(SportsNetwork. Michael kors Black Friday .com) - Despite a stunning loss on Monday the Boston Red Sox are still in the drivers seat of the American League Division Series. Theyll try once again to close out the Tampa Bay Rays in Game 4 and move on to the ALCS Tuesday at Tropicana Field. Tampa Bay kept Bostons champagne on ice, as Jose Lobaton smacked a game- winning solo homer in the bottom of the ninth inning, and the die-hard Rays overcame a three-run deficit early on to pull out a dramatic 5-4 victory. Lobatons pinch-hit blast off Koji Uehara (0-1) enabled Tampa Bay to stave off elimination for the fourth time in nine days and bounce back from a pair one- sided defeats in the first two tests of this best-of-five set. "Jose does have a flare for the dramatic," Rays manager Joe Maddon said. "Hes done that a couple of times now. A walk-off triple, two walk-off homers. Its incredible what hes done. What an interesting, wonderful game to stay solvent with." Evan Longoria ignited the Rays comeback with a game-tying three-run homer against Clay Buchholz in the fifth inning, and Tampa Bay survived a blown save from closer Fernando Rodney (1-0) in the top of the ninth to live another day. James Loney went 3-for-3 in the win, with David DeJesus and Yunel Escobar each collecting two hits and a run scored for the Rays. Jacoby Ellsbury finished 3-for-5 and scored twice for Boston, which had outscored its AL East rival by a 19-6 margin in the previous two meetings, while David Ortiz had an RBI single in the loss. Buchholz grinded through six innings, allowing three runs on seven hits and striking out five. Boston is still firmly in control of this series, though, as teams up 2-1 in the Division Series format have gone 35-8. "They are a resilient team. They said all year long they were going to keep coming," Red Sox right fielder Shane Victorino said. "And were still up 2-1. We are still in the drivers seat, we control our own destiny. We just got to go out there (Tuesday) and try to win another one." Getting the call for the Red Sox on Tuesday will be righty Jake Peavy, who has won his last three decisions, but hasnt pitched since Sept. 25. "Just doing everything I could possibly do to keep that feel," said Peavy, who has lost his only two postseason starts and has pitched to a 12.10 ERA in those outings. "If you watched (John) Lackey the other day, I think you saw the layoff can affect your feel and command a little bit. But at the end of the day, it will be no excuse. Ill get out there and figure out a way to get it done just as John did." Peavy, who will be making his first postseason start since 2006, was acquired from the Chicago White Sox at the trade deadline and was 4-1 with a 4.04 ERA in 10 starts for the Red Sox. "I fully expected we were going to win this game," said Peavy. "I relish the opportunity, without question. I hate this had to happen for that to happen. Im happy to be the guy." Peavys also had success at the Trop, where he is 2-0 with a 3.93 ERA. In six starts versus the Rays, he is 3-1 with a 4.91 ERA. "Hes pitched well here in (St. Petersburg)," Boston manager John Farrell said. "He got three innings of work this past Wednesday, so even though its been a number of days since his last start, were looking forward to Jake being on the mound tomorrow. Its one of the main reasons we acquired him at the deadline, is to pitch in a game like tomorrow night." Tampa, meanwhile, will turn to struggling righty Jeremy Hellickson, who endured a miserable campaign, going 12-10 with a 5.17 ERA - the second highest in the AL and more than two runs higher than last year. He also went 1-7 with a 7.53 ERA over his final 10 starts. "Every elimination game we went into feels like just another game until we get out there and see the crowd and make some plays, and then were a little more fired up. But we want to be in this situation," Hellickson said. "We know we can win three in a row. Its going to be difficult, but we know we can do it." The former AL Rookie of the Year hasnt pitched since Sept. 27, but has posted a 2.42 ERA in 17 starts when pitching on six days of rest or more. "Ive got to be better. Its not fun what I did the last two months and the first two months," Hellickson said. "Like I said, I pride myself in going out there and being consistent, and I was anything but that. It was very frustrating. "Im glad its behind me. Tomorrow is a new beginning, and I cant really dwell on what I did in the regular season too much. It wasnt my best, but I get another chance tomorrow." Hellickson went 1-0 with a 3.44 ERA in three matchups with Boston this season. Tampa actually beat the Red Sox in seven games back in 2008 to advance to the World Series in the only other postseason series between the clubs. wholesale nfl jerseys . Nash introduced his longtime friend on Thursday as the man who will lead the senior mens team, confirming a hiring that likely had only one candidate. "Thats why its been one of the best kept secrets in three or four months," Nash joked. Cheap NFL Jerseys Free Shipping . -- Bill OBrien took the podium, looked straight ahead and uttered the kind of words you would expect from someone who had just been introduced as Penn States new head football coach. http://www.nflcheapjerseywhole... . The 26-year-old Brunnstrom scored three goals in his first four pre-season games while playing on a pro tryout contract. Combined with an injury to Jan Mursak, it was enough to earn a roster spot. [url=http://www.cheapnfljerseysdeals.com/]NFL Jerseys China .S. -- Vince Hinostroza scored twice and added two assists as the United States scored four unanswered goals on Sunday to beat Canada West 6-3 and win the World Junior A Challenge for the fourth time in five years. wholesale jerseys . - Lee Roy Selmon, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers Hall of Fame defensive end who teamed with his brothers to create a dominant defensive front and helped lead Oklahoma to consecutive national championships, died Sunday -- two days after being hospitalized for a stroke.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. NFL Jerseys Black Friday. 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! ' ' '