A guy less dedicated to the bit might have taken a night off after that last Bennett angle, my dude, but you came to play. I admire the chutzpah, Sergeant of the Legion of the Reasonable.
G4: Everyone Fights, No One Quits
- Thread starter IdiotKicker
- Start date
Also kudos, everybody loves raymond is ass. Also the big bang theory and friends. I think i like you now?
I’m telling you that the last guy who invoked his minutes on ice was taking that position, so the appeal to authority isn’t blowing my hair back these days.
That’s all. I’m free associating.And it’s all good, dude. The popularity contest thing was a crack about our positions, not us. And the only contest I’m winning here is an all expense paid trip to Get Drawn and Quarteredville.
We disagree. And I can do that. I thought Monty got this team to over perform and they’re still over performing. Last year sucked and he was shitty. This year he has done a good job. Not a perfect job. But he’s rode Swayman, much to the delight of everyone until they forget when it’s convenient. He realized Lohrei is needed and has kept putting him out there. Forbort has been a bad decision and I don’t understand that one. But it’s not all miserable like you claim.m considering the board consensus was he should’ve been fired 9 games ago. But, hey, fuck me for calling out posts I view as reactionary.
It’s pointless disagreeing with you because you’re just going to claim the shtick card when I disagree.
Won a Stanley Cup, been to 2 others, been a playoff team for 12 of 14 seasons as President. But I guess he’s a moron.
Find me a NHL President with a better resume.
Here’s one previously that was called back before in other times
View: https://twitter.com/yungtyzz705/status/1789821074655289661?s=46&t=OXP-P0l2aEBrD1Q_l9zjsg
NO GOAL
That got him the job. I don’t think he has deserved to keep it, unquestioned, this long.
Well - I keep getting told that it's a miracle they got this far, that they lack talent, that if they played a more physical game things would be worse.
And yet, they're down 3-1, getting outshot by about the same amount, and getting pushed around all over the ice.
I remember Don Cherry saying once on a HNIC telecast, "it's not what you make, it's what you leave." The Bs aren't making anything - and all they're leaving is the fact that they can get shoved around, and that they are so low in talent that they only win games Sway steals.
So - what is it? Should they line up behind Monty and Neely, skate up and down gently, turn the other cheek, lose to Fla again, shake hands and leave? Or should they act like the history of the club has meaning, and at least make it clear that they will make some kind of stand on the way down?
I'm not sure what the "right way" to concede defeat is here, but given the Bs legacy, I doubt that watching Bennett and Tkachuk punk them is it.
Like, I’ll drastically simplify things: Bennett is upright and taking nourishment to score that goal and do a post-game interview. I’d fire Montgomery for that alone, but I’d cite last year’s playoffs as the reason to throw you all off my scent.
Produce a candidate with better results and credentials. They’ve had sustained success for almost 15 years. Both on-ice and the bottom line.
What’s the cause for firing him?
Honestly when they down 4-0 in game 3, that’s when they should have done it. Montgomery should have told a guy like Brazzeau who’s lucky he’s in the NHL “If you don’t end that guys’ career, you’re never seeing the ice in this league again.”Like, I’ll drastically simplify things: Bennett is upright and taking nourishment to score that goal and do a post-game interview. I’d fire Montgomery for that alone, but I’d cite last year’s playoffs as the reason to throw you all off my scent.
He’s absolutely deserved to keep it. Staying competitive for this long in the NHL doesn’t happen without a level of competency at the top. Not everything has worked and he needs to make some adjustments going forward but he’s earned his job.
It’s a moot point anyway. Charlie Jacobs isn’t firing Cam Neely. If Neely isn’t the president anymore, it’ll be because he’d rather retire than sit through a rebuild.
In all seriousness, what exactly is the reason for the one sided officiating against the Bruins organization? I mean, the problem can’t be fixed without knowing the ‘why?’ Is this all payback for Colin Campbell and the way the 2011 Cup was officiated? Bitter league executives who hate the Bruins because they grew up rooting or played for Montreal/Toronto? Marchand’s reputation?
What exactly is the conspiracy and how does it get solved?
We are good. Also, I am not good at hockey for the record, but have played for the last 30 years, and even in shit leagues you can win if you outwork your opponent and get a few breaks (either bounces or officiating). It is 100% what makes me love hockey as a sport. I know it can be reactionary to say people didn't show up. But those guys on both sides have gone all out, i am reacting to the "didn't show up" comment. You can try your best at things in life and still lose. And sometimes the powers that be can work against you. I am probably carrying over some real life things on a hockey game which is why i care so much.I’m telling you that the last guy who invoked his minutes on ice was taking that position, so the appeal to authority isn’t blowing my hair back these days.
And it’s all good, dude. The popularity contest thing was a crack about our positions, not us. And the only contest I’m winning here is an all expense paid trip to Get Drawn and Quarteredville.
This should be posted everywhere. Make the league officials in Toronto come up with a logic pretzel to explain the two different interpretations. It's the NYJ fans in the NFL office driving deflategate all over again.
The last angle showed I was wrong. It happens and I wasn’t the only one to be wrong but maybe the only one who posted multiple times about it. I’m also not going to let one wrong opinion lead people to gatekeep me out of a place I’ve been posting for 15+ years.A guy less dedicated to the bit might have taken a night off after that last Bennett angle, my dude, but you came to play. I admire the chutzpah, Sergeant of the Legion of the Reasonable.
I thought the no call where Accari got mugged in the Finals couldn’t be topped…..I am just stunned. Still.
edit: much into mugged
edit: much into mugged
Last edited:
I try to keep getting here with the reasoning of why would the NHL favor a team in Sunrise, FL that provides minimal bottom line support over an Original 6 stalwart. I’m kinda still there but, man, it’s getting hard with some shit.
I think it’s just the attitude towards the Bruins in the GTA. All of those league guys that work at the league office hear constant bitching from Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver fans about anything the Bruins do on the Fan 590 on the way into work in the morning. The Marchand licking a guy thing up there was like deflate gate was on sports radio was in Boston.
Just got home from the game.
Monumentally frustrating loss.
Bad enough Bennett threw a cheap shot and punched a player causing a concussion, but right as rain, that piece of shit villain gets the tying goal.
Not only did the league not take the goal away, the official who was right there did not call an obvious cross check.
And for the love of Christ; SHOOT. THE. PUCK.
Two to one shot advantage.
I never thought I could hate a team as much as I hated the Flyers and Montreal in the 1970's, but the Panthers are now at the top of my all time hockey hate list.
What a pack of assholes.
Monumentally frustrating loss.
Bad enough Bennett threw a cheap shot and punched a player causing a concussion, but right as rain, that piece of shit villain gets the tying goal.
Not only did the league not take the goal away, the official who was right there did not call an obvious cross check.
And for the love of Christ; SHOOT. THE. PUCK.
Two to one shot advantage.
I never thought I could hate a team as much as I hated the Flyers and Montreal in the 1970's, but the Panthers are now at the top of my all time hockey hate list.
What a pack of assholes.
what a cheap ass. Makes enough to pay the fine. Speak up
Neely is worse though. What purpose does he serve?
Too many years in a row of this. Its far beyond the probability of being incompetence.
I said a night, so easy on the martyrdom. And it would be boring if you were outside the gates for too long. Who else would loudly insist that we look at one very narrow thing to show that the masses were overly emotional and wrong while you were our lone dark knight? Not the hero we deserve, but the one that we need.
My read of that tweet is that there’s laryngitis or a vow of silence in play tonight. Holy shit, that’s a weird way to write it up. He’s still got characters left!
what Salem's Lot side
Also Bettman's legacy is the sunshine teams. He fucking loves him some non-traditional markets. Just look at what a farce the Coyotes have been and yet that guy is going to have another team the next expansion. He knows the ratings will be there in Boston. But he wants his precious sunshine teams to, well, shine so he can talk about what a good job he's doing growing the game. So here we are.
2-1 vs 2-2 with a powerplay is about as much power as the NHL can have directly over a series. They have show their bias over the last few years, it has been too many bad calls in a row to be a coincidence. This has to come from a leadership level or it wont make a difference.
First of all, don't believe in league conspiracy theories. A bunch of executives are going to conspire with a bunch of referees when the stakes at hand are only congressional hearings, jail time, lawsuits, and the survival of the league itself? Because if it was ever proven that any league tried to get their own refs to influence the outcome of a game....it's league goodnight.
Further, if the NHL had their way, why would they chose Florida over Boston, when Boston draws many more eyeballs. Not to mention, why would the NHL want the series to end faster? If anything, the NHL wants every series going seven games.
All that said, the Bennett goal should have been overturned.
It’s not a conspiracy, they just don’t like certain teams and people. It’s like any other company and the associated politics.
Corporate america is a shit show of bias. If you think free markets result in the right people winning, you are part of the problem.
Iv'e sometimes wondered what it would have been like if Joe West had not have reversed the call on Alex Rodriguez's punch the ball out of Arroyo's glove in game six in the Bronx. Tonight answers that question. Such an obvious violation of the rules, that completely turned a crucial game around. MLB reversed the call. It is a legitimate league. The NHL didn't, and this is why it will always be only a niche sport. Which really sucks, because the game itself is brilliant.
Fans, especially fans who are not die hard fans, simply will stop watching games where the rules are not adhered too.
My only wish for game five is that the Panthers are so physically destroyed that they can't play the next series with two whole lines, and are swept out like yesterday's trash.
Fans, especially fans who are not die hard fans, simply will stop watching games where the rules are not adhered too.
My only wish for game five is that the Panthers are so physically destroyed that they can't play the next series with two whole lines, and are swept out like yesterday's trash.
Canadian hockey stood up for Carter Hart and a number of other rapists to defend their image. Canadian hockey as the basiton of morals is the biggest fraud in sports history, Team Canada tried to cover up a team of rapists and deserve a full punishment for their behavior.
According to NHL Rule 69.1, “If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.”
Seems like this isn’t a judgment call (like offensive holding in football, or block/charge in basketball) but rather a simple question of what the rule actually states. And watching the replay again, I mean, it’s pretty obvious that Florida shoved Coyle. It’s a cross check - two hands in his stick, ramming it into Coyle’s back, pushing him into Swayman, who makes the initial save and is trying to slide to his right to stop the rebound. Coyle crashes into Swayman, who is pinned and can’t move to his right, and Florida easily scoops up the free puck and scores.
So by the rule:
1. Was a defending player shoved by an attacking player? Yes clearly.
2. Did the shove cause the defender to come into contact with his goalie? Yes clearly.
3. Therefore, by this rule, Coyle’s contact with Swayman is to be deemed the same as if a Florida player made contact with Swayman.
4. Therefore, “if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.” So not only should the goal have been disallowed, there should have been a penalty against Florida. But even if you don’t agree that it was a cross check and worthy of a penalty, by rule the goal should have been disallowed.
Bow the exception to this rule is on a rebound situation, which this clearly was. Both goalie and attacker were trying to play the puck, and if there’s incidental contact between them is allowed and the goal will stand (rule 69.7).
So the question is whether Florida shoved Coyle or whether the contact was incidental. I guess that’s what they were looking at, and where it becomes a judgment call.
I guess they decided it was incidental and thus the goal was allowed. But I have no idea how you look at how Florida shoved Coyle and think that wasn’t intentional. A two handed cross check from behind, knocking Coyle into Swayman, clearing space for the rebound. They really don’t get any more clear than that.
But I also don’t understand hockey rules sometimes too, so maybe I’m way off base here.
Either way… you’re up 2-0 in the game at home, you absolutely cannot lose that one.
Seems like this isn’t a judgment call (like offensive holding in football, or block/charge in basketball) but rather a simple question of what the rule actually states. And watching the replay again, I mean, it’s pretty obvious that Florida shoved Coyle. It’s a cross check - two hands in his stick, ramming it into Coyle’s back, pushing him into Swayman, who makes the initial save and is trying to slide to his right to stop the rebound. Coyle crashes into Swayman, who is pinned and can’t move to his right, and Florida easily scoops up the free puck and scores.
So by the rule:
1. Was a defending player shoved by an attacking player? Yes clearly.
2. Did the shove cause the defender to come into contact with his goalie? Yes clearly.
3. Therefore, by this rule, Coyle’s contact with Swayman is to be deemed the same as if a Florida player made contact with Swayman.
4. Therefore, “if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.” So not only should the goal have been disallowed, there should have been a penalty against Florida. But even if you don’t agree that it was a cross check and worthy of a penalty, by rule the goal should have been disallowed.
Bow the exception to this rule is on a rebound situation, which this clearly was. Both goalie and attacker were trying to play the puck, and if there’s incidental contact between them is allowed and the goal will stand (rule 69.7).
So the question is whether Florida shoved Coyle or whether the contact was incidental. I guess that’s what they were looking at, and where it becomes a judgment call.
I guess they decided it was incidental and thus the goal was allowed. But I have no idea how you look at how Florida shoved Coyle and think that wasn’t intentional. A two handed cross check from behind, knocking Coyle into Swayman, clearing space for the rebound. They really don’t get any more clear than that.
But I also don’t understand hockey rules sometimes too, so maybe I’m way off base here.
Either way… you’re up 2-0 in the game at home, you absolutely cannot lose that one.
Yep there are two different but related things
1. Bruins had chances to get a third goal and didn’t capitalize. Debrusks five hole shot that went wide is probably exhibit A.
2. Bruins got jobbed for sure on that play, it’s a hit by Bennett caused Coyle to interfere with Swayman.
If just one of those things happens, I like our chances. Both happening is too hard for this team to overcome.
1. Bruins had chances to get a third goal and didn’t capitalize. Debrusks five hole shot that went wide is probably exhibit A.
2. Bruins got jobbed for sure on that play, it’s a hit by Bennett caused Coyle to interfere with Swayman.
If just one of those things happens, I like our chances. Both happening is too hard for this team to overcome.
There has to be a boston sports writer with access to all the playoff video that can show all of the disallowed goals this year in the playoffs so far, and there have been several. Where there is far less contact and they've been called "no goal". Not that it would change anything really, but it would just be fun to see all of them. Especially if they can pair it up with situation room explanation as to why "no goal" was called.
Even the official line from the NHL isn't that there wasn't contact, their line is it didn't stop Swayman from playing the puck. There is a reason why Coyle, Sway, and Pasta keep repeating that line in their post game pressers. It's what they were told by the officials.
It's literally a "that's not a dog pissing on your leg in the middle of the sahara during a super drought, it's rain" type level of lie.
You’re missing the part of the rule that has the judgment call element. It’s the “Goals should only be disallowed . . . . “ language with two situations prior to the section you’re quoting. They’re saying (1) the contact didn’t impair the goalie’s ability to move freely in his crease or defend his goal and (2) the contact was not intentional or deliberate.
It’s still the wrong call, but it’s definitely a judgment one. Who knows, maybe the explanation gives them some ability to protest or something, not that it would happen or win.