Chaos2k7
Believe!
Stitches for sure, took that puck straight in the chickletsMissed the game tonight but I hope Reinhart is ok.
Stitches for sure, took that puck straight in the chickletsMissed the game tonight but I hope Reinhart is ok.
Hurts as a bruins fan we got robbed tonight. Anyways hopefully it evens out and Bruins continue to play more hockey.Just my 2 cents, but it’s wild that they allowed that goal to stand.
Specifically, Swayman’s blocker hand was coming up to make an attempt at the puck until Coyle pushed it back down, locking the goalie stick into their bodies as well. Swayman has a right to try and get that stick out there and make the save — the rulebook is explicit on that point. Just a completely botched call with massive repercussions for the entire season.
Plays like this are why the NHL needs to reduce the amount of video review. They’re telling the fans that the review will make the calls right, but way too often they actually make the situation worse by amplifying the outrage and leaving no excuse for a head-scratcher like this one.
Yea Boston is getting crushed in this seriesIt's not like Boston was going to win this game anyway. The refs just though it would be better to accelerate the process.
100% Swayman wasn't going to make the save anyway. Good call.
Is that part in the books?It's not like Boston was going to win this game anyway. The refs just though it would be better to accelerate the process.
100% Swayman wasn't going to make the save anyway. Good call.
It was 50/50 in my mind, those calls always are, but it was such a contrasting take to the TNT crew, thought I would share it.It's not like Boston was going to win this game anyway. The refs just though it would be better to accelerate the process.
100% Swayman wasn't going to make the save anyway. Good call.
Hell of a play by Barkov on that. Boston could never.No GI call was bad but that’s no excuse for Boston to allow Barkov to waltz through their team a minute later.
It’s not 50/50. Read the rule.It was 50/50 in my mind, those calls always are, but it was such a contrasting take to the TNT crew, thought I would share it.
He was juuuust about down and out, but not entirely. Still had a shot to get a stick on it prior to contact
100 percent is also hyperbole. He was juuuust about down and out, but not entirely. Still had a shot to get a stick on it prior to contact
It’s not 50/50. Read the rule.
It was 50/50 in my mind, those calls always are, but it was such a contrasting take to the TNT crew, thought I would share it.
Yeah, no sense trying to accurately quantify it. It’s either 0 or more than 0. It seemed insanely obvious to me that Swayman had more than a 0 percent chance to get thereThat’s my issue with the call. It doesn’t matter if the goalie is 99% out of the play. If he still has a shot at the puck — and Swayman did have a shot at extending his stick to make that save — then he has an absolute right to make that play unimpeded. It might only be a 1% chance, but it is a chance denied due to interference, and that makes it a no-goal.
This is pretty clear cut in the rulebook. They flat out botched it.
Yes, I didn’t think they would overturn it either. Regardless, they got it wrong. Shocker. Got Bennett’s fist to Marchand’s head wrong too. Florida f***ing Angels.When they called it a goal on the ice, you knew they would have a harder time ouverturning it, they hate going against the on ice officials normally
It was enough of a push the Coyle turned left and accelerated. He was gliding toward the front of Swayman, then gets hit in the back and hangs a left into Swayman?I don't see it, Bennett had the entire net open there. Either way it was the slightest push and for them to overturn it has to be conclusive.
It was enough of a push the Coyle turned left and accelerated. He was gliding toward the front of Swayman, then gets hit in the back and hangs a left into Swayman?
A push is a push. It was enough that it put Coyle into Swayman, who couldn’t move the right arm or right leg.
Bennet probably scores regardless (although then we could argue they missed a crosscheck on him to separate from Coyle more, but I’ll ignore that part) but probably means it’s enough to pull that off the board
Have you read the rule? It has zero to do with impeding Swayman’s ability to play the puck. Bennett shoving Coyle into Swayman is the exact same thing, according to the rule, as if he went into the crease and initiated contact with Swayman himself. Did Geekie impede Bobrovsky’s ability to play the puck? No, there was no puck (!). Rather, he initiated contact with Bobrovsky, which “for the purpose of the rule” (according to the very wording of the rule itself) is precisely what Bennett did (and also, while we’re at it, apparently what Lauko did last game). But, you know, you can go ahead and read it for yourself.Yeah so again, it's not conclusive when you clearly have people with different opinions about it. You can't overturn the call based on that. If it had been called a no goal on the ice, different story.