NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. -- Bernhard Langer birdied three of the last four holes for an 8-under 63 and a two-stroke lead Friday in the Champions Tours Toshiba Classic. Langer, the 2008 winner, had eight birdies in his bogey-free round at Newport Beach Country Club. The 56-year-old German won the season-opening event in Hawaii in January for his 19th victory on the 50-and-over tour. "I played really solid through the whole bag," Langer said. "I hit most of the greens in regulation and I was happy with just about every club in my bag." Fred Couples, Jeff Hart and Taiwans Chien Sn Lu shot 65, and Kenny Perry, Michael Allen, Kirk Triplett, Duffy Waldorf and Scott Simpson were another stroke back. Couples won the 2010 tournament, shting 66-64-65. Last month in Florida, Allen beat Waldorf in a playoff in Boca Raton, and Triplett won in Naples. Defending champion David Frost opened with a 72. Langer tied for seventh in Boca Raton and tied for second in Naples. He has broken par in all 10 of his rounds this season and 19 of his last 20. "What happened with that one round," Langer joked. Langer topped the first-round leaderboard for the 18th time in his career. In the first 17, he has gone on to win six times. He also tied for second in the 2012 tournament. "I think it always helps when you play a course well," Langer said. "It certainly doesnt hurt. I think I know how to play well here." Langer is carrying four wedges this week and used them all to set up birdies. He tk out his 3-wd and replaced it with a gap wedge, to accompany lob, sand and pitching wedges. "It depends on the course, but I have done this before," Langer said. "Sometimes Ill take the 3-wd out or the 3-iron out and replace it with a gap wedge." Newport Beach County Club is 6,584 yards, one of the shorter courses on the tour. Of Langers eight birdies, six were set up with wedge shots. Couples bogeyed the par-4 16th to drop out of a share of the lead, and matched Langer with a two-putt birdie on the par-5 18th. Wayman Britt Jersey Signed . Villa has already confirmed his short-term deal and the Daily Mirror reported early Tuesday that Lampard will join him as both build up match fitness ahead of moves to the new Major League Soccer franchise New York City. NBA Jerseys For Sale . During the furious first few hours of free agency Tuesday, the team agreed to terms with strong safety Donte Whitner, a Cleveland native who cant wait to play in his hometown. https://www.cheapnbajerseysjustwholesale...-jersey-signed/. "For the past several weeks, Logan has been dealing and playing with an upper body injury," said general manager Doug Wilson in a statement. "Despite his efforts to play through it, the injury has not responded as we had hoped and Logan has made the decision to undergo a surgical procedure to repair the problem. J.R. Bremer Jersey Signed .com) - Guess whos back, back again? Josh Gordons back, tell a friend. Matt Guokas Jersey Signed . 5 Trade Deadline is drawing closer and teams will be deciding on whether to buy or sell.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. Dear Mr. Fraser, In the Islanders/Blues game on Saturday, the Isles had the apparent game-winning goal overturned in overtime because of a distinct kicking motion by Thomas Vanek. This was the explanation the referee received from Toronto after the goal was reviewed. Ive watched the play over and over, I cant see any kicking motion, let alone a distinct one. The Isles broadcast team thought it was a gd goal. They even reported the Blues broadcast team called it a gd goal. The Blues goalie (Jaroslav Halak) skated toward the gate leading to the visitors locker rm (clearly, he must have figured it was a gd goal). The NHL uses the word "distinct" to describe the words "kicking motion." According to the dictionary, "distinct" means readily distinguishable by the senses. I would imagine that if the NHL added "distinct" they meant that the motion could not be interpreted as anything other than a kicking motion. What does a "distinct kicking motion" lk like from a referees perspective? As a fan, I would assume the knee would have to bend a bit or the thigh would have to move somewhat, especially if we are talking about a motion being "distinct." I know the NHL can overturn referees calls if there is conclusive evidence, but what does mean if the video doesnt seem to support the explanation. Does the NHL mean "distinct kicking motion" in a figurative or a literal way? Is there an explanation for "distinct" that the NHL uses that fans and internet analysts are not aware of? How does the NHL determine conclusive evidence to overturn a call, especially when most people watching assumed the goal was a gd one? The refs didnt spend a long time at the timekeepers station, so the evidence should have been distinct to everyone watching, which is wasnt according to how many people thought the goal should have std. The NHL had to see something that they consider "distinct," but that the rest of people watching may not have considered (this is my speculation). Its that "something" that has prompted my email inquiry to you. Was this simply a bad call by the guys in Toronto (a frustrating bad call in my personal opinion)? I appreciate you taking the time to read this email. I enjoy reading your column on TSN.ca. Thank you,Michael Bonet Michael: Thank you for your detailed question along with the logical (and expert) analysis you provided relative to the goal Thomas Vanek scored in overtime. To the referees eye, mind and perspective Thomas Vanek did NOT use a "distinct kicking motion" to propel the puck past Blues goalie Jaroslav Halak and score the game-winning goal in overtime. This was another example of an "officiating decisiion" made correctly on the ice that was overturned by "non-officiating personnel" that staff the Situation Rm on a nightly basis.dddddddddddd (NFL and MLB employ and empower referees/umpires to make final video review decisions). The guidelines and definition in determining a "distinct kicking motion" must have changed drastically, at least concerning Situation Rm criteria employed, from when the kicking puck rule was first explained to my colleagues and I during a training camp meeting the season the rule was implemented. Otherwise Thomas Vaneks goal and the one scored by Brendan Gallagher of the Habs against Martin Brodeur last week (both of which were deemed legal by the referee in great position on the ice) would not have been overturned and disallowed through the video review process. The definition in rule 38.4 (iv) remains the same as when it was explained to us in that training camp meeting by Hockey Ops that still control the Situation Rm. "A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL." As you correctly pointed out, Michael, the former NHL players working as analysts on both the NY Islanders and St. Louis Blues broadcast teams were convinced that Vaneks goal should count. They went so far as to say that Vanek wouldnt have known where the puck was as he rotated his body position away from Halak at the top of the goal crease and was then shoved from behind by Alexander Steen of the Blues. A referees perspective would clearly indicate that the bump from behind by Steen changed Vaneks rotation to a forward motion toward the net and caused the puck to be deflected off Vaneks skate and into the net. (Rule 49.2 - A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking players skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking plays skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident). We can envision various legal plays when a player is allowed to deliberately turn and angle his skate to direct a puck into the net or even makes a natural sliding stop at the crease in order to contact the puck causing it to enter the goal. Unless there has been some change in the definition and criteria of a "distinct kicking motion" it makes no sense that Thomas Vaneks goal would be disallowed through a video review decision. If there has been a "distinct" change in the criteria that the Situation Rm employs in rendering their exclusive decisions, perhaps it is time they advise the rest of the hockey world! Until that takes place, Michael, this decision will be viewed by most as "simply a bad call by the guys in Toronto!" ' ' '