GDT: Leafs(8-6-0) vs Blues(10-3-1)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cleetus

"snot"
Jan 2, 2012
19,984
23,577
North!
Why are they trying to make excuses for Hyman? Oh he had 5 things on his mind. No he should have 1 thing on his mind. Get control of the puck and give it to someone who can finish.
Jim Hughson likes that Hyman is with Matthews so every team beats us, he is a tool, same with Simpson he is a joke Wendal was a million times the player he was!
 

Pi

Registered User
Nov 16, 2010
48,928
13,984
Toronto
Someone in the media better ask why Babcock didn't challenge that goal or why he didn't bother showing up tonight to coach.
 

canadon

Registered User
Jun 25, 2015
1,599
125
Vaughan, ON
It wouldn't be 5-4. Would have been a completely different sequence of events after the challenge. I agree Babcock should have challenged that goal though.
 

fahad203

Registered User
Oct 3, 2009
36,882
19,968
as Gallabi pointed out - because it could be argued as a followthrough/accidental contact the challenge may not have gone through as goalie interference.

He can always challenge it, maybe he'll get lucky. That was a follow through but a physical contact none the less, especially right to the head
 

bobermay

Registered User
Mar 6, 2009
12,352
301
Fredericton
Enough complaining about the non-challenge guys... Babcock shouldn't have been put in that position, and the refs should have seen it and called it on the spot...
 

jrgtml67

Registered User
Sep 12, 2011
5,457
945
Oh ya? so that line has looked great since being put together earlier this week, he does his job well apparently you are one who thinks everyone has to score or put points up...tonight he gets rewarded for tough play
 

CyBorgman

Registered User
Oct 4, 2017
627
409
as Gallabi pointed out - because it could be argued as a followthrough/accidental contact the challenge may not have gone through as goalie interference.

No it can't, the goalie is in the crease you can't hit him in the head with your stick. Following through on a shot is meaningless if you don't hit the puck anyways.
 

htpwn

Registered User
Nov 4, 2009
20,552
2,650
Toronto
as Gallabi pointed out - because it could be argued as a followthrough/accidental contact the challenge may not have gone through as goalie interference.

It doesn't matter. Incidental contact is enough -- Andersen has to be able to make the save and in this case, he clearly was prevented from doing so.
 

Daisy Jane

everything is gonna be okay!
Jul 2, 2009
70,213
9,192
that's not how goalie interference works. It doesn't have to be intentional for a goal to be waived off


i know it doesn't have to be intentional. but are you honestly sitting there and going to say the video coach, Hiller, Smith and Babcock didn't think of all options before not challenging? something must have been said (or seen) that made them not to do so.
 

Trapper

Registered User
Nov 21, 2013
23,749
11,019
People can argue about the goal challenge or the Hyman wiff but the fact remains...we give up far too many goals. Far, far too many.
All the above isn't changing that fact. Moves need to be made to get us more structure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: weems
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad