heed316 7 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Puck is going in the middle, it shouldn't matter that the post was an inch or two off! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 I can replay it on my DVR and clearly see the net is off. Good call, they just showed a pretty definitive look. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeymom1960 5,107 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 BULLs*** BULLs*** BULLs*** Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nero 20 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 So now where is the penalty shot? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kook_10 1,705 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 it's nice and all that they got the call right, but they gotta come up with a rule that if they can't come to a consensus within 2 minutes then there isn't enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the ice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Xitium 272 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 I thought the ref can still call a goal if the puck goes through where the net would have been? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Ding! I win the chocolate bunny. That means Ottawa PP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
acidroach420 25 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 No goal. Seems like the right call, just unfortunate it helps out the pens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Puck is going in the middle, it shouldn't matter that the post was an inch or two off! Wasn't there a goal recently that counted even though the net was up off the ice? NHL not knowing its own rules yet again. 1 Xitium reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HockeytownRules19 902 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 as much as I hate to say it... Excellent Call right there 1 acidroach420 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crymson Report post Posted April 25, 2010 That no-goal call was the result of a terrible NHL rule. Of course, they'll probably never change it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 it's nice and all that they got the call right, but they gotta come up with a rule that if they can't come to a consensus within 2 minutes then there isn't enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the ice. That works so long as your team doesn't get burned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 it's nice and all that they got the call right, but they gotta come up with a rule that if they can't come to a consensus within 2 minutes then there isn't enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the ice. You realize that Toronto would then take more than 2 minutes any time it related to a Wings disputed goal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crymson Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Let's be honest, folks. It was no goal; the NHL rulebook dictates that any goal against the Penguins which goes to review must be called a no-goal. Deal with it. 2 edicius and aflac9262 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 That no-goal call was the result of a terrible NHL rule. Of course, they'll probably never change it. The terrible rule that states that the net has to be on its moorings for there to be a goal? Yea, cause we want to see goals scored when the net is off. It really adds another dimension when the net can be knocked off and goals can still be counted. Let's be honest, folks. It was no goal; the NHL rulebook dictates that any goal against the Penguins which goes to review must be called a no-goal. Deal with it. Glad to hear you are unbiased. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown Red Wings 245 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 The terrible rule that states that the net has to be on its moorings for there to be a goal? Yea, cause we want to see goals scored when the net is off. It really adds another dimension when the net can be knocked off and goals can still be counted. Yeah, because knocking the net off to prevent goals is awesome too? /sarcastic upward inflection Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Wow. I guess putting Leclaire between the pipes for Ottawa really WAS a good idea. CBJ fans are watching this game and going, "What the hell?!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Yeah, because knocking the net off to prevent goals is awesome too? /sarcastic upward inflection Well, which would you rather have? Nets that you can't remove and risk injury to players or nets that can come off their moorings? I prefer the players to have at least a little safety. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Crymson Report post Posted April 25, 2010 The terrible rule that states that the net has to be on its moorings for there to be a goal? Yea, cause we want to see goals scored when the net is off. It really adds another dimension when the net can be knocked off and goals can still be counted. If the net goes off its moorings immediately before the goal, and if that had no effect on whether or not the puck would have gone in, then there's no reason for it to not be called a goal. Glad to hear you are unbiased. What I said is an example of a 'facetious but pretty much true' statement. In any event, that should have been a penalty shot for the Sens in case of a no-goal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nero 20 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Wow. I guess putting Leclaire between the pipes for Ottawa really WAS a good idea. CBJ fans are watching this game and going, "What the hell?!" Leclaire is going, "I'm glad I've got a good team in front of me." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown Red Wings 245 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Wow. I guess putting Leclaire between the pipes for Ottawa really WAS a good idea. CBJ fans are watching this game and going, "What the hell?!" He did have something like ten shutouts in his last full season with the CBJ. The only reason he was let go was because Mason emerged while he injured. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dat's sick 1,002 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 The terrible rule that states that the net has to be on its moorings for there to be a goal? Yea, cause we want to see goals scored when the net is off. It really adds another dimension when the net can be knocked off and goals can still be counted. If the net is moved AFTER the puck is shot and it is determined that the puck would have gone in REGARDLESS of whether the net was moved or not.. it should be a good goal imo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Holliday 1,888 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Wasn't there a goal recently that counted even though the net was up off the ice? NHL not knowing its own rules yet again. Come on guys. The goal will stand if the net is still on the pegs but lifted. If the net comes OFF before the puck goes in then it is a no goal. Makes sense because the referee is supposed to blow the whistle for the net coming off, and since it was the first thing to happen the play stops there. Easy call, surprised it took so long. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown Red Wings 245 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Well, which would you rather have? Nets that you can't remove and risk injury to players or nets that can come off their moorings? I prefer the players to have at least a little safety. I prefer that if something were going to be a clear goal, that the net moving slightly at the time the puck went across shouldn't matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites