zeykshade
Registered User
It's a bad goal by virtue of the timing and situation. The fact that he didn't see it doesn't make it soft. He was screened by Gudas and Killorn and Czikas.
I thought Lecavalier played well.
If I'm being paid to look for cars coming and I don't see one and it hits me, your damn right I should have looked harder.
And that's a horrendous analogy by the way.
Why don't you try and read the argument of it being a bad goal again, comprehend it this time, and this will be a much better conversation.
I never said he saw it and therefore calling him a liar. No idea where you get that from.
What I'm saying is this, and Butchered pay attention.
The shot was 40' out. It was a weak wrist shot. He had two or three players skate by him during the shot but no one stood right in front of him. Bishop is 6'7. He wasnt expecting a shot there and wasnt looking around the streaking guys to track and target the puck. He should have been. He didnt.
It wasnt 100% his fault. He is not garbage. He let in a bad goal. At a bad time. It happens to every goalie but that doesn't make it not a bad goal.
Why is this so hard to understand what's being said?
The funniest thing about this, is if it was Garon, every single person would be complaining about the goal. And if you disagree with that, you are kidding yourself.
The definition of a soft goal is one that should never have gone in. Was the soft goal Bishop's fault? No, because he couldn't see the puck. But that would be considered a "soft goal" on any goaltender, on that basis that it was just not a good shot. Who's fault it was has nothing to do with it, something you fail to understand through your wildly emotional state.
It's a bad goal by virtue of the timing and situation. The fact that he didn't see it doesn't make it soft. He was screened by Gudas and Killorn and Czikas.
Martin understood the situation. It was a good shot. It was on goal and low for a reason. He understood that Bishop is 6'7" and kept the puck low. He understood well enough to keep the puck hidden even through release. Whether intentional or not, the reason that it was a goal was because it was a good shot.
If you watch the replay, the shot was pretty slow and weak, in fact it even bounced before the net because it was not properly taken. If anything, it was a lucky goal.
Regardless. In order to tie this to my main point, it was a shot - period.
This team generated 6 shots in the 3rd period (21 for the game; 8 by Connolly and Killorn). That's certainly not Bishop's fault.
How anyone could possibly blame Bishop for that or call it a soft goal is surprising. Killorn and Cizikas skated directly in front of Bishop (maybe about 3 feet away from him) and Martin took a low wrister when his blade (and by extension puck) were screened by Gudas' skate and stick. The wrister makes no sound and can be a sneaky shot, Bishop had no opportunity to see the puck as it was shot (thanks to Gudas), and even if he miraculously picked up the puck mid flight Killorn and Cizikas passed right in front of him maybe 3 feet away. And to those saying it was a weak shot or that it bounced...what? That puck was not weak, it was quite a tricky shot.
The timing of the goal was unfortunate, but in no way was it soft or Bishop's fault.
When I watch the replay, the trajectory of the shot dips down and bounces off the ice right before it goes into the net. The shot itself was fluttering and not a "strong" shot from what I can see (it might have even taken a very small deflection off of Gudas' stick on the way in, but it's difficult to tell). In any game, if that shot is taken and the goalie sees it, it's a softie. So when I classify the goal as a softie, I'm not criticizing Bishop for allowing a soft goal, but that normally if that shot was taken and it goes in, that it would be considered a "soft goal" (if that helps to explain my perspective, I think a lot has been misinterpreted).
I never once said it Bishop's fault, since he couldn't see the puck.
But...he didn't see it. It's pretty clear he didn't see it since he didn't react to the puck coming in and he said he didn't see it at all. I still don't identify with your perspective but I suppose I understand what you're saying. Me understanding doesn't mean you're right though
And besides, my comment was mainly aimed toward Idealistic Sniper since he tends to take a pretty hostile approach to everyone on here, and then when people get tired of arguing with the wall he sarcastically declares himself the winner. This is a pretty consistent phenomenon.
That's a very fair and well-balanced comment . I'm not saying I'm right or that you're wrong, just that I took a different perspective on it. Glad to know you understand why I called it a softie too. For me, not seeing the puck doesn't change whether or not a goal is soft. It does, however, change my perspective on whether the goalie's at fault.
For example, when Couturier scored from the corner of the rink on Lindback earlier this year, that was a soft goal AND was Lindback's fault. He saw the puck, it was a weak shot and it went between his five hole. The shot itself was weak and should never go in, which is how I generally arrive to the conclusion that it's a "soft goal" .
Agree to disagree, but I think we both CAN agree that it wasn't Bishop's fault, which is the important thing here.
This is hilarious to me. It's like a special force field. If it was Garon or any other goalie that we have had for longer than 3 days, this board would be all over him for that goal.
Pretty amazing social experiment actually.
Well Garon would've given up 2-3 softies before that goal, so we wouldn't even be focusing on that one.