The McAvoy trip I can see as skate on skate. You can hit the puck with your stick and still trip someone with your foot.So a high stick with Coyle not in the same zip code, a trip where McAvoy played all puck, and whatever the Hell that last call was. All those stern shrugs from Monty are really paying dividends.
There are people who have to listen to sports radio?I feel bad for anyone who has to listen to sports talk radio tomorrow, despite Sway playing great and having almost no chance on any of the goals people are going to point at the 4 scores and trash him would be my guess
“Mike, did you watch the fucking game?” Should be the response if he blames Swayman for any of those.I feel bad for anyone who has to listen to sports talk radio tomorrow, despite Sway playing great and having almost no chance on any of the goals people are going to point at the 4 scores and trash him would be my guess
This. Maddening. Looked very intentional to me.How Matheson has teeth after Cookeing McAvoy’s knee is beyond me.
I'm amazed how many people who post on these forums still do, a lot "blame" it on their commuteThere are people who have to listen to sports radio?
I must’ve missed that. When did that happen? McAvoy finished the game right?This. Maddening. Looked very intentional to me.
Should he though? You'll never see this called again, just like you've never seen a penalty called for a puck fired into a bench, despite the rule saying it's a penalty.Marchand should have known better. Just slide it along the ice around the boards, dammit.
Just like you will never see a QB (other than the Tom Brady one I mentioned) for airballing a ball into the stands even though by definition of intentional grounding rules sideline and back of endzone throwaways that have no chance of ever being caught should all be called intentional grounding...Should he though? You'll never see this called again, just like you've never seen a penalty called for a puck fired into a bench, despite the rule saying it's a penalty.
unless the league has made this a point of emphasis, you are probably right. But they DiD call it and I’ve never seen it before, so they had their reasons? Is there a pool reporter who gets to ask the refs questions after the game?Should he though? You'll never see this called again, just like you've never seen a penalty called for a puck fired into a bench, despite the rule saying it's a penalty.
Is motive considered by the refs? And if so, why wasn’t the late cross check behind the B’s net called? Among other questionable non calls.The Bruins prime objective there is to kill the clock, not stop it. Head scratcher to impute the opposite motive in order to call DoG in that situation.
The motive underneath the defensive zone puck over glass call assumes the DMan is trying to avoid pressure that would result in a turnover near his own net. So, in the offensive zone, what’s the essence of the accusation there? Getting a line change that will be followed by an O-Zone faceoff? That’s about all I can think of…unless the league has made this a point of emphasis, you are probably right. But they DiD call it and I’ve never seen it before, so they had their reasons? Is there a pool reporter who gets to ask the refs questions after the game?
Is motive considered by the refs? And if so, why wasn’t the late cross check behind the B’s net called? Among other questionable non calls.
I agree with the D Zone rule. There certainly was no such motive last night, but they didn’t call it just because it was the Bs against Montreal, did they?The motive underneath the defensive zone puck over glass call assumes the DMan is trying to avoid pressure that would result in a turnover near his own net. So, in the offensive zone, what’s the essence of the accusation there? Getting a line change that will be followed by an O-Zone faceoff? That’s about all I can think of…
No, I think the suspicion here is that it would likely not have been called on a player wearing a different number on their jersey.I agree with the D Zone rule. There certainly was no such motive last night, but they didn’t call it just because it was the Bs against Montreal, did they?
Unless Brad Marchand does it again, you will never see it called again.I'd like to think B's management pursues this and asks if it is something the league is going to be calling consistently. . .
So I've watched basically every game so far this year, I've seen the puck leave the ozone and neutral zone a couple times and nobody was called for a penalty in those instances. So IMO there's no point of emphasis. It's just straight up a Marchand tax.unless the league has made this a point of emphasis, you are probably right. But they DiD call it and I’ve never seen it before, so they had their reasons? Is there a pool reporter who gets to ask the refs questions after the game?
It's not that it is inconsistently enforced. It's that it is never enforced. Please find me 10 examples of it in the past 5 years being called.I'm not sure what everyone is so up in arms about. It's a penalty per the rules, that's it. Whether or not it gets called is irrelevant, it's an infraction and getting away with it other times or it not being consistently enforced isnt an excuse for stupidly tossing the puck over the glass.
This sounds like Brick complaining about the goal that got overturned even after Razor explained exactly why it's happened.