Canada4Gold
Registered User
- Dec 22, 2010
- 43,001
- 9,192
The NHL also apparently likes to waste blue paint, as they put it on the ice in every rink, yet it means nothing.
They already solved that problem
The NHL also apparently likes to waste blue paint, as they put it on the ice in every rink, yet it means nothing.
Not GI if the goalie initiates the contact. Cheer up.
So Americans voting in polls is the problemAbout 50% thought it was a bad goal eh?
In completely unrelated news....
Majority of Americans Believe in Ghosts (57%) and UFOs (52%)
So Americans voting in polls is the problem
Because you're lying. That's how.How in the world is a 50/50 call drawing 20 pages when there was a 100% obvious call made WRONG, that gave Boston their only goal, in a game Boston looked horrible in and had no business winning and wouldn't have won anyway?
After they got 3 powerplays to 1 (automatic call), and got away with a lot more.
I know Edwards can twist minds and perception away from reality, but this is just embarrassing to watch.
Everything I said is undeniable fact. There is zero legitimate way to claim that Toronto got any bigger advantage in that game than Boston.Because you're lying. That's how.
Why do you care?
25.5% is ridiculous on its own.
It wasn't offsides, though. There is no evidence of it being offsides. The best evidence is inconclusive as has been explained several times in this thread.Everything I said is undeniable fact. There is zero legitimate way to claim that Toronto got any bigger advantage in that game than Boston.
Between the Goalie interference and the offside, the offside example has been consistently called no goal league-wide WAY more than the GI example, especially after the changes with GI ruling. I don't know if I've ever seen an offside so blatant NOT be called back, since the infamous Duchene example that started all this.
Both teams got 1 automatic PP. Boston got 2 more PPs on objectively weak calls, and then didn't get called for the same standard themselves.
There's an angle that shows everything clear as day. I don't know what people have been bickering about in this thread, but it's really not even close. I don't know how people can still say this with a straight face.It wasn't offsides, though. There is no evidence of it being offsides. The best evidence is inconclusive as has been explained several times in this thread.
I don't know what you're talking about. I never said there was zero contact. Contact doesn't automatically mean GI. I also don't know how you're claiming to know the specific details of the decision.Also, the goaltender interference rule has also been explained several times which wasn't decided because of a lack of evidence but by an interpretation of what enough contact is. The reason the GI was inconclusive was because they couldn't decide if it was conclusively enough contact, not if there was any contact.
Not sure why all the stupid insults, but no, I'm not lying, and no, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm looking at the facts, and I didn't even make a definitive statement about the GI.You're lying and pushing an annoying agenda that makes no sense. Do you gain pride from lying about your favorite sports team? Money? Friends? I simply don't understand the point. You can fairly say you think it was offsides but understand that a still image of something meaningless (because of how offsides rules work), or a differently useless video as you can't see the puck. You can't say it's definitely offsides.
And I never did. Again, contact =/= GI. Do you think you're replying to somebody else?Inversely, you can say you don't think the contact with Rask prevented him from making a save attempt, but you can't deny contact was made.
No, I'm saying things that are observed statistical truths are true, and that something with clear photographic evidence is true.You're literally saying facts are false, except your opinions which you perceive as facts.
There's an angle that shows everything clear as day. I don't know what people have been bickering about in this thread, but it's really not even close. I don't know how people can still say this with a straight face.
I don't know what you're talking about. I never said there was zero contact. Contact doesn't automatically mean GI. I also don't know how you're claiming to know the specific details of the decision.
Not sure why all the stupid insults, but no, I'm not lying, and no, I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm looking at the facts, and I didn't even make a definitive statement about the GI.
And I never did. Again, contact =/= GI. Do you think you're replying to somebody else?
No, I'm saying things that are observed statistical truths are true, and that something with clear photographic evidence is true.
Really, the only opinion I gave is that Boston did something equal to or more than the standard that was set with that first penalty throughout the 60 minutes of the game, and I think that's a pretty safe bet considering the things Boston has done, the things that happen during a normal playoff game, and the embarrassing standard set by that call.
Except we can see from all of the other video angles when this still frame is from, and the fact that it wasn't brought in before then.The evidence is a still image showing nothing because the blue line belongs to the last zone the puck was in. If it was brought in the zone for .0000001 of a second it'd be onside. Your picture evidence shows nothing relevant.
What are you talking about?I didn't say you claimed there to be zero content. That's about the difference in why these calls were both upheld for the same (but different) reasons.
You're rambling and I don't even understand what you're trying to say, but yes, you did insult, and no, I'm not lying, you have zero proof of anything I have said being untrue, and even if you did, that is not proof of lying.Saying you're lying when you're lying isn't an insult. Asking why you're lying again isn't an insult. There are no facts in your claim of it being 100% offsides because there is zero evidence of this. There is only evidence that you can't tell.
If a goalie is outside his crease, minor contact with a forward is to be expected. It was a good goal.
On a side note Rask wasn’t stopping that shot no matter what. Still he wasn’t given the chance.