edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 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. That's the way I see it too. But then that becomes a judgment call in itself, so... *shrug* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 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. 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. Interesting rule. I would rather have the play blown dead when the net comes up instead of relying on Toronto to decide if goals should count or not if the puck goes over the line when the net comes off. Thats just my preference. It would be cool if your team got a goal from that rule, but if your team got scored on, there would be widespread riots. Penalty shot? Please. He didn't have enough of a lead on the closest defender. A 2 minute penalty was correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 (edited) Nice Ottawa nice! It's funny, were I live (outside Toronto) I'm always the one here cheering for the American team while everyone else is going Canadian. This time around everyone here is going American (Pittsburgh) and while I'm cheering Canadian (Ottawa)... Leaf fans. Edited April 25, 2010 by Barrie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 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. Moving slightly or off the moorings? The net can move, but the pegs have to be in. Its a clear cut rule. Why don't you just say that the net can be off the moorings and the puck can go in and count. I certainly don't want Toronto deciding goals on "I think that was going in" while the net was off. I prefer the cut and dry rule in the book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nero 20 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 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. The actual rule is that the net has to come off accidentally, not as a result of an offensive player being pushed into it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown Red Wings 245 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Moving slightly or off the moorings? The net can move, but the pegs have to be in. Its a clear cut rule. Why don't you just say that the net can be off the moorings and the puck can go in and count. I certainly don't want Toronto deciding goals on "I think that was going in" while the net was off. I prefer the cut and dry rule in the book. I agree that leaving something up to the judgement of Toronto is just asking for trouble. Just seems wrong that something that would clearly be a goal should be waived off on a technicality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sixer 37 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Hawks got so lucky today, so lucky! Preds deserved to win! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 I agree that leaving something up to the judgement of Toronto is just asking for trouble. Just seems wrong that something that would clearly be a goal should be waived off on a technicality. Sorry, I have to disagree. Keep the rule the way it is. Otherwise, what happens is that Toronto or the refs will keep the play going when the net comes off and call goals when they "look good". Guess we can agree to disagree. Hawks got so lucky today, so lucky! Preds deserved to win! Preds deserved to win, but they blew it. Chicago will win the series now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nero 20 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 (edited) Penalty shot? Please. He didn't have enough of a lead on the closest defender. A 2 minute penalty was correct. Please show me where "enough of a lead" is a variable in the rule determining a penalty shot...A penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending teamI don't know... looks like he had an opportunity to score. The only reason it may not have been a penalty shot was because he had other defending ahead of him. Edited April 25, 2010 by Nero Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Preds deserved to win, but they blew it. Chicago will win the series now. As exciting as the first round has been, for interests sake in the next round, I think it would be best if Detroit, Chicago, SJ, and Vancouver advance to the 2nd round in the West. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown Red Wings 245 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 (edited) As exciting as the first round has been, for interests sake in the next round, I think it would be best if Detroit, Chicago, SJ, and Vancouver advance to the 2nd round in the West. But....why not Phoenix? It's suuuuuuch a great story after all. Sens standing around way too much. Looks like a PP for the Pens. Another thing to love about a hockey forum; the only place you can say, "Looks like a PP.." and not get strange looks. Edited April 25, 2010 by Hockeytown Red Wings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 And there's the Pens PP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Please show me where "enough of a lead" is a variable in the rule determining a penalty shot... I don't know... looks like he had an opportunity to score. The only reason it may not have been a penalty shot was because he had other defending ahead of him. A penalty shot is awarded to a player who is deemed to have lost a clear scoring chance on a breakaway by way of a penalty infraction by an opposing player. A breakaway, in this case, means that there are no other players between the would-be shooter and the goaltender of the defending team. There was no clear scoring chance. Awarding a penalty shot on that would be laughable. If you could see through your bias, you may understand that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown Red Wings 245 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 No goal but no penalty to Malkin for goalie interference... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 NO GOAL! NO GOAL! Bettman's gonna be fuming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Haha, no goal. Pittsburgh fans probably have a beef though. Malkin got knocked into the goalie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Did one of the Pens just break Leclaire's stick or did I see wrong? s***. I hate Guerin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown Red Wings 245 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 And they get it back....3-2. Quite a blast from Guerin. Slapshots almost seem old school these days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedLightGoesOn 81 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Bleh. Ottawa needs to step it up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Did one of the Pens just break Leclaire's stick or did I see wrong? s***. I hate Guerin. That thing broke pretty easy. I think it was fractured previously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Ottawa needs to strike back quickly. Fight for their lives. Force that Game 7. That thing broke pretty easy. I think it was fractured previously. Yeah, after I saw the replay, there must have been something already going with that stick. Unfortunate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasper84 333 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Pens are picking it up now. I hope the Sens can hang in there for 9 more minutes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Ottawa should find a way to win this game. Their backs are against the wall. If the Pens pull this out, then the Sens will have no one to blame but themselves. Same with the Predators pissing away that game earlier today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedLightGoesOn 81 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 Cooke with his second proves there is no god. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 25, 2010 I hate Matt Cooke. God damn it, Sens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
