Are You Serious With This Call??

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from originalcallodthedom. Show originalcallodthedom's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    Oh hey the Tampa Bay fan is back.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourrings. Show fourrings's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In response to "Re: Are You Serious With This Call??": [QUOTE]The call is a mood point! The big issue is how this team has given up on the season. Posted by thefly8[/QUOTE] Agree but wrong thread
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from puckhog9966. Show puckhog9966's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : The Bruins didn't play .500 hockey but you writing like they got lucky. The answer to your question is correct the Bruins are injured and when they were healthy Boston walked all over teams. The one thing you didn't rant about is the Bruins lacked of depth in Providence. Thanks for stopping by and announcing how much you don't know...again...just another cry baby rant.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    I guess lack of depth in providence is why Chara is like -7 in the last 3 games? Ther eis a reason why a player is in the AHL and not the NHL. Them same players get exposed in the NHL sooner or later. Thanks for the post though.. your still an idiot crying about my rants.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]Would you guys and girls like some cheese with your wine?
    Posted by null[/QUOTE]

    Did chippy's dad forget to pay the people in Toronto? Loser.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from puckhog9966. Show puckhog9966's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : I look forward to hearing what you have to say a month from now when the playoffs are in full swing and the Bruins are on the verge of winning round 1. I think you're very wrong but there's no need for us to debate it now since we'll have our real answer by then.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    We shall see. I'll hapily eat humble pie if that happens. But the coarse being set is Rangers in the first round if the Bruins happen to limp thier way in and that will be a fast 1st round exit IMO. Maybe they get the 6th seed and play Florida? Thats maybe the best scenario.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from zamboni24. Show zamboni24's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    OK -- so take the goal away -- they lose 5-1 -- Dustin ToWhoSki. The B's making another slug goalie look like a Vez Winner. The guy even gets an assist on the Shannon goal. The sad part is nobody was pi$$ed after the 6th goal. Backing off of hits and allowing the Bolts to continually skate with their heads down. Not advocationg diliberate running -- but how about a couple of solid body checks. At least Lucic was showing some emotion as if to care. 

    The Rangers a few weeks ago were down 4-0 vs Chicago -- Lost the game but won the 2nd and 3rd period. That kind of character got them on track right away. This Bruins team has become a laughing stock of the league and the team everyone wants to play. Florida Thursday and Flyers Saturday -- 2 teams licking their chops.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : I have to side with him also.  That's a goal with the rule in place.  A " Distinct " kicking motion .  He did direct it in on purpose but he does not lift his feet enough to have that swinging motion with his foot kicking the puck. For all those who play soccer and I still do that was a re-direct, not a kick. I disagree with the NHL rule because a re-direct with the sole purpose to try and score should be disallowed also.  A grey area in their rule.
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    Me too. I thought the overhead gave the best angle. Re-direct and no distinctive kicking motion IMO.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from saultont. Show saultont's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

     Good goal...bad goal...thats really not the point here. It really seems its who is involved and that  becomes the deciding factor on the decision.. No one will ever change my mind on that!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    The season of historically abysmal officiating continues.

    Last night's suck-job by the officials isn't why the Bruins lost but if you watch enough hockey you have to be amazed at how bad the refs have been this season all over the league. I am amazed at how horrible they've been and add the shanahan dart board of suspensions/no suspensions and it has truly been a mess that the league must address in the offseason.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    It should have stayed with the ref, on the ice, who waved it off. But, it didn't really matter as we all saw why Turco was not carried by any other team. Thought it was a reasonable gamble, once Claude decided not to play Hutchinson, but, now we know it flopped. Claude is under pressure, and is not necessarily making many good moves. Why replace Mc Dermid? Why not shorten the bench and improve the offensive pressure? Why have Rolston on the PP? Why give Rolston any extra time on ice? Correction requires leadership, look at St. Louis as an example.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from nrguy. Show nrguy's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    To be honest, it's a bad rule not a bad call.

    The rule is "a distinct kicking motion". Well it wasn't a distinct kicking motion. Pyatt turned his skate and planted it right before the puck hit his skate.

    To the spirit of the rule - i.e. you shouldn't be able to intentionally kick the puck in the net - it wasn't a good call as that's exactly what it was. Pyatt intentionally moved his skate in such a position that it would go into the net.

    However since his skate didn't move when the puck hit it, it wasn't a distinct kicking motion. Stupid rule that should be changed to account for this - i.e. you can't use alter your skate to deflect a puck in the net if you intentionally changed it to deflect it towards the net (deflections where there is no change to the skate's direction are ok).

    Then again, if I made the rules, only a nut bag like me would understand them.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]To be honest, it's a bad rule not a bad call. The rule is "a distinct kicking motion". Well it wasn't a distinct kicking motion. Pyatt turned his skate and planted it right before the puck hit his skate. To the spirit of the rule - i.e. you shouldn't be able to intentionally kick the puck in the net - it wasn't a good call as that's exactly what it was. Pyatt intentionally moved his skate in such a position that it would go into the net. However since his skate didn't move when the puck hit it, it wasn't a distinct kicking motion. Stupid rule that should be changed to account for this - i.e. you can't use alter your skate to deflect a puck in the net if you intentionally changed it to deflect it towards the net (deflections where there is no change to the skate's direction are ok). Then again, if I made the rules, only a nut bag like me would understand them.
    Posted by nrguy[/QUOTE]
    They should either allow anything that hits a skate (to be a goal) or nothing. It's the grey area that causes all of the confusion.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : They should either allow anything that hits a skate (to be a goal) or nothing. It's the grey area that causes all of the confusion.
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    Totally agree or at least if the player purposely moves his skates to angle a puck in deliberately the goal should be disallowed but by saying a distinct kicking motion leaves way too much to the discretion of the refs and/or off ice officials.
    That is why on this ruling sometimes the same type ok kicking motion on one night it's a goal and on another night it' not.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    Not a big deal, and not the reason they lost but doesnt anyone else see after he turns his skate to the side it then moves towards the net which is where the puck went? I see numerous players stop the puck with their skate turned sideways, particulary point men and the puck stays there. I'm not sure if he tried to do it, but for me the skate is last seen moving toward the net after the puick hits it..

    The real shocker to me is they actually overruled the ref on the ice after this.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    Nobody responded. I'm shocked.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from vcec. Show vcec's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]Nobody responded. I'm shocked.
    Posted by kelvana33[/QUOTE]


    lol, I will then. I watched the NESN Highlights last night and your announcers as much as said the same thing......something to the effect that the call is never overturned.  Perception is a funny thing because our announcers down here said the call should be overturned and the refs got it right. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : lol, I will then. I watched the NESN Highlights last night and your announcers as much as said the same thing......something to the effect that the call is never overturned.  Perception is a funny thing because our announcers down here said the call should be overturned and the refs got it right. 
    Posted by vcec[/QUOTE]

    Espo's as bad a homer as Edwards.  Maybe worse.  He was pretty irritating in the playoffs last year, but I suppose Tampa fans like him.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : Totally agree or at least if the player purposely moves his skates to angle a puck in deliberately the goal should be disallowed but by saying a distinct kicking motion leaves way too much to the discretion of the refs and/or off ice officials. That is why on this ruling sometimes the same type ok kicking motion on one night it's a goal and on another night it' not.
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]

    What bothers me is that the spirit of the original rule was to keep players from winding up and booting the puck - and end up kicking the goalie's head like they're going for a field goal.

    They are going down a slippery slope with redirecting the puck with your foot because now it's not far removed from an outright kick - imagine a goalie going down to stop a puck and a forward tied up with a defenseman is going to try to get his foot in for the "redirect" - or deflection is more like it.

    And actually, if you think about it, the "distinct kicking motion" does apply to the "hockey stop kick", you are skating into the puck.  It is actually more of a kick then a deflection because the player's feet are in motion toward the puck, but you can only do that with skates on.

    This might sound ridiculous, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a player slide toward goal like a baseball player sliding into second looking for his team mate to shoot it in off of him.  Not pass it - but actually shoot it off his shinpads.

    To simplify it, there must be no intention to redirect the puck with anything but your stick, and the benefit of a doubt should go to the defense.  If the puck is in your field of vision and it goes in off your foot - no goal.

    If they are allowing this, why not let someone deflect the puck in with their hands?

    This is bad.  They will wait until someone gets kicked in the head and then they will visit the rule again.  Or the game will get ridiculous with people trying to head the puck into the goal like soccer.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from vcec. Show vcec's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : Espo's as bad a homer as Edwards.  Maybe worse.  He was pretty irritating in the playoffs last year, but I suppose Tampa fans like him.
    Posted by Fletcher1[/QUOTE]

    I think Espo does radio with Mishkin and Peckham does tv with Taylor, but I could be wrong. I tend to tune them out. 

    looked a little for some footage of the goal, but didn't find any. I guess it could be argued all night but I'm sure we have better things to do. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : I think Espo does radio with Mishkin and Peckham does tv with Taylor, but I could be wrong. I tend to tune them out.  looked a little for some footage of the goal, but didn't find any. I guess it could be argued all night but I'm sure we have better things to do. 
    Posted by vcec[/QUOTE]

    At one time these two had my vote for most annoying homers in the league. I cringed when they were on the feed for me to watch a Tampa game. Not so much any more.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : At one time these two had my vote for most annoying homers in the league. I cringed when they were on the feed for me to watch a Tampa game. Not so much any more.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    The other night they were okay,  sure when Tampa scored it was a Stanley cup winning goal,  they called a good game. 
    Right now on top of the list of the worst homers are the Pen and Sabre games.
    You can be a homer but at least be knowledgeable.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Are You Serious With This Call??

    In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call??:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Are You Serious With This Call?? : The other night they were okay,  sure when Tampa scored it was a Stanley cup winning goal,  they called a good game.  Right now on top of the list of the worst homers are the Pen and Sabre games. You can be a homer but at least be knowledgeable.
    Posted by BsLegion[/QUOTE]
    Add Short & Garrett of the Nucks, in a word, horrible.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share