Jersey .com) - Devin Booker scored 19 points and top-ranked Kentucky put on a defensive clinic in an 83-44 obliteration of UCLA in the CBS Sports Classic.In the Predators/Habs game Saturday night, Montreals second, go-ahead goal was ultimately disallowed after review (I believe the ref stated that after all four officials determined that the puck had not crossed the line). Now, correct me if Im wrong but I saw one official distinctly pointing at the net indicating a good goal but after an inconclusive review they overturned the goal. Shouldnt the ruling on the ice (good goal) stand after an inconclusive review? Why was this overturned? James Veaudry Pembroke, ON -- Hey Kerry, Youll get a lot of these, but why was the Montreal goal against Nashville Saturday night overturned? Eller puts the puck on net and the on ice ruling from the ref behind the net is a Montreal goal. After much delay, the same ref announces that after a review with all on ice officials, the ruling is the puck never crossed the goal line. How is this possible? Ive always believed that if the video review is inconclusive, which it obviously was, then the call on ice stands. How is the other ref from the blue line supposed to tell if a puck crosses the line? Let alone be able to overrule the ref inches away. The ref simply changed his mind after the play. Is that allowed? Sounds pretty shady to me. Thanks, Dave -- Hi Kerry! Last night I was bouncing out of my chair with excitement when the red light came on, Lars Eller celebrated and the referee pointed indicating a goal in the third period. Then suddenly the referees decided to review the play as there was question about whether the puck had actually crossed the line. After watching the replays myself, it was unclear whether the puck made it over the line or not because it was hidden under Rinnes body. Seeing this, I was all but sure that the goal had to stand, because from my understanding the referees needed undeniable evidence to over-turn an on-ice call. But that wasnt the case. The referee announced that "The four referees agree that the puck did not enter the net" which indicated to this viewer that, they too were unsure but had a chat about it, and I suppose used their judgment, to deicide the puck had never crossed the line. What I dont understand is how they can make this new judgment with inconclusive evidence? Moreover, how a referee can clearly call a goal a goal, and then change his opinion moments later? Could you clear up my confusion with the rules on this matter? Thanks! Rob -- To All Disappointed Habs Fans: Upon further information gathering from all vantage points on the ice by the officiating crew, including a seemingly definitive confirmation from the situation room video review, the referee on the goal line changed his initial quick reaction decision and correctly determined that the puck did not cross the goal line - no goal! At no time do we see the puck cross the goal line on thiis play.dddddddddddd The official statement found on the Situation Room blog posting at NHL.com is as follows; “Video review determined that Montreal Canadiens forward Lars Ellers shot did not cross the goal line. No goal Montreal.” (See Situation Room review here. Having witnessed referee Chris Rooney point to the net to signal a goal I trust it is the referees announcement that is causing you confusion (“The call on the ice by the four officials that the puck did not cross the goal line and that is confirmed (by video review)…”) and not the correct final decision that was ultimately rendered. All confusion would have been eliminated had the announcement by the referee simply been; “Video review has confirmed that the puck did not cross the goal line, the initial call on the ice is overturned - no goal.” Let me explain the protocol and how the process most likely worked in this situation. In the event that video review returns an “inconclusive” verdict the referees are required to make a decision (communicated with a point into the net or washout signal) from their vantage point when it appears the puck has entered the net. Sometimes the “vantage point” a referee has in that moment is not always the best one. For this reason, the four officials on the ice are required to conference and provide input from their respective vantage points as an added ‘safety check. This is in addition to video review that takes place. Through the conference process considerable doubt must have been created in referee Rooneys mind and caused him to change his initial reaction to the play. The obvious answer is the referee needs to see the puck cross the line before pointing to the net. In real time other factors can complicate this decision. In fairness on this play, the referees approach to the net was from the opposite corner from behind the goal line. This route caused an obstructed view looking through the net and the back of Predators sprawled goalie Pekka Rinne. The refs focus was also split between a penalty that he signaled to David Legwand for cross-checking Eller just as the Montreal forward flipped the puck toward Rinne. With Rinnes body position sprawled deep into the net and across the goal line, Rooneys gut reaction and instinct told him the puck had crossed the line from his vantage point. As required, the ref made his initial decision but once a consultation took place with the other crew members Rooney correctly changed his opinion on the play. It would have been less confusing and more efficient had the ref not communicated the result of the Officiating Crews ‘internal process that caused him to change his initial decision on the play. In the end the right decision was rendered. Sometimes the less said the better! ' ' '