PARIS -- This is what Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic wanted. Its what they expected. And now theyll meet in a French Open final with so much at stake for both. Nadal is seeking championship No. 9 at Roland Garros, and his 14th major title overall. Djokovic is hoping to finally conquer the French Open and complete a career Grand Slam. Fittingly, whoever wins the rivals 42nd head-to-head meeting Sunday will be ranked No. 1 on Monday; the runner-up will be No. 2. "He has the motivation to win Roland Garros for the first time, for sure. But at the same time, he has the pressure to win for the first time," Nadal said. "I have the pressure that I want to win -- and the motivation that I want to win -- the ninth." In Fridays semifinals, the No. 1-seeded Nadal was at his imperious, and nearly immaculate, best in a 6-3, 6-2, 6-1 victory over Wimbledon champion Andy Murray that lasted all of 100 minutes. Nadal never faced a break point, converted all six he earned, and whipped his uppercut of a forehand as only he can. Toni Nadal, Rafaels uncle and coach, called the match "one of the best that he has ever played here." Thats sure saying something. Tonis nephew is 65-1 at the clay-court tournament and carries a 34-match winning streak into the final. The thick, grey clouds and chill that became a staple these two weeks gave way to sunshine and warmth Friday, and Nadal reveled in it. "For me, is much better when the weather is like today," he said. "My ball creates more topspin. The ball goes quicker in the air, and with my forehand I am able to create more with less." All in all, Nadal made Murray look rather lost. "You want to be competitive. You want to make it hard for him," Murray said. "I wasnt able to do that." The No. 2-seeded Djokovics semifinal was only slightly less perfunctory, a 6-3, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3 victory over 18th-seeded Ernests Gulbis of Latvia that came first Friday, when the temperature hit 82 degrees (28 Celsius). Wrapping a cold towel around his neck during changeovers, Djokovic was brilliant through two sets, then faltered in the third, showing frustration by spiking a racket so hard he mangled it. Djokovic has made no secret of the importance he places on a French Open title to add to the six majors hes won -- four at the Australian Open, one each at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. "Obviously, Novak would like to win the one he is missing," said Djokovics coach, Marian Vajda. "So all these hopes ... make him more tense than usually you see him. But I think this match helped him to release it." Afterward, Djokovic said he felt "physically fatigued a little bit" and was looking forward to resting until Sunday, when the forecast predicts similar heat but also a chance of rain. No two men in the Open era, which began in 1968, faced each other as often as these two. Nadal leads 22-19 overall, 8-3 at majors, and 5-0 in the French Open -- including victories over Djokovic in the 2012 final and 2013 semifinals. But Djokovic won their last four matchups, including on clay in the final at Rome last month, which the Serb said boosted his belief in himself. Still, Djokovic conceded, "I dont know how much upper hand I have, really. ... There is no doubt that he is the favourite to win the title." Nadals take? "Probably he will come to the match mentally a little bit better than me because he beat me the last four," said the Spaniard, who won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open twice each, and the Australian Open once, and can tie Pete Sampras at 14 major titles, behind only Roger Federers record for men of 17. "But at the same time, my feeling is I am doing the things better, and I am playing better again." Nadal arrived at Roland Garros dealing with some doubts. There were the three losses on clay in 2014. There was the pain in his back that resurfaced early last week, leading to a dip in his serve speeds and prompting him to wear vertical strips of tape under his shirt for support. By Friday evening, all was well. His back felt fine. His serves had zip. His forehand was fearsome. The sun was shining. And now Djokovic awaits. Willie Stargell Jersey .Y. - Referee Ed Hochuli referred to replay official Tom Sifferman by his nickname Jungle Boy, which was heard on the in-stadium microphone during the Arizona Cardinals-Carolina Panthers NFC wild-card game Saturday. Starling Marte Jersey . Crawford hit his slam off Pirates starter Edinson Volquez to give San Francisco a four run lead in the fourth and they never looked back. Brandon Belt had three runs batted in as well. Bumgarner pitched all nine innings and allowed just four hits. http://www.pittsburghpiratesprostore.us/...pirates-jersey/. Napoli beat high-flying Hellas Verona 3-0 to keep up the pressure on the top two while AC Milan had another disappointing night as four goals from teenage forward Domenico Berardi saw relegation-threatened Sassuolo come back from two goals down to win 4-3. Pittsburgh Pirates Jerseys . Having won the first leg 1-0 in Barcelona, Madrid entered the match at the Santiago Bernabeu Stadium already in control and quickly sealed its place in the semifinals when Jese Rodriguez scored in the seventh minute. Dave Parker Jersey . Cincinnati has lost back-to-back games in overtime, wasting a chance to take a commanding lead in their division.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. Hi Ref! Been a long time Sens fan and stuck with them through the ups and downs. Ive always liked the fact that theyve made no excuses for their wins and their losses but their game with the Habs has me a tad irate with the what appears to be inconsistent calls. For example, there were a couple goalie interference calls against the Sens, like it or not, they were called, yet there were at least two non-calls for Robin Lehner being bumped including the game-tying goal at the end of regulation. Im not even going to go on about the non-call on the dive that caused that power play. My question is this: In the replay of the game-winning OT goal, the play moved into Ottawas end, a shot was taken that was stopped by Lehner and the puck was in/on/around his pads. The overhead camera angle showed the puck on the ice, not covered for a few seconds and then it was jammed in. Unless the referee is 35 feet tall and looking straight down at that angle, there is no way he could have even seen the puck free as the goalie had his back to him and there was a scrum of players there. Yet there was no stoppage even with the puck out of his sight for over five seconds (according to the game clock) and he later told Spezza that he didnt blow the whistle because of the noise level in the building. I would like to know if theres any disciplinary action for a referee who blows a call like that and then makes a "its too noisy to hear the whistle" comment as an excuse? Roger Smallman,St. Catharines, ON --- Hello, I just wanted some clarification - I thought when the goalie has the puck covered, the ref has to blow the whistle. Its my understanding that if the goalie has the puck covered, then an opposing player cannot jam at the goalie to knock the puck loose! Is that true or not? Josh Knowles Roger and Josh, Thank you for your questions following a very emotionally charged come-from-behind overtime victory by the Montreal Canadiens over the visiting Ottawa Senators. I want to share a general philosophy and understanding as to when the referee should blow the whistle. There is a misconception by some fans that a puck must be frozen for three seconds before the referee should deem it unplayable and then blow his whistle. This stems from language in Rule 85.2 when a puck falls onto the back of the goal netting and the referee is specifically directed to allow three seconds for it to be played unless the goalkeeper uses his stick or glove to freeze the puck on the back of the net, in which case the whistle is immediate. This three second application is also generally applied to determine a "frozen" puck between opposing players along the boards; although we often see the refs encourage play to continue with a non-whistle and audible command to "play it". The philosophy employed to kill play in and around the goal crease is somewhat consistent with Rule 69 (Interference on the Goalkeeper.) This rule was formerly called "Protection of the Goalkeeper" for good reason by recognizing, in part, the vulnerability of a goalkeeper given his unique position and the obvious impairment to defend his goal that would result through player contact. As such, the referee must first determine that the goalkeeper has control and coverage of the puck prior to his intent to blow the play dead in order to avoid a quick whistle. Of equal importance, is for a ref to be aware that an attacking player(s) does not dislodge or expose a covered puck by contacting the goalkeeper with a stick or any part of the body! Rule 85.3 (puck out of sight) states that should a scramble take place or a player accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sighht of the Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle to stop the play.dddddddddddd Truth is, there are many times during a scramble that the referee loses sight of the puck but does not blow his whistle immediately while he moves in an attempt to visually locate the puck. Every referee has had the embarrassment of blowing his whistle too quickly, only to have the puck slip through the goalies equipment and into the net causing a legitimate goal to be disallowed. Previous embarrassments such as this are always in the back of the refs mind. To avoid the quick whistle, but also to be aware of the potential for players to dislodge a covered puck, the referee must attack the net quickly from the best angle and react quickly to potential contact of the goalkeeper. Lets apply the above philosophies to the reality of the eventual winning goal scored by Francis Bouillon. Max Pacioretty, who was being checked by Jared Cowen, threw the puck at the Ottawa net from the bottom middle point of the end zone face-off circle to the left of goalie Robin Lehner. The shot was gobbled up in the right pad of Lehner, protected and appeared to be covered by Lehners blocker. The referee began to drive toward the net from his initial position some 30 feet from the right post. The closest Montreal player to the net, David Desharnais, was at the bottom of the end zone face-off T some 20 feet away and positioned on the outside of Sens player Bobby Ryan. Cody Ceci approached the centre of the goal crease from 15 feet out. This distance of other players from the net creates time and space for the goalkeeper to control and cover the puck. With all these parts of the puzzle moving quickly toward Lehner, who remained in a stationary position tight to the post with his blocker and stick down in front of the right goal pad throughout, my radar as a ref would go on high alert! The very last thing I would want to have happen is for the goalkeeper to be contacted and the puck dislodged. From the sight line the referee had at the time (and the multiple camera angles shown), I find it hard to imagine the puck was visible to him or anyone else at this point. Desharnais stepped to the inside of Ryan and jammed at Lehner with his stick and body as his momentum took the Hab forward behind the net. Ceci then made contact with the right side of his goalkeeper causing Lehners blocker to elevate off the ice and rotate. The contact by both players altered the position of Lehner sufficiently to expose the puck in front of Lehners pad. At this point, the puck would be clearly visible to the referee from his position closer to the net and as detected on the overhead camera shot. Pacioretty then came in hard from the side the crease for an easy layup for Bouillon. When players crash the crease and jam at the goalkeeper, bad things usually happen. Typically, the refs will exercise the philosophy I described above and blow the whistle in advance of any deliberate contact exerted by an attacking player. This play was allowed to continue too long without visible evidence of the puck being uncovered prior to the contact exerted by Desharnais and then Ceci. In my judgment Josh, the whistle should have blown prior to that contact. Roger, if Stephen Walkom, Sr. V.P. of Officiating assessed this play as I did, he will review and discuss the play with the referee and make suggestions as to how a similar situation should be ruled upon in the future. There is no disciplinary action in place for officials beyond the ongoing rating and ranking system that every official is subjected to for playoff assignments and ongoing employment. One call or one game does not greatly impact the overall season performance rating of any official. Great calls are made and some are unfortunately missed. Thats the human element of the job. ' ' '