• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
aflac9262

4/24 OOT Playoff Gameday

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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
Guest Crymson   
Guest Crymson

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

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

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. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crymson   
Guest Crymson

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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   
Guest Crymson

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. :D

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

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." :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this