4/22 OOT Playoff Gameday

[mjlegend 155]

I don't know that I've seen an overtime period with four total power plays. One of the refs must have picked Jordan Staal in his league.

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

he DID NOT touch the puck...wtf

Worst part about it is the announcers constantly saying otherwise.

[Aussie_Wing 354]

Hahahaha, anyone hear that?

Sure did, huge F bomb. Not sure who said it though and to whom.

[Z and D for the C 712]

Sure did, huge F bomb. Not sure who said it though and to whom.

Sounded like "Aww you f**cking little chicken s***!" when the Ottowa player went behind his net.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

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.

First time I saw it I thought it was a kick and that's how the ref and Toronto saw it. The rules don't change for the playoffs. That call would have been made regular season or playoffs and it doesn't matter which team. If Sidney Crosby himself made that play it would have been called a kick and disallowed.

[seeinred 1,488]

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.

Yeah, it does mean they're not following them. If the words in the rulebook say one thing, but they ignore it, I'm pretty sure they're not following it.

And yes, it does matter why his foot was going forward. Players in hockey have this strange way of stopping. It's different than any other sport. They turn their feet perpendicular to the way they're going and dig into the ice basically. That's not kicking.

[Guest DatsyukianDeke13]

lawl Don Cherry is ripping the refs

Oh and this:

[Nero 20]

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.

The only person reading into the rules here is you. He stopped. The puck hit his skate and went in. Turning his feet is NOT a distinct kicking motion. You cannot change the ******* definition of a kick just because this is hockey.

CBC is showing the same exact play being called a good goal after review.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Nero

[seeinred 1,488]

First time I saw it I thought it was a kick and that's how the ref and Toronto saw it. The rules don't change for the playoffs. That call would have been made regular season or playoffs and it doesn't matter which team. If Sidney Crosby himself made that play it would have been called a kick and disallowed.

I agree that it's not a conspiracy, but the rule definitely changed for the postseason.

I think that goal would've stood in the regular season, just like that goal in Vancouver would have too.

[Carman 387]

The only person reading into the rules here is you. He stopped. The puck hit his skate and went in. Turning his feet is NOT a distinct kicking motion. You cannot change the ******* definition of a kick just because this is hockey.

I'm not changing the definition of a kick.

A kick is to strike an object with your foot.

And he did.

It's simple.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Coach's Corner pretty much laying it out plainly, there's no rhyme or reason to the results of kicking the puck in the net.

[Aussie_Wing 354]

Seriously, I hate thie Pittsburgh team so much.

I might even hate Brooks Orpik more than Crosby.

[Nero 20]

I'm not changing the definition of a kick.

A kick is to strike an object with your foot.

And he did.

It's simple.

CBC is showing the same exact play being called a good goal after review.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

I agree that it's not a conspiracy, but the rule definitely changed for the postseason.

I think that goal would've stood in the regular season, just like that goal in Vancouver would have too.

Rules don't change just because it is the playoffs. That goal would have been waived no matter what.

[Carman 387]

Soo your point is that the NHL is inconsistent? Well no s*** haha. I don't see how that effects my position on this situation.

[Nero 20]

Rules don't change just because it is the playoffs. That goal would have been waived no matter what.

CBC is showing the same exact play being called a good goal after review.

Obviously not.

[edicius 3,269]

Friggin' O'Halloran's on the take. I don't buy the whole "OMG PENS ARE SO SKILLED SO THEY DRAW EPIC PENALTIEZ!!!111" argument. It's all a sham.

[SiLkK19 67]

Sharks avs game starting.

[seeinred 1,488]

Rules don't change just because it is the playoffs. That goal would have been waived no matter what.

No, rules *shouldn't* change because it's the playoffs. But they do. Penalties don't get called quite as closely is usually the only thing, but this year they decided to change the definition of "distinct kicking motion." I've seen that goal count before, and I know you have too.

[Guest DatsyukianDeke13]

penalty already

[evil204 4]

How can that not be a goal when this is a goal:

[seeinred 1,488]

Soo your point is that the NHL is inconsistent? Well no s*** haha. I don't see how that effects my position on this situation.

It doesn't weaken either side of the argument. All it means is that the league's gotten it wrong one way or the other at least once.

[Nero 20]

Soo your point is that the NHL is inconsistent? Well no s*** haha. I don't see how that effects my position on this situation.

Sort of. The point is that it probably would have (and has) been a goal in any other case.

[MTU_Huskies963 398]

That's hilarious CBC just showed the rules DVD, and put the NHL on the spot. I hate this league with a passion if it was not for the wings, I may not care for NHL hockey.

[edicius 3,269]

I don't know why I'm surprised that the series in the West are all close while the series in the East are all blowouts at this point.