BluPuk Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 If the Penguins don't get another Stanley Cup this year, I will be very surprised.... The Capitals are just pretenders. The Black Hawks are gone. Nashville? Nah. Nobody has the equivalent of Sidney. (just my opinion, yes) All that remains is to play the games..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 When it was 3-2 Pittsburgh, and the refs did not allow that goal by the Jackets, I almost threw my TV set. I tell you I do not blame Torts for screaming and losing it. He and the Blue Jackets got screwed, Blued and tattoed. That goal should have counted. Nice dive by Fleury. Give him an acedemy award. Those refs suck. I cant believe they did not allow that goal. It changed the entire outcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Hockey Junkie said: When it was 3-2 Pittsburgh, and the refs did not allow that goal by the Jackets, I almost threw my TV set. I tell you I do not blame Torts for screaming and losing it. He and the Blue Jackets got screwed, Blued and tattoed. That goal should have counted. Nice dive by Fleury. Give him an acedemy award. Those refs suck. I cant believe they did not allow that goal. It changed the entire outcome You've either lost your mind or are just being an antagonizing turd. 69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease SECTION 9 – OTHER FOULS NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE OFFICIAL RULES 2014-2015 96 provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TropicalFruitGirl26 Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 On 4/16/2017 at 9:23 PM, nossagog said: That's a hockey player Yep...a hockey player....or a mugging victim....sheesh! Poor guy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 5 hours ago, B21 said: You've either lost your mind or are just being an antagonizing turd. 69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease SECTION 9 – OTHER FOULS NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE OFFICIAL RULES 2014-2015 96 provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact. Come on, let's not try bring facts or actual rules into this B21. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted April 22, 2017 Author Share Posted April 22, 2017 5 hours ago, B21 said: You've either lost your mind or are just being an antagonizing turd. 69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease SECTION 9 – OTHER FOULS NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE OFFICIAL RULES 2014-2015 96 provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact. 7 minutes ago, nossagog said: Come on, let's not try bring facts or actual rules into this B21. Really. now c'mon ...you both know who you are dealing with...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 7 hours ago, Hockey Junkie said: When it was 3-2 Pittsburgh, and the refs did not allow that goal by the Jackets, I almost threw my TV set. I tell you I do not blame Torts for screaming and losing it. He and the Blue Jackets got screwed, Blued and tattoed. That goal should have counted. Nice dive by Fleury. Give him an acedemy award. Those refs suck. I cant believe they did not allow that goal. It changed the entire outcome That was such a clear cut call. Absolutely goalie interference. I don't blame Torts for yelling (though I can't stand him). That's his job. But that was the right call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 28 minutes ago, ruxpin said: That was such a clear cut call. Absolutely goalie interference. I don't blame Torts for yelling (though I can't stand him). That's his job. But that was the right call. Nice Dive by Fluery. Disagree totally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted April 22, 2017 Author Share Posted April 22, 2017 @Hockey Junkie Look I may not be a Pens fan, however, this call was easy to make. Re-watch the video below. Wennberg clips MAF in the chin. I'm sorry, but poor physics take over from here. A body in motion, at a high rate of speed, hits a stationary object, on skates, on ice....that body is going down. No dive. By NHL rule as listed by @B21, it is a no goal and a penalty is assigned. You may be upset at the call and you may not like it....but you are wrong. The right call was made. Time to move on ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted April 22, 2017 Author Share Posted April 22, 2017 6 hours ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said: Yep...a hockey player....or a mugging victim....sheesh! Poor guy.... he's got all summer to heal up now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, pilldoc said: @Hockey Junkie Look I may not be a Pens fan, however, this call was easy to make. Re-watch the video below. Wennberg clips MAF in the chin. I'm sorry, but poor physics take over from here. A body in motion, at a high rate of speed, hits a stationary object, on skates, on ice....that body is going down. No dive. By NHL rule as listed by @B21, it is a no goal and a penalty is assigned. You may be upset at the call and you may not like it....but you are wrong. The right call was made. Time to move on ..... What about the Pittsburgh guy on his back? No way. DIVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Hockey Junkie said: Nice Dive by Fluery. Disagree totally Which, of course, guarantees that I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, pilldoc said: @Hockey Junkie Look I may not be a Pens fan, however, this call was easy to make. Re-watch the video below. Wennberg clips MAF in the chin. I'm sorry, but poor physics take over from here. A body in motion, at a high rate of speed, hits a stationary object, on skates, on ice....that body is going down. No dive. By NHL rule as listed by @B21, it is a no goal and a penalty is assigned. You may be upset at the call and you may not like it....but you are wrong. The right call was made. Time to move on ..... Logic? Science? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted April 22, 2017 Author Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, ruxpin said: Logic? Science? Really? It's all I got. It was worth a shot ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 7 hours ago, B21 said: You've either lost your mind or are just being an antagonizing turd. 69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease SECTION 9 – OTHER FOULS NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE OFFICIAL RULES 2014-2015 96 provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact. That little logo tells it all. Is that an Emperor Penguin? Fantastic birds that I admire so much. I just do not admore the idiots that wear them on their shirts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 hour ago, ruxpin said: That was such a clear cut call. Absolutely goalie interference. I don't blame Torts for yelling (though I can't stand him). That's his job. But that was the right call. And Fleury cant skate I guess? You are telling me that he is going down that easily if h he really is not DIVING? That is a DIVE. A Gold medal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, pilldoc said: It's all I got. It was worth a shot ...... Wrong emoticon doc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, Hockey Junkie said: And Fleury cant skate I guess? You are telling me that he is going down that easily if h he really is not DIVING? That is a DIVE. A Gold medal Yes. I'm exactly telling you that. The physics already pointed out. And the pads. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted April 22, 2017 Author Share Posted April 22, 2017 1 minute ago, nossagog said: Wrong emoticon doc. Been a long night ... no ones perfect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 I know this has been decided and the letter of the rule has been followed and enforced, But how is Wennberg supposed avoid contact there ? He's being defended by Wilson ? who has tied up his stick and is riding him into the boards. There's literally and figuratively no place for 10 to go there. I do think 29 helped to sell the call too. I don't blame him for selling it either, it's the playoffs if you're not cheatin' your not tryin' That was unfortunate, similar to the Dez Bryant "no catch" catch a few years ago, the rule was followed, but it wasn't right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 7 hours ago, Hockey Junkie said: And Fleury cant skate I guess? You are telling me that he is going down that easily if h he really is not DIVING? That is a DIVE. A Gold medal Dude....when Flyers fans and Pens fans agree....you've lost. So I'll go with option 2 (antagonizing turd). Work on that golf game. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, B21 said: Dude....when Flyers fans and Pens fans agree....you've lost. That's actually an ancient Chinese proverb predicting the end of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfondajane Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 On 4/21/2017 at 10:37 PM, Hockey Junkie said: That little logo tells it all. Is that an Emperor Penguin? Fantastic birds that I admire so much. I just do not admore the idiots that wear them on their shirts Jealousy will get you nowhere! Maybe someday a Buffalo team will win a championship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, notfondajane said: Jealousy will get you nowhere! Maybe someday a Buffalo team will win a championship! Oh the will. They should have won two for sure maybe 3. And I mean 06 and 75 and of course in football, wide right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 39 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said: Oh the will. They should have won two for sure maybe 3. And I mean 06 and 75 and of course in football, wide right You were out of your league in 1975. Maybe if you added more fog. You could add 1999 to your list, though. Maybe if you had a good coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.