seeinred 1,488 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 (edited) I don't think he thought it was in so much as "knew" it was going in. Sometimes you let it go and just know it. Edited April 23, 2010 by SeeinRed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z and D for the C 712 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Spezza looks possessed out there. Almost Filppula-esque. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AIK'91 22 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 (edited) Ottawa has the opposite problem of us. 4 right-handers to start the PP. Edited April 23, 2010 by AIK'91 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Carman 387 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 If you're trying to redirect the puck into the net, which IS legal under the wording in the rulebook, you do. And "not for the specific act of stopping" doesn't mean "distinct kicking motion." I don't expect kick-off like kicks, but still, a kick is a kick. You can't just change the definition of it for hockey. Kick. To strike out with the foot or feet. Looked like he struck the puck with his foot did it not? If his foot wasn't going forward that would be redirecting. But he moved his foot to make contact with the puck. Pretty cut and dry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Huge stop by Leclaire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vladifan 680 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Dammit! Almost a goal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z and D for the C 712 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Flooory doesn't look very good out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 4 on 4 now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,793 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Orpik is the master of interference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?! Report post Posted April 23, 2010 If you're trying to redirect the puck into the net, which IS legal under the wording in the rulebook, you do. And "not for the specific act of stopping" doesn't mean "distinct kicking motion." I don't expect kick-off like kicks, but still, a kick is a kick. You can't just change the definition of it for hockey. A redirect does not involve the skate moving to the puck. That is a kick. A redirect involves the puck directing off of a skate that has a clear, defined path that has not change as a result of the puck being near the skate. The skate did not have a clear, defined path. The path was changed to meet the puck which resulted in a kick. A skate path may be changed to redirect the puck but it must be made soon enough for the skate to have a clearly defined path. And when is the last time you saw a guy really kick at the puck? Most of the kicks are small. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aussie_Wing 354 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Bad PP except for the last 20 seconds. COME ON SENS!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z and D for the C 712 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Looked like he struck the puck with his foot did it not? If his foot wasn't going forward that would be redirecting. But he moved his foot to make contact with the puck. His entire body was moving. He changed the rotation angle of his foot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjlegend 155 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Foligno - two minutes for getting humped by Orpik. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seeinred 1,488 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Kick. To strike out with the foot or feet. Looked like he struck the puck with his foot did it not? If his foot wasn't going forward that would be redirecting. But he moved his foot to make contact with the puck. Pretty cut and dry. No, it's not cut and dry. His foot was going forward because HE was going forward. And he moved his foot not to strike the puck, but so the puck would strike his foot. It may sound petty, but it's an important distinction to make. Well it would be anyway, if the refs and Toronto didn't throw out the rulebook this postseason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,793 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 (edited) Puck first my ass. Collision came first. Edited April 23, 2010 by GMRwings1983 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rubbel_die_Katz 24 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 he DID NOT touch the puck...wtf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SiLkK19 67 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Pens guy didn't even touch the puck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vladifan 680 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Why wasn't that a penalty with the guy upending the Ottawa player? jeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzussssssssss.......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RockyMountainWingGal 108 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Have the Sens even had a full 2 min PP this game? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Carman 387 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 No, it's not cut and dry. His foot was going forward because HE was going forward. And he moved his foot not to strike the puck, but so the puck would strike his foot. It may sound petty, but it's an important distinction to make. Well it would be anyway, if the refs and Toronto didn't throw out the rulebook this postseason. Just because you want to read into the rules doesn't mean they aren't following them. It doesn't matter why his foot was going forward. This isn't about intent. It's about the fact that his foot moved to strike the puck that directly resulted in a goal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seeinred 1,488 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 And when is the last time you saw a guy really kick at the puck? Most of the kicks are small. Sure they're small, but you can't tell me that the goal we just saw disallowed was the same kind of kicking motion that usually gets a goal waved off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Z and D for the C 712 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 Hahahaha, anyone hear that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DatsyukianDeke13 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 looks like 2OT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted April 23, 2010 One's not enough. Going to double OT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest scottj Report post Posted April 23, 2010 lol... you go to the box for holding... n you go to the box for hitting the guy that wouldn't stop holding you n versus announcers saying the refs have been awesome this game haha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
