4/21 Boston at Ottawa -- revenge part 1
- Thread starter The Napkin
- Start date
Kerry FraserVerified account @kfraserthecall 3m3 minutes ago
Falling on the puck in the goal crease is still a penalty shot beyond handling the puck with hands in the crease.
Falling on the puck in the goal crease is still a penalty shot beyond handling the puck with hands in the crease.
How do you cover up the puck in the crease and not get called for it after all the bullshit the NHL has put the Bruins have been though in this series
The B's deserve to win this game, but I will be absolutely shocked if they do. It feels like it would take the literal hand of God putting the puck in the net for the B's for them to score a goal that counts.
I can live with the shitty goalie interference call. Tough to get that call overturned.
But Pageau clearly covered the puck in the crease and the officials weren't in position to see it. Referee was 15 feet away. Being out of position is just incompetence.
But Pageau clearly covered the puck in the crease and the officials weren't in position to see it. Referee was 15 feet away. Being out of position is just incompetence.
Can that not be reviewed a la the NFL? I mean, they fucking reviewed goal/no goal, and they concluded it was no goal because, you guessed it, the fuckin defender laid on the puck then stopped it with his hand
Of course he hit Anderson before the goal. He sidestepped him and made some contact then the puck went in the net. What a fucking shitshow.
Hey, what's better than a racist Subway ad? A racist Subway ad with an unintelligible Dick Vitale.
My first thought was what Jaffe said. Jaffe said the ref had no clue what to call so they just called it interference so they could review it. Kind of like a football ref calling a play a touchdown so they can review it.
That ref also seemed to emphatically call no go after the review or was that just me?
League office apparently decided not to review, for no good reason I can determine. So we head into 2OT with the score 4-2 to 2.
Re. Anson Carter's view of "key event" why it wasn't a goal. Bullshit.
The "key event" was that the goal scorer had on a Bruins sweater. That's why the goal was not allowed.
WWE.
The "key event" was that the goal scorer had on a Bruins sweater. That's why the goal was not allowed.
WWE.
That was what I thought to... figuring the league would save their bacon if it was actually a goal.
No hooking call on Karaly's drive which caused the contact, he clearly made an effort to not contact the goalie... ugh. Anderson was already falling backwards, Karaly didn't cause it. Just a garbage effort by the refs and the league.
Michael Berger @MichaelSBerger 1m1 minute ago
Rule 63.5: Skater can't "fall on the puck, hold the puck, pick up the puck, or gather the puck into the body or hands" when puck's in crease
I mean.....
Rule 63.5: Skater can't "fall on the puck, hold the puck, pick up the puck, or gather the puck into the body or hands" when puck's in crease
I mean.....
There's zero doubt in my mind that if Ottawa scores that exact same way it's a goal.
They can't review that aspect of the play. They can only review goal/no goal, goalie interference and offside.
This league doesn't like to think things through. Common sense eludes them.
The league is in a space where they are making up rules on the fly. Goaltender interference has become a de facto "no touch" rule even though the wording of the rule says otherwise, reviewing the unreviewable, letting certain things go....