Was that call for having elbows? Because as nonsense as that sounds it makes more sense than getting an elbow call when you don't even touch someone with an elbow.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26553Table 14 - Rule 26 - Awarded Goals
Summary of Awarded Goals When Goalkeeper Has Been Removed for an Extra Attacker
Descprition
Rule
(i) Delaying the game
Rule 63
(ii) Handling the puck
Rule 67
(iii) Illegal substitution
Rule 68
(iv) Interference
Rule 56
(v) Leaving the players’ or penalty bench
Rule 70
(vi) Throwing stick
Rule 53
(vii) Tripping (fouling from behind – including hooking, holding, slashing, etc.)
Wouldn't that be an automatic goal, penalty on an open net?
Kings thread is hilarious...
This screams lame shootout win after we get outshot 35-18.
Wouldn't that be an automatic goal, penalty on an open net?
I love it. Meh, who cares about the game. Lets make sure the assist is given to the correct player so our survivor game isn't effed up, lol. On a related note, I went with Girgs so I hope he did touch it but with my luck it wasn't him.
Shouldn't that have been an automatic goal since the net was empty?
EDIT: Yeah, I think the refs got that one wrong:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26553
Call me crazy but I like Buffalo's chances tonight.. something like 3-2.
[nhl]2014020409-513-h[/nhl]
Teams cannot handle losing to us.
And there you have it. I didn't realize Staff got a piece of it. Nice play.