|
I'm worried about my team because they have not yet fired Desjardins, Benning, or Linden
|
# ¿ Apr 10, 2017 06:01 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:37 |
|
yellowcar posted:It's gonna happen again~
|
# ¿ Apr 10, 2017 23:05 |
|
I am excited to watch the Leafs get stomped
|
# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 23:08 |
|
lol Andersen
|
# ¿ Apr 14, 2017 03:13 |
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The bigger problem is that most of the Canadian teams are managed by morons at all levels, or just the nhl?
|
# ¿ Apr 14, 2017 23:25 |
|
Furnaceface posted:Talking him into making the toxx that got him banned from posting in hockey threads for the summer is my greatest achievement in SAS. agreed
|
# ¿ Apr 15, 2017 06:10 |
|
grack posted:Penguins gonna put in Sestito next game and he's going to literally
|
# ¿ Apr 15, 2017 06:10 |
|
Leafs/Caps was suuuuuper close last night and I felt like the caps were the more dangerous team when they had possession
|
# ¿ Apr 16, 2017 15:39 |
|
bump_fn posted:can someone find the post where i said hawks would make it to the cup to laugh at me thanks bump_fn posted:Hawks / bruins cup final ha ha
|
# ¿ Apr 16, 2017 22:44 |
|
grack posted:I'm no fan of Pittsburgh but Columbus, holy christ, you are making it hard to cheer for you in this series. Torts deserves no cheering
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 02:35 |
|
Chuch posted:WSH/PIT and BOS/MTL in the 2nd round, make it happen please. Hail Satan. another BOS/MTL series would be pretty good, but so would OTT/MTL, and also gently caress the bruins, so go Sens
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 02:38 |
|
grack posted:Yeah that AV guy is so bad, huh? Rangers should totally fire him in the offseason. or like, right away
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 02:52 |
|
e: This aint the gdt!
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 03:19 |
|
hey RAS, AV said your best line was your 4th that game which line is Glass on?
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2017 03:52 |
|
dudes getting hit so hard they flip into the other team's bench also dudes missing their hits and going into the other team's bench
|
# ¿ Apr 18, 2017 18:13 |
|
guillotine
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2017 02:44 |
|
CBJSprague24 posted:Hey, let's check in on Tim Peel! Tim Peel is not biased, he is a force of nature, an agent of chaos
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2017 02:48 |
|
a false posted:my dad texted me "kreider eats the corn out of my poo poo" last night and like 30 seconds later he set up the ot gwg hahaha your dad rules
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2017 19:05 |
|
stab posted:Ya they were one loving point apart. Lock Him Up! Lock Him Up! to a contract extension
|
# ¿ Apr 23, 2017 05:39 |
|
Xtanstic posted:I like https://twitter.com/ChartingHockey/status/855252143170826240 better but I take your point This absolutely needs to be avatar'd for someone in PrAS
|
# ¿ Apr 24, 2017 05:50 |
|
"Look kid, you might think your hot poo poo, but that guy there? Tanner? He's my boy. You loving see what I'm saying? You better get your head in the game or your rear end is in the pressbox!"
|
# ¿ Apr 26, 2017 20:36 |
|
xzzy posted:So caps are gonna get chewed on while the pens do all the work? or the pens run out and the caps end up back on top
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2017 18:04 |
|
grack posted:Lundqvist stops like 300 million good shots and the Rags lose on a bullshit shot from the goal line that bounces off one of their own guys. yeah? e: ps - thanks for trading Bonino for Sutter Benning - you loving stupid rear end in a top hat JawKnee fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Apr 28, 2017 |
# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 03:34 |
|
gag poop?
|
# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 06:03 |
|
Matt Zerella posted:Hot Brains Can't Melt Good Teams
|
# ¿ May 2, 2017 21:19 |
|
Look Around You posted:You forgot the follow up. Kessel called him an idiot and then This Jay Beagle guy is alright
|
# ¿ May 3, 2017 18:36 |
|
blow up the core of the team that just won the president's trophy huh?
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 04:57 |
|
the Oilers have looked super dangerous against both the Sharks and the Ducks - including tonight - and I hate that they're probably going to be that good next year if they get another year of good goaltending out of talbot
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 06:14 |
|
Kilza posted:I really don't like blaming the refs, but holy poo poo the refs really decided Game 4 tonight. First Ducks goal was goalie interference (yet it counted), second Ducks goal was offside (yet it couldn't be challenged), fourth Ducks goal (the OT winner) should have been icing leading up to it. Oilers win that game if not for that bullshit reffing. hey did you catch Ron pointing out in the intermission that the contact was completely outside the crease? With a still-frame and everything?
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 06:15 |
|
Aphrodite posted:That's not the rule. it's not, that's true - I'll go ahead and grab my post from the gdt because I'd actually like to have some discussion about it rather than just insults: JawKnee posted:
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 06:23 |
|
the way it's written it seems to imply that the refs can't make any further judgements on such a play off of a video review, but fair enough. That wasn't why I re-posted that though: the contact was incidental, in that Perry (probably) didn't intend it (he would have had to have somehow seen Talbot's foot outside the crease from the back of his head), and in any case Talbot could have still made the save if he could have seen it, which was due to a screen - that was not affected by having his foot bumped into by Perry. Seems perfectly in line with 69.2 to me.
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 06:27 |
|
Powershift posted:Here's the rest of that rule Can you provide a source on that? I'm looking at the rulebook here and can't find that particular phrasing. Did you edit it? Or paraphrase it? e: also I can't get that video to play seems like I'm not the only one either JawKnee fucked around with this message at 06:41 on May 4, 2017 |
# ¿ May 4, 2017 06:37 |
|
Powershift posted:http://www.nhlofficials.com/rule78.asp That's odd, rule 78 in the NHL Interactive rulebook is 'Goals', but okay. From the link you posted: quote:(NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact. Are you saying Perry's contact isn't incidental?
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 06:47 |
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:honestly the rules seem just vague enough that it could go either way. what was the call on the ice? if they originally called it a good goal, i'm not surprised they didn't overturn it Called a good goal on the ice
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 06:52 |
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Contact outside the crease is still interference, and he was in the crease Okay, you're a ref as per what you've said in SAS threads, so I have some questions: Can you define incidental contact? I can't find a definition for it. Also when a rule talks about where contact is 'initiated', it would seem to mean where the point of contact is initiated, no?
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 06:54 |
|
Powershift posted:He wasn't pushed, and talbot didn't move towards him, it could be claimed it wasn't incidental, but that's not the issue. How much of the goalie has to be within the crease then? I think the rule is referring to where contact is initiated on each player - ie: is it initiated on a part of the player that is outside the crease. Also, that particular addendum tells refs not to pay too much attention to exactly where contact was made, but rather the nature of it. And I agree, the rules are vague. I don't really know if that's good or bad - seems like everyone is very annoyed at coaches challenges slowing down the games by making sure offsides are strictly adhered to - so maybe a little vagueness is good? Kalenn Istarion posted:As a referee, the rules are specifically vague about things like that to gif the refs wiggle room in judgement. Thanks! Is there e: wrong term JawKnee fucked around with this message at 07:03 on May 4, 2017 |
# ¿ May 4, 2017 07:00 |
|
shyduck posted:Rules are made vague on purpose because the game is so fast and fluid that calling everything to the letter is just impossible. They're gonna miss things, but they'll crack down on other things to not only keep control, but keep the game moving. It's good that the open interpretation exists. I tend to agree, but at the same time I'm ambivalent to the coaches challenge existing. There are already commercial breaks and such in the game. An unscheduled break doesn't really mean anything to me.
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 07:03 |
|
Powershift posted:Well if this was a good goal, 100% because 98% of talbot was in the crease. okay, so if we grant that - would a screen 3 inches further from Talbot have allowed him to make that save? I don't think so. I think the refs probably came to the same conclusion, and given that addendum - that they can judge based on the nature of the contact - I think they made the right call.
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 07:06 |
|
Powershift posted:I think so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzGVIo75xGY To be honest, for as rigorous as freezing step-by-step can be for me on a youtube video, it looks like perry is entirely outside the crease on that entire play (from the overhead view) - talbots mask, stick, and foot are at best on the line e: food != foot JawKnee fucked around with this message at 07:25 on May 4, 2017 |
# ¿ May 4, 2017 07:20 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:37 |
|
switching gears, from the beagle comment earlier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Z4jOGaq3Q even better that it was so off-the-cuff
|
# ¿ May 4, 2017 07:23 |