The bad thing is, the fact the ref blew the whistle is meaningless, because when I watched the audio replay, the puck was clearly in the net before you could hear the whistle! They can and they should have reviewed whether the puck was in the net before the whistle was blown, which it was.
78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.
play is dead when he decides to blow his whistle..not when you hear it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by icemantbi:
The bad thing is, the fact the ref blew the whistle is meaningless, because when I watched the audio replay, the puck was clearly in the net before you could hear the whistle! They can and they should have reviewed whether the puck was in the net before the whistle was blown, which it was.
78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.
play is dead when he decides to blow his whistle..not when you hear it.
wow, you are an imebcile then: teams try to nurse home leads all the time, in all sports. causes them no amount of problems in trying to do so. This is sports knowledge 101 shit - and you're not aware of the fact? why are you betting if you dont know this?
How the hell do you nurse a lead in hockey, in the playoffs, which is such a fast sport which goals could be scored on you bang bang, against the defending Cup champs?
Think about the situation.
No sense.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BetCrimes1984:
wow, you are an imebcile then: teams try to nurse home leads all the time, in all sports. causes them no amount of problems in trying to do so. This is sports knowledge 101 shit - and you're not aware of the fact? why are you betting if you dont know this?
How the hell do you nurse a lead in hockey, in the playoffs, which is such a fast sport which goals could be scored on you bang bang, against the defending Cup champs?
^^there's someone with sports knowledge 101 under their belt
So the key for Anaheim to beat Detroit or Carolina to beat Boston is to:
A) Get a lead into the start of the 3rd.
Then:
B) Get outshot 6 or 7 to 1 in the 3rd, make no offensive threats on the opposition goal, take multiple penalties based on your "nursing play" making you lazy, kill off those penalties, and then pray to god that a team like Detroit or Boston doesn't score on you?
Yeah, I am sure hockey clubs are looking for your coaching services.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BetCrimes1984:
^^there's someone with sports knowledge 101 under their belt
So the key for Anaheim to beat Detroit or Carolina to beat Boston is to:
A) Get a lead into the start of the 3rd.
Then:
B) Get outshot 6 or 7 to 1 in the 3rd, make no offensive threats on the opposition goal, take multiple penalties based on your "nursing play" making you lazy, kill off those penalties, and then pray to god that a team like Detroit or Boston doesn't score on you?
Yeah, I am sure hockey clubs are looking for your coaching services.
78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.
play is dead when he decides to blow his whistle..not when you hear it.
Yep.
Bad judgment call on the ref. If he got behind the net and still didn't see it, then blow it. Any ref would not have been able to see the puck being 10 yards away around the end boards! WTF?!
78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.
play is dead when he decides to blow his whistle..not when you hear it.
Yep.
Bad judgment call on the ref. If he got behind the net and still didn't see it, then blow it. Any ref would not have been able to see the puck being 10 yards away around the end boards! WTF?!
How the hell do you nurse a lead in hockey, in the playoffs, which is such a fast sport which goals could be scored on you bang bang, against the defending Cup champs?
Think about the situation.
No sense.
Again, if you truly believe this didn't just take place and further, believe it simply doesn't take place full stop, then I have no problem in calling you an imbecile - because it's an imbecilic position to hold in the face of facts. One poster other than myself has already since posted this is the case.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
How the hell do you nurse a lead in hockey, in the playoffs, which is such a fast sport which goals could be scored on you bang bang, against the defending Cup champs?
Think about the situation.
No sense.
Again, if you truly believe this didn't just take place and further, believe it simply doesn't take place full stop, then I have no problem in calling you an imbecile - because it's an imbecilic position to hold in the face of facts. One poster other than myself has already since posted this is the case.
Again, if you truly believe this didn't just take place and further, believe it simply doesn't take place full stop, then I have no problem in calling you an imbecile - because it's an imbecilic position to hold in the face of facts. One poster other than myself has already since posted this is the case.
Look at post #212.
In NHL Playoff hockey, with a one-goal lead, against the defending Cup champs with their high octane offense..........YOU DO NOT NURSE AN ENTIRE PERIOD! 20-minute nurse?
Recipe for disaster!
WRONG SITUATION.
What's so hard about that?
0
Quote Originally Posted by BetCrimes1984:
Again, if you truly believe this didn't just take place and further, believe it simply doesn't take place full stop, then I have no problem in calling you an imbecile - because it's an imbecilic position to hold in the face of facts. One poster other than myself has already since posted this is the case.
Look at post #212.
In NHL Playoff hockey, with a one-goal lead, against the defending Cup champs with their high octane offense..........YOU DO NOT NURSE AN ENTIRE PERIOD! 20-minute nurse?
The bad thing is, the fact the ref blew the whistle is meaningless, because when I watched the audio replay, the puck was clearly in the net before you could hear the whistle! They can and they should have reviewed whether the puck was in the net before the whistle was blown, which it was.
Wings got fucked
Honestly!! Did they not light the lamp? I'm thinking that the ref's BS "intentions" go out the fucking window once the lightt the fucking lamp.
There was a full second and a half . . . maybe a full two seconds between the puck crossing the line and the whistle blowing.
If you genuinely are of the opinion that 'the correct call was made' . . . you're just stupid. The ref was not in position, therefor making that kind of a call should never have occurred to him in the first place.
That's be like a the 1st base umpire calling balls and strikes (outside of a check-swing scenario smart-ass).
0
Quote Originally Posted by icemantbi:
The bad thing is, the fact the ref blew the whistle is meaningless, because when I watched the audio replay, the puck was clearly in the net before you could hear the whistle! They can and they should have reviewed whether the puck was in the net before the whistle was blown, which it was.
Wings got fucked
Honestly!! Did they not light the lamp? I'm thinking that the ref's BS "intentions" go out the fucking window once the lightt the fucking lamp.
There was a full second and a half . . . maybe a full two seconds between the puck crossing the line and the whistle blowing.
If you genuinely are of the opinion that 'the correct call was made' . . . you're just stupid. The ref was not in position, therefor making that kind of a call should never have occurred to him in the first place.
That's be like a the 1st base umpire calling balls and strikes (outside of a check-swing scenario smart-ass).
good call - completely forgot about the NJY CAR game 7 - perfect example of paying the price for trying to nursing home a lead. NJY's problem was after it got tied up, they thought we're going to go to OT, and they didn't switch on mentally to the fact CAR might actually score again. If that game had gone to OT, imo CAR wouldnt be in the 2nd round. NJY wouldve started playing again, and gone back to dominating.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Johnnypicks:
fuck sakes canucks nurse a lead by forechecking
we saw what happend to NJ
good call - completely forgot about the NJY CAR game 7 - perfect example of paying the price for trying to nursing home a lead. NJY's problem was after it got tied up, they thought we're going to go to OT, and they didn't switch on mentally to the fact CAR might actually score again. If that game had gone to OT, imo CAR wouldnt be in the 2nd round. NJY wouldve started playing again, and gone back to dominating.
Honestly!! Did they not light the lamp? I'm thinking that the ref's BS "intentions" go out the fucking window once the lightt the fucking lamp.
There was a full second and a half . . . maybe a full two seconds between the puck crossing the line and the whistle blowing.
If you genuinely are of the opinion that 'the correct call was made' . . . you're just stupid. The ref was not in position, therefor making that kind of a call should never have occurred to him in the first place.
That's be like a the 1st base umpire calling balls and strikes (outside of a check-swing scenario smart-ass).
It's intent, not the actual blowing of the whistle.
Watson decided to blow the whistle 10 YARDS AWAY FROM THE GOAL AROUND THE RIGHT END BOARDS.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Unit_G:
Honestly!! Did they not light the lamp? I'm thinking that the ref's BS "intentions" go out the fucking window once the lightt the fucking lamp.
There was a full second and a half . . . maybe a full two seconds between the puck crossing the line and the whistle blowing.
If you genuinely are of the opinion that 'the correct call was made' . . . you're just stupid. The ref was not in position, therefor making that kind of a call should never have occurred to him in the first place.
That's be like a the 1st base umpire calling balls and strikes (outside of a check-swing scenario smart-ass).
It's intent, not the actual blowing of the whistle.
Watson decided to blow the whistle 10 YARDS AWAY FROM THE GOAL AROUND THE RIGHT END BOARDS.
good call - completely forgot about the NJY CAR game 7 - perfect example of paying the price for trying to nursing home a lead. NJY's problem was after it got tied up, they thought we're going to go to OT, and they didn't switch on mentally to the fact CAR might actually score again. If that game had gone to OT, imo CAR wouldnt be in the 2nd round. NJY wouldve started playing again, and gone back to dominating.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BetCrimes1984:
good call - completely forgot about the NJY CAR game 7 - perfect example of paying the price for trying to nursing home a lead. NJY's problem was after it got tied up, they thought we're going to go to OT, and they didn't switch on mentally to the fact CAR might actually score again. If that game had gone to OT, imo CAR wouldnt be in the 2nd round. NJY wouldve started playing again, and gone back to dominating.
oh, and thats the 2nd poster who's supported my assertion of teams nursing home leads. how many more before you realise your position is absurd in the face of the facts?
0
oh, and thats the 2nd poster who's supported my assertion of teams nursing home leads. how many more before you realise your position is absurd in the face of the facts?
How are you arguing this play if you didn't even see it or see it well?
i did see it..i just want to see it again and the ref more closely
i dont want to argue about whether it should have counted or not because their is no argument there..its no goal...you dont have to watch the play to know that
ive already posted the rule.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
How are you arguing this play if you didn't even see it or see it well?
i did see it..i just want to see it again and the ref more closely
i dont want to argue about whether it should have counted or not because their is no argument there..its no goal...you dont have to watch the play to know that
It's intent, not the actual blowing of the whistle.
Watson decided to blow the whistle 10 YARDS AWAY FROM THE GOAL AROUND THE RIGHT END BOARDS.
Exactly what the commentators on VS said, regarding the ref's intentions. I do not differentiate between either. Both were behind the play.
If this were South America and we were talking about a soccer match; that ref would be in a parking lot right now . . . laying in a pool of his own blood.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
It's intent, not the actual blowing of the whistle.
Watson decided to blow the whistle 10 YARDS AWAY FROM THE GOAL AROUND THE RIGHT END BOARDS.
Exactly what the commentators on VS said, regarding the ref's intentions. I do not differentiate between either. Both were behind the play.
If this were South America and we were talking about a soccer match; that ref would be in a parking lot right now . . . laying in a pool of his own blood.
Ppl are going to think DET got robbed, but the fact remains - when ANA was actually playing, they got up 2-0. If it was tied 2-2, ANA goes back to playing again, and they win in OT. DET backers won't wanna hear it, but thats a fact. DET only got back in the game because ANA tried to nurse home a 2-0 lead far too far out from the end of the game. They keep playing properly instead of doing that, they win 3-1/4-2.
0
IDIOT
Quote Originally Posted by BetCrimes1984:
my .02
Ppl are going to think DET got robbed, but the fact remains - when ANA was actually playing, they got up 2-0. If it was tied 2-2, ANA goes back to playing again, and they win in OT. DET backers won't wanna hear it, but thats a fact. DET only got back in the game because ANA tried to nurse home a 2-0 lead far too far out from the end of the game. They keep playing properly instead of doing that, they win 3-1/4-2.
Any sport where a team ties the game in the final minute; then, by virtue of the officials' competence, that tying goal is negated and the winner declared.
Sounds like a fairly scenario to me. NHL and NFL are the only two major sports where sort of thing could or would happen.
And 'yes' that ref deserves to be beat up in a parking lot.
0
Any sport where a team ties the game in the final minute; then, by virtue of the officials' competence, that tying goal is negated and the winner declared.
Sounds like a fairly scenario to me. NHL and NFL are the only two major sports where sort of thing could or would happen.
And 'yes' that ref deserves to be beat up in a parking lot.
Bad judgment call on the ref. If he got behind the net and still didn't see it, then blow it. Any ref would not have been able to see the puck being 10 yards away around the end boards! WTF?!
the ref actually moves towards the play and makes an effort to find the puck...he is behind the net..not 10 yards away
and hiller isnt even squirming around which is probably what made the ref think he had it
cant say he completely imcompetent
might need to get his eyes checked
0
Quote Originally Posted by HeadOverHeart:
Yep.
Bad judgment call on the ref. If he got behind the net and still didn't see it, then blow it. Any ref would not have been able to see the puck being 10 yards away around the end boards! WTF?!
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.