I thought it was by Toronto after the disaster in the Kings(?) game a couple years ago. I remember Jack flipping out about it last year in a game.Never hit the net anyways
I saw it pretty clearly hit the net.Never hit the net anyways
He was hustling, but he didn't need to go offside there and on top of that he interfered with Lundquist.Really? He was hustling the entire way. You're lame.
Yes it did.
It did move, watch again. Maybe get some glasses.He was hustling, but he didn't need to go offside there and on top of that he interfered with Lundquist.
And if it did hit the net then why didn't the net move?
He had a guy on his back while skating at a good pace and was offsides by half a puck. The horrors.He was hustling, but he didn't need to go offside there and on top of that he interfered with Lundquist.
And if it did hit the net then why didn't the net move?
I think you need a new TV.And if it did hit the net then why didn't the net move?
they got hot since that point in time. At the time the Bruins played them they were a borderline playoff team but fair enough.Oh hey BoSox. I was wondering if you still think that Nashville isn't a good team.
I'll hang up and listen.
My understanding is that the puck going out isn't reviewable, at least by coach's challenge. As I remember the decision was made to not worry about it and play on if nobody on the ice notices.I thought it was by Toronto after the disaster in the Kings(?) game a couple years ago. I remember Jack flipping out about it last year in a game.
This game is a joke by the way. Although Marchand was offside.
You don't watch many of these games, do you? It's more likely to be 4 PP's for the Rangers than the B's get a cheap call. Rags are gonna have commit murder to get something called against them.You have to think a cheap makeup call is coming the B's way soon.
If so, need to take advantage.
The game I remember him flipping out the puck hit the net, came back down, and basically went in the goal off Tuukka's back. The "hitting the net" part wasn't reviewable because it wasn't the last action that caused the puck to go in the net (or something).I thought it was by Toronto after the disaster in the Kings(?) game a couple years ago. I remember Jack flipping out about it last year in a game.
Fair enough guys, I didn't see it move on the blowup shot they showed but maybe I have bad eyes. I will trust you guys on that one.And you realize the net everyone is referring to is the net above the glass and not the goal net?
I want to say Columbus for some reason?The game I remember him flipping out the puck hit the net, came back down, and basically went in the goal off Tuukka's back. The "hitting the net" part wasn't reviewable because it wasn't the last action that caused the puck to go in the net (or something).
Can pucks in the net not actually be challenged by the coaches though? Seems weird to me they can challenge offside but not pucks out of play.
You know how it is. The league will fold if the Rangers miss the playoffs!And I thought this game wasn't in Montreal.
I was waiting for the arm.If we base the threshold on the Krejci hold, that was a hook on Eriksson.
That puck 100% hit the netting on the far right of the screen of NBCSN's replay. Fuck that shit, embarrassing. I thought they allowed that to be reviewed??
Also fuck Hayes.
You're a pretty whiney poster, just thought I'd give you that feedback.I am so fucking sick of officiating deciding who is going to win in sports. There are times that I really don't understand why i can't get myself to quit.
I know, I'm sorry. I'm cranky lately and haven't gotten laid in a while. Appreciate the feedback though.You're a pretty whiney poster, just thought I'd give you that feedback.
Thanks. The rule is dumb where that isn't reviewable but an offsides 30 seconds earlier is.It's only reviewable if it "immediately" leads to a goal.
http://scoutingtherefs.com/2014/12/6605/nhl-clarifies-puck-netting-rule-disallowed-goals/
he wording for Rule 38.4 specifically sets forth how Hockey Operations will continue to interpret this rule:
NOTE: For pucks that hit the spectator netting undetected by the On-Ice Officials, ‘immediately’ shall mean the following:
(a) when the puck strikes the spectator netting and deflects directly into the goal off of any player;
(b) when the puck strikes the spectator netting and falls to the ice and is then directed into the goal by the player who retrieves the puck.
In both of the above scenarios, the Situation Room in Toronto must have definitive video evidence of the puck striking the netting in order to disallow the goal.’
Ok, so we had the Kraut line, what can the Vatrano/Acciari/Ferrarro line be called?
Hmmm.....
For as long as Joe Haggerty is a sportswriter, he will forever more be known as the "grammatically illiterate one"