TimThomas24
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2013
- 1,205
- 1,485
Goaltender interference and offsides, same thing. Offsides where you don't have evidence of offsides, goaltender interference where you have... well we don't know because they said there's a lack of evidence but not why the evidence that does exist isn't enough.The Matthews goal? Maybe not, but the Boston goal shouldn't have counted and Toronto scored the only indisputable goal... soooo...
Goaltender interference and offsides, same thing. Offsides where you don't have evidence of offsides, goaltender interference where you have... well we don't know because they said there's a lack of evidence but not why the evidence that does exist isn't enough.
Sure you can say they're both disputed but not remotely similarly.
This is the same forum where 75% of impartial users voted Bruins in 4/5. What do you expect this outcome to be?
I hate when people make up lies to push their victim narrative.
This is the same forum where 75% of impartial users voted Bruins in 4/5. What do you expect this outcome to be?
What was the actual result?
If a goalie is outside his crease, minor contact with a forward is to be expected. It was a good goal.
6.6% of voters picked Boston in 4 and 18.9% of voters picked Boston in 5. That equates to 25.5% of voters picking Boston in 4/5. One third of the number that you suggested.
Why do you want to be a victim so bad?
He's a leaf hater.Why do you care?
25.5% is ridiculous on its own.
not outside the crease tho
incidental contact outside the blue paint initiated by rask
GOOD GOAL