mtnet
LGD!
- Oct 31, 2014
- 5,665
- 4,200
Grats on stringing a few together guys, keep it up. Beating tml is no small feat.
I was actually asking the same thing - if the referee states 'goalie intearference' in the explanation... doesn't that mean that a penalty is involved. Pardon my stupidity or ignorance, but is tha?t because they called it a goal on the ice and then went to video review, you can't use review to determine a penalty?
English is so dumb. I remember learning Spanish and being blown away at how much more sense it makes.Yet scored twice...weird.
(Note to self. I before E except after C, and the word "weird")
The only consistency is inconsistency.Nice win guys, you earned it, the leafs played like crap and deserved the loss, i don't believe you guys are as bad as your record says, i vehemently disagree with the disallowed goal but thats mostly because of the NHL's inconsistencies with goalie interference calls. Until the next one!
Nice win guys, you earned it, the leafs played like crap and deserved the loss, i don't believe you guys are as bad as your record says, i vehemently disagree with the disallowed goal but thats mostly because of the NHL's inconsistencies with goalie interference calls. Until the next one!
Without looking I'm guessing it's a conspiracy thread about how the NHL is gifting us wins.OH we've got a mainboard thread that isn't about us losing a bunch of games
Players are responsible for their stick, same as a high sticking penalty. Not a fun way to have a goal taken away but I prefer consistency.
I was actually asking the same thing - if the referee states 'goalie intearference' in the explanation... doesn't that mean that a penalty is involved. Pardon my stupidity or ignorance, but is tha?t because they called it a goal on the ice and then went to video review, you can't use review to determine a penalty?
I agree with today's call, but completely agree with you about how inconsistent they are with enforcing goalie interference. It's kind of a crap shoot.Except there's not much consistency with what's considered goalie interference and what's not. Today this goal is disallowed, tomorrow with the exact same play with different refs it might've counted. And if you want to talk about inconsistency just look at last year's Ducks/Oilers game 5 in the playoffs where Kesler had his hand in one of Talbot's pads for several seconds and that goal counted. Wayyyy more interference and that counts and yet a slight tap where the goalie was able to recover and its a no goal.
There has to be some way to have more consistency with calls like this.
Wait, you mean OEL is worth more than a big pile of d*****t 26 yr old prospects?I was telling @Grimes I am so glad OEL picked the Leafs to play his best game of the year so they can quit putting up BS trade offers.
Maybe a bit lost in the shuffle, but Keller with a 2 point night and controlled the PP.
Leafs fans tears are delicious! Howl!
Yup.Without looking I'm guessing it's a conspiracy thread about how the NHL is gifting us wins.
Call on the ice probably should have been spearing and no goal - Leafs got off easy.Yup.
There is consensus the Matthews goal was interference though.