Yes. With the puck.Another question: did he get forced into the net ebfore the whistle???
Yes. With the puck.Another question: did he get forced into the net ebfore the whistle???
Well that makes sense then, the NHL is a shit business.Incompetent, not corrupt in my view. League office has to prefer a Bruins win purely from a biz perspective
I mean, when Ol' Helmet Head tells you you fucked up...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.
Oh coolKerry 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.
That's a hand passThe 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.
Only shit franchises give Maxwell House ad space
Yeah that was pretty ridiculous. Should have been a callPastrnak just got grabbed and turned around in the middle of the fucking ice. No call.
Sounds like another too many men penalty.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.
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 handI 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.
That ref also seemed to emphatically call no go after the review or was that just me?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.
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.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
That was what I thought to... figuring the league would save their bacon if it was actually a goal.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.
There's zero doubt in my mind that if Ottawa scores that exact same way it's a goal.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.
They can't review that aspect of the play. They can only review goal/no goal, goalie interference and offside.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
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....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.