ice orca Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Kharma hitting the Bruins big time this year, Lucic almost a ghost of his former self, Chara looking like 45yr old, big cap problems.. all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshiyoshi Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 if the rule that was posted earlier in this thread is correct, then the refs were correct in their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Boston has 19 less PP's than any other team in the league. They have 94 compared to Buffalo's 113. So I think they may have been getting that end of the stick all season. Karma's beautiful sometimes isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Damn, what an annoying voice to have to listen to during games. ^Uh,..it is occasionally malice,...but frequently a surplus of incompetance. That blunder was on the war-room in TOR,... which was apparently EMPTY over the holidays. If they have the technology to deal with stuff like this,...it should be dealt with. Why the league is dragging their arses on this issue,..leads me to believe they want MORE controversey & 'game manipulations' by on-ice officials...not LESS. This "I didnt see it" excuse by an official was unacceptable & didnt wash in the Marchand-Sedin exchange, either. You mean during the Christmas break when no games were being played? how do you know that goal would not of been scored? They could of stopped play at the time then cbj win the faceoff and 1:30 later get a goal. I'm over the call against bos a few years ago when everyone thought it was icing and 10 seconds later boston gets a goal in a close game (not a blow out like this) This is about as relevant as an offside that happened 4 minutes before a goal 4-2 is not a blowout with an entire period left to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 ^Uh,..it is occasionally malice,...but frequently a surplus of incompetance. That blunder was on the war-room in TOR,... which was apparently EMPTY over the holidays. If they have the technology to deal with stuff like this,...it should be dealt with. Why the league is dragging their arses on this issue,..leads me to believe they want MORE controversey & 'game manipulations' by on-ice officials...not LESS. This "I didnt see it" excuse by an official was unacceptable & didnt wash in the Marchand-Sedin exchange, either. This has nothing to do with the war room, it's not a reviewable play to go back a minute and a half to see if the puck struck the netting. If it's not called right away, then play continues and anything that happens afterwards is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownky Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Boston has 19 less PP's than any other team in the league. They have 94 compared to Buffalo's 113. So I think they may have been getting that end of the stick all season. I've watched a few (not all, but a few) Bruins games this year and I noticed that they seem to be (as a team anyway) a bit 'floaty'. When the feet aren't moving and you're clutch-and-grabbing, it stands to reason that you will take the brunt of the sin bin time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 ... Should the puck strike the spectator netting at the ends and the corners of the arena, play shall be stopped and the ensuing face-off shall be determined as if the puck went outside the playing area. However, if the puck striking the spectator netting goes unnoticed by the on-ice officials, play shall continue as normal and resulting play with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play. Players must not stop playing the game until they hear the whistle to do so. Good catch! I thought it should have been called off too but apparently it was a good goal. Albeit one that's directly attributed to the refs' incompetence as per the rulebook, which in and of itself is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Boston has 19 less PP's than any other team in the league. They have 94 compared to Buffalo's 113. So I think they may have been getting that end of the stick all season. You have to wonder if their reputation comes into play at all with the refs. In this case though, the only reason Boston got the "short end of the stick" was that Columbus happened to score. Boston could just has easily have scored considering the goal happened 1:30 after the incident and at the other end of the ice. In fact, you could argue Columbus was put at a disadvantage because the puck was in their zone when it happened. This reminds me a bit of Kevin Bieksa's goal in the conference finals of 2011. Initially the announcers thought the puck went out, but they were saying the play was not reviewable and the goal would stand anyway. Of course we soon found out what really happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Which is worse because didn't we have a goal in Game 7 waived off because Trevor had his toe of his skate in the crease? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 He's correct. It shouldn't have counted. He's still a tool.This. And boo-hoo-hoo, Boston guy. You won a cup on a bunch of crap reffing, forchristsakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Should the puck strike the spectator netting at the ends and the corners of the arena, play shall be stopped and the ensuing face-off shall be determined as if the puck went outside the playing area. However, if the puck striking the spectator netting goes unnoticed by the on-ice officials, play shall continue as normal and resulting play with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play. Players must not stop playing the game until they hear the whistle to do so. There it is in a nutshell. McIlheney didn't see the puck, no one on the ice saw the puck - sitting upstairs or watching video feeds is another matter. Edwards is wrong here - he's the one that doesn't know the rules while the officials did - the officials lost sight of the puck and so they actually made the right call by not stopping the play. Obviously the better result would have been a stopped play as a result of seeing the puck hit the net - but they can't make a call on an assumption. The unfortunate part of the play is that the puck lands and the CBJ gain possession and turn the play the other way. It should have been a faceoff - but really that goal is an indirect result of the missed call. The protest is a bit much when the puck then travels up and down the ice a half dozen times before the ensuing goal. As usual, Edwards protests too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Which is worse because didn't we have a goal in Game 7 waived off because Trevor had his toe of his skate in the crease? The rule that the Sabres got screwed over by was a new rule for just that season (1999). If I remember correctly, the one that you are thinking about is the goaltender interference rule which the league eased up on a quite a while back. The one against Trevor was a good call for the time. All teams were getting nailed by it left and right. Nowadays you have to pretty much mug the goalie to get an interference call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Sparkle Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 LOL "and they're just gonna TURN THEIR BACKS!" "it's gonna be a carcus" would love to hear this guy with pierre maguire when that happened. people's tv's would explode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grapefruits Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 LOL "and they're just gonna TURN THEIR BACKS!" "it's gonna be a carcus" would love to hear this guy with pierre maguire when that happened. people's tv's would explode Could you imagine Edwards and Jim Ross announcing a wrestling match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Sparkle Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Could you imagine Edwards and Jim Ross announcing a wrestling match? Ross: BAW GAWD, CENA WINS, CENA WINS! HE ONCE AGAIN OVERCAME THE ODDS, JACK! HE NEVER GAVE UP! HE FAUGHT HIS WAY TO THE TOP AND IS ONCE AGAIN THE BAW GAWD WORLD CHAMPION Edwards: I CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT A FINISH THAT WAS! WHAT A LAZY COP OUT AA OUT OF NOWHERE. WITH THE GUY BEATING ON CENA ALL MATCH, BUT SOMEHOWS FALLS ON HIS BACK AND LOSES?! THE FANS REALLY WANTED TO SEE THIS, BUT THEN THE WWE GOES AND PULLS SOMETHING LIKE THIS! THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE! I DON'T KNOW HOW OUR CHAIRMAN OKAYED THIS! I MEAN, IT REALLY JUST BOGGLES MY MIND ON HOW THEY WOULD DO THIS TO THE FANS WHO PAID HARD EARNED MONEY TO COME SEE THIS EVENT! WE'VE HAD ENOUGH OF JOHN CENA'S SAME OLD STORY! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UN-BE-LEAVE-ABLE #heeledwards starts trending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 You mean during the Christmas break when no games were being played? The 'holidays'...which include the NHL's Christmas Break,..goes past Boxing Day until New Year's Eve. NHL games were played on Boxing Day. Think grade-school kids & when their school isin... & when their school is out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Clearly there is an NHL conspiracy against the Bruins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viking mama Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 This has nothing to do with the war room, it's not a reviewable play to go back a minute and a half to see if the puck struck the netting. If it's not called right away, then play continues and anything that happens afterwards is fine. ^My point was,...this should have been something that technology catches & relays to the on-ice officials. How easy would that have been to correct! They have the technology to get these things right. Off the netting is out of play....relay that info by head-set to the ref's helmut, by pager, buzzer,.or light at the penalty box area. Its out of play..& many other people knew already that ,...just not the zebras. Remember in when Geoff Courtnall scored a goal in the play-offs in '94,...and the officials didn't acknowledge that it went in & some minutes later...the Rangers & Esa Tikkanen scored? They had to waive off Tikkanen's goal. Did they reset the clock to re-play those minutes following the missed goal,...or just keep the clock where it was? But - there has been a previous precident for wiping-out a goal ,.... due to a missed call that should have clearly stopped the play upon the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Wait, so the refs goof in other games in the league too? Ya don't say. Yeah, but if the refs goof in other games, its a mistake....when they goof in a Canucks game its an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swflyers28 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Jack Edwards is a joke and everyone knows it. He's up there for thee worst broadcasters in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.