(Sports Network) - The New York Yankees are running out of time. The Yankees try to put the brakes on a four-game losing streak and keep their fading postseason hopes alive on Wednesday when they continue a three-game series versus the Toronto Blue Jays at Rogers Centre. Toronto added to New Yorks woes on Wednesday, as R.A. Dickey prevailed in a pitchers duel with Andy Pettitte, and the Blue Jays eked out a 2-0 victory. Dickey (13-12) yielded just four hits and two walks while striking out eight over seven scoreless innings. Casey Janssen struck out the side in the ninth to nail down his 31st save. "It would be nice to continue to grow. These are important games, for me in particular. We are going to be competing next year, it is important to start getting it right now," said Dickey. The setback dropped New York 3 1/2 games back in the American League wild card race, where Tampa Bay and Texas currently hold the top two spots after the Rangers defeated the Rays on Tuesday. "Were getting to where we cant lose much more," Yankees manager Joe Girardi said. Pettitte (10-10) gave the Yankees a chance by firing 6 2/3 effective innings, with the veterans lone mistake a solo homer to Colby Rasmus in the bottom of the fourth. Rajai Davis added a solo shot later on and finished 2-for-4 in the win, only the Blue Jays second in their last seven overall games. Getting the call for the Yankees on Wednesday will be righty Phil Hughes, who is just 4-13 on the season with a 5.07 ERA. Hughes returned to the rotation and started against Baltimore on Thursday, but lasted just three-plus innings despite giving up a run and three hits in his teams 6-5 win. "After having not pitched a lot in the last couple of weeks, command was my biggest concern," Hughes said on Thursday. "It was pretty good. I didnt walk anybody and I was throwing a lot of strikes, so I was happy with that." Hughes is 5-6 lifetime versus the Jays with a 4.84 ERA. Toronto, meanwhile, will counter with lefty J.A. Happ, who has lost four of his last five starts. Happs latest setback came on Thursday against the Los Angeles Angels, as he allowed four runs (3 earned) and six hits in 4 1/3 innings, dropping him to 4-6 to go along with a 5.15 ERA. "Im just trying to prove to myself more than anything," Happ said. "You want to keep the team in the game and you want to have respect. Im thinking about the team more than Im thinking about anybody else analyzing me. I hope to go out and finish strong, thats for sure." Happs struggles could continue on Wednesday, as Toronto has lost his last six starts at home. Hes also 0-2 with a 6.75 ERA in three starts against the Yankees this season. Despite Tuesdays loss, New York has won 13 of its 17 meetings with the Jays this season. In fact, since 2001, Toronto has won the head-to-head matchup with New York just one time, going 10-8 against the Yanks in 10. Mark Stone Jersey . The person, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the search, confirmed reports by several media outlets. The interview took place in Southern California on Monday. Tomas Nosek Jersey . -- The Grand Rapids Griffins scored three goals in 33 seconds of the second period en route to defeating the Hamilton Bulldogs 6-1 in American Hockey League action on Friday. http://www.goldenknightssale.com/authentic-alex-tuch-golden-knights-jersey/ . "Im proud of him," Jones said in an interview from Sacramento, site of the UFCs weekend televised card. "I think hes listening to his body and hes doing what makes him happy and thats what life is about ultimately. William Karlsson Golden Knights Jersey . -- Two nights after losing to the Eastern Conferences worst team, the Phoenix Coyotes handled the best. Shea Theodore Jersey . The Argentine midfielder made the announcement himself on Twitter on Tuesday and posted a picture of his swollen left foot. His message said he would be out "at least three weeks.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 Kerry, In the Montreal-Anaheim shootout on Wednesday night, they went to review on what appeared to be a goal. The Montreal goalies body language was that the puck went in. The shooter appeared to celebrate. They went to video review and the overhead shot (I was watching the Anaheim feed) was repeatedly shown. You could see the puck hit the first post, then there was a delay, and then you could see the puck come off the second post and trickle along the goal line without going across. Not only was the delay curious, but on double-posters, you can usually see (in the overhead shot) the puck shooting across the goal line towards the second post. Nonetheless, in the overhead shot, you could not see the puck in the net, or cross the goal line, at any time. In the Ducks feed, just before the refs announced Torontos decision, the Ducks broadcast showed a lower side angle shot that clearly showed the puck hitting the stanchion in the back of the net before coming back to the right post. This view conclusively showed the puck in the net. What happened? Im guessing Toronto never saw this angle. Even if they didnt see this angle, didnt the overhead replay raise questions and suggest more angles needed to be viewed? Im also wondering what the call was on the ice. If the call was a good goal, I dont think the overhead showed enough to reverse the refs decision. Any insight on what happened would be appreciated. Greg Ward Greg: I watched the Anaheim feed as well and I respectfully disagree with your assertion that a lower side angle shot clearly showed the puck hitting the stanchion in the back of the net before coming back to the right post. In actuality, Kyle Palmieris shot went post to post and the puck travelled along the goal line before Habs goalie Dustin Tokarski swiped the puck away in disgust. Tokarski only assumed that the puck had entered the net once the shot got past him and he heard the sound of double iron. Once he turned and witnessed the puck dancing along the back edge of the goal line his assumption was that at some point it had entered the net. Since the puck must entirely cross the goal line for a legal goal to be credited (rule 78.4), the overhead camera shot provides the best evidence that Palmieris shot did not cross the line. The decision on the ice by one referee (Mike Hassenfratz) was to signal a goal. The other ref (Chris Rooney) did not make a definitive signal and was jumping out of the way of Kyle Palmieri as the Ducks player curled along the goal line toward the corner after making his shot attempt. I will say that neither referee set himself in "picture perfect" position once they gave Palmieri the signal to commence his shot attempt. Both refs were too far from the net and looking along or from behind the goal line/post once the shot was taken. A quick push to the net from just ahead of the goal line would have been the optimum position from which to determine if the puck crossed the line at any point after striking both goal posts. In spite of the fact that referee Hassenfratz felt the puck had crossed the line and signaled a goal, video review has the authority to overrule the refs decision. The referee has one quick look at a play from his exclusive angle. Video review has access to all replays that may be available by reason of any telecasts of the game (rule 38.5). I concur with the decision rendered by the Situation Room personnel to overturn the call on the ice and to disallow Kyle Palmieris apparent goal given the clear evidence presenteed through multiple video replay angles; particularly from the overhead camera shot.dddddddddddd There are times when an inconclusive verdict is rendered following video review and the referees call on the ice will stand. This clearly wasnt one of those times. For those that wish to read on I want to share a story with excerpts from my book, The Final Call, which involved an "inconclusive verdict" from video review after I signaled a goal when I saw the puck completely cross the line after striking the goal post. The incident occurred in Game 1 of the Toronto Maple Leafs 1999 playoff series with the Pittsburgh Penguins. Pat Quinn was the coach of the Leafs and at that time the video-replay official in the arena was authorized to review goals and make decisions - a responsibility that later shifted to the leagues war room in Toronto. The series supervisor, Charlie Banfield, sat in the video-replay booth. Charlie is a good friend and was an excellent NHL referee before he took early retirement in 1979 to become a firefighter in his hometown of Halifax, Nova Scotia. In the second period, the video-review process (in particular, the placement of the overhead camera) failed both Charlie and me. I can still see the play as clearly as though it just happened. I was in perfect position, a half-step ahead of the goal line on the opposite side to where the players benches were located. At my back was the door where the visiting team exited the ice to get to their dressing room, located right beside ours. From this vantage point, my sightline was never obstructed by the goalpost or the mesh of the netting. The Leafs bench, where Quinn stood, was more than 100 feet away, so it was impossible for Pat to see what I am about to describe. A Penguin fired a rocket and hit the goal post nearest to me. After striking the post, the puck hit the ice flat and slid along the goal line. Less than halfway across the six-foot span between posts, the puck jumped up on its edge and curled along in an upright position. In a split second, I saw white ice between the black of the puck and the red goal line. I thrust my arm forward, pointing like an Irish setter, to signal the goal. The puck then fell back to flat, once again on the line as it continued to curl and exit the other side of the goal area. No goal light came on—nor should have, as the goal judges perspective would have prevented him from determining that the puck had completely, if narrowly, crossed the goal line. I had to blow my whistle to halt play, as I was the only one in the entire building who had seen that a goal had been scored. At least, this is until the next day. After I described the play to Charlie over the phone at the timekeepers bench, and after extensive review of the videotape, the verdict came back: inconclusive. Charlie apologized and said the overhead camera was positioned so that all he could see was the crossbar. He couldnt see the goal line. It was my call to make on the ice, and I ruled the goal would stand. The Mighty Quinn roared loudly that I had cheated his team that night. The next day, footage shot by an ESPN handheld camera that had been positioned in the corner—behind me and over my shoulder—was broadcast on ESPNs SportsCenter, and it revealed clearly that the puck had crossed the line exactly as I said it had. Even so, Pat would have none of it. He claimed the footage had been doctored. Back to present, it was wonderful to catch a camera shot of Pat Quinn being honored by the BC Place crowd during the Stadium Game Series between the Canucks and Senators. Pat is a very good person and a terrific hockey mind; even if we didnt often agree. Have a great weekend everyone. ' ' '