TORONTO - The Canadian Football League Scouting Bureau today published the winter edition of the Top-20 ranked prospects eligible for the 2015 CFL Draft. Cheap Air Max Tn . Top Five Prospects For a second-straight ranking, offensive lineman Brett Boyko from UNLV was named the top prospect by the CFL Scouting Bureau. The Saskatoon, Saskatchewan native was recognized after a senior season in which he was named to the All-Mountain West second team for a second consecutive season. He started all 13 games, allowing only one sack and collecting 37 pancake tackles. Boyko completed the campaign with an invitation to play in the East-West Shrine Game on January 17, 2015 in St. Petersburg, Florida. Rounding out the top five are University of Connecticut offensive lineman Alex Mateas, Western University defensive lineman Daryl Waud, Yale University running back Tyler Varga and University of Manitoba receiver Nic Demski. Winter Scouting Bureau Rankings Rank Name Pos School 1 (1) Brett Boyko OL UNLV 2 (6) Alex Mateas OL Connecticut 3 (5) Daryl Waud DL Western 4 (2) Tyler Varga RB Yale 5 (3) Nic Demski WR Manitoba 6 (14) Sean McEwen OL Calgary 7 (8) Sukh Chungh OL Calgary 8 (4) Danny Groulx OL Laval 9 (11) Addison Richards WR Regina 10 (7) Jacob Ruby OL Richmond 11 (15) Nick Shortill LB McMaster 12 (12) Chris Ackie DB Wilfrid Laurier 13 (10) Dillon Guy OL Buffalo 14 (16) Karl Lavoie OL Laval 15 (13) Brendon Tennant DL Laval 16 ( - ) Adam Konar LB Calgary 17 ( - ) Byron Archambault LB Montreal 18 (17) Ese Mrabure-Ajufo DL Wilfrid Laurier 19 (19) Jake Harty WR Calgary 20 ( - ) Ettore Lattanzio DL Ottawa By The Numbers The ranking includes eight offensive linemen, four defensive linemen, three receivers, three linebackers, one defensive back and one running back. There are 14 universities represented on the list with three schools featuring multiple selections: Calgary (4), Laval (3) and Laurier (2). 17 players from the fall CFL Scouting Bureau List (published in September) were selected to the winter edition. Three players fell out of the Top-20 and were replaced by Adam Konar from Calgary, Byron Archambault from Montreal and Ottawas Ettore Lattanzio. The biggest rise in the rankings came from Calgary Dino offensive lineman Sean McEwen. The native of Calgary was ranked No. 14 in the September rankings and jumped eight spots to No. 6 in the latest rankings. Of the 15 players featured in last years winter edition of the CFL Scouting Bureau rankings, 14 were selected in the 2014 CFL Draft with seven of those players being selected in the first round. Notes The 2015 CFL Combine will be held in Toronto from March 27 - March 29. The date of the 2015 CFL Draft has yet to be confirmed. The CFL Scouting Bureau releases its rankings three times each year: in September, December and April. The CFLs Scouting Bureau is comprised of CFL scouts, player personnel directors and general managers from the leagues nine teams. Last year, a new draft rule came into effect whereby players with national status playing in the CIS will be eligible to be selected in the CFL Draft three years after completing their first year of CIS eligibility. In addition, the CFL adjusted the eligibility rules for players with national status playing in the NCAA. These players will now be eligible to be selected in the CFL Draft following their senior season of NCAA eligibility. Cheap Air Max 97 Wholesale . 1. Did the Senators trade the wrong goalie? Lets make one thing clear: The Ottawa Senators acquired Ben Bishop from the St. Louis Blues for one reason and one reason alone. Cheap Air Max 270 . The unrestricted free agent agreed to terms with the club on Thursday on a one-year, two-way deal worth $700,000. http://www.airmax90wholesalecheap.com/cheap-air-max-90-wholesale/air-max-90-ultra-essential-for-sale.html . Therrien would not confirm his lineup for the game, but he did have the same line combinations practicing together for the third straight day which is usually a pretty good indication of what the lineup will be.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. Hey Kerry, Real simple one for you. How did Luke Glendening get called for goalie interference when he appeared to not even touch Braden Holtby who fell on his own? Thanks, Confused Wings Fan Kerry, Watching the Red Wings and Caps game - why was the good goal scored by Detroit in the first period disallowed? Is this not subject to review? Ref clearly did not see what happened on play or he would not have waived off goal. If he wasnt sure why not go to video review? Isnt the goal of the ref to get it right? Could he not have allowed the goal (because he clearly did not see what happened) and go to video review to confirm? E. Parsons Dear Fan and E., You werent the only confused fans when this potential game-changing decision was made by trailing referee Ghislain Hebert to disallow Drew Millers legitimate goal. Instead of the Wings being credited with scoring the first goal of the game they went on the penalty kill when a phantom goalkeeper interference penalty was assessed to Luke Glendening. There is no way to sugar-coat this blown call. Im certain the referee would be the first to admit the play did not happen the way that he thought it did from his position in the neutral zone. There is no value in beating him up over it as mistakes happen. What I want to focus our attention on is the breakdown in the two-referee system that took place in hopes it wont happen again; along with options that might have been available to alter this decision on the ice. Video review is presently unable to provide information or confirmation to referees on penalty infractions so there was no option for them to get involved on this play once the penalty was assessed. Each referee is primarily responsible for areas of coverage dependent upon where the puck is located in respect to their position on the ice. Simply put, the terms action (on and around the puck) and non-action divide these responsibilities and continuously shift between each referee as play transitions to avoid gaps in coverage. Once Braden Holtby vacated his goal crease to play the puck behind the net, end zone referee Mike Leggo was responsible for the action on and around the puck. It was his job to ensure there was no foul committed by Glendening as he pursued the puck. Holtby reversed the puck away from Glendening to teammate Matt Niskanen in the opposite corner to where Leggo was positioned. The referee should have moved off the side boards toward the action in the corner where an aggressive Wings forecheck forced a turnover. From this more ideal vantage point, the end zoone referee could have seen that Holtby was untouched by Glendening in addition to viewing the action in the corner. Air Max 97 Clearance. Instead, the referee enters the camera frame off the wall late to wave off a goal having heard his partners whistle blow an instant prior to the puck entering the net. So how could this have altered the decision by the referee in the neutral zone, you might ask? Had it been me on the goal line that clearly observed Holtby trip on his own I would immediately convene a conference with the crew of officials. Hopefully one or both of the linesmen observed the play accurately, but even if they did not I would provide the necessary information to present considerable doubt in the mind of my partner to negate his initial penalty call. With no penalty on the play we would still have to face the problem of his whistle blowing prior to the puck entering the net. By virtue of this whistle, play was officially stopped and therefore the goal could not be allowed under the rules from the ice. This is a time when the whistle would be hard to swallow because the sound did not cause Holtby to stop or affect his ability to defend against the shot into the open net. Even though it would appear morally right to allow the goal, the fact that play had been stopped could not be disregarded on the ice. At this juncture, if no penalty was to be assessed, perhaps the expanded responsibilities granted to Video Review this season in rule 38.4 (viii) could be implemented to make the right call? It states that: The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. 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 player where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net as the end of a continuous play.) One or three of the other officials on the ice should have observed this play accurately and informed referee Hebert of the error of his decision to justly negate a penalty call and perhaps allow Video Review to get involved. If that had been the case the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net as a result of the continuous play executed by Drew Miller and the right and just decision could be rendered on this good hockey goal. I provide these potential remedies on this play in the absence of a Coaches Challenge that is much needed. ' ' '