OT: Any Video evidence of refs jobbing Leafs in this thread plz.

notDatsyuk

Registered User
Jul 20, 2018
9,646
7,521
There is something terribly wrong with any fool who says this puck is not in the net. The ref is there watching it go in. Marner points it out to this garbage ref but he is having none of it. There is no way the ref doesn’t see that going in and no way he doesn’t see it in when Holtby is looking like a idiot trying to drag it out and then can’t even kick it out.
We got cheated by crooked refs again. We know they fix games by now right.
Yes, from that video there is a good likelihood that the puck crossed the line. But, from where the ref is standing, it's virtually impossible for him to actually see the puck in the net. Even less possible for the goal judge to see it.

Seriously, you can say all you want that it's obvious that the puck was in the net. That's not the issue. The ref and the goal judge could not see it, and the video evidence, while interesting, is not conclusive, certainly not enough to overturn the original call.

You can speculate all you want, but you can not clearly see the puck fully over the goal line at any time prior to the stoppage in play.
 

Wafflewhipper

Registered User
Jan 18, 2014
14,114
5,694
So the spear Thornton got hasn’t been dissected and broken down by the main networks yet. Well colour me surprised eh. Does anyone have a angle showing where that landed on Thornton? It looked like he got it in the family jewels to me.

That’s suspendable but i was just waiting to see how much they would talk about it. Not to much from tsn or sportnet eh Leafers. They are so garbage.

Nothing from the Nhl DOPS and Parros.
 

crump

~ ~ (ړײ) ~ ~
Feb 26, 2004
14,744
6,498
Ontariariario
A little different scenario here. Was Soup jobbed out of a goal when he wasn’t awarded an automatic goal when he was hooked leading him to hit the post on an empty net. Kerfoot eventually scored, but according to the rules they should have immediately blown it a goal.

Rule 25.1 covers Awarded Goals, as does Rule 57.4 (which is referenced by Rule 55.6, Hooking):
25.1 Awarded Goal – A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when the opposing team has taken their goalkeeper off the ice and an attacking player has possession and control of the puck in the neutral or attacking zone, without a defending player between himself and the opposing goal, and he is prevented from scoring as a result of an infraction committed by the defending team.

Or

57.4 Awarded Goal – If, when the opposing goalkeeper has been removed from the ice, a player in control of the puck (or who could have obtained possession and control of the puck) in the neutral or attacking zone is tripped or otherwise fouled with no opposition between him and the opposing goal, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, the Referee shall immediately stop play and award a goal to the attacking team.
 

Wafflewhipper

Registered User
Jan 18, 2014
14,114
5,694
A little different scenario here. Was Soup jobbed out of a goal when he wasn’t awarded an automatic goal when he was hooked leading him to hit the post on an empty net. Kerfoot eventually scored, but according to the rules they should have immediately blown it a goal.

Rule 25.1 covers Awarded Goals, as does Rule 57.4 (which is referenced by Rule 55.6, Hooking):
25.1 Awarded Goal – A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when the opposing team has taken their goalkeeper off the ice and an attacking player has possession and control of the puck in the neutral or attacking zone, without a defending player between himself and the opposing goal, and he is prevented from scoring as a result of an infraction committed by the defending team.

Or

57.4 Awarded Goal – If, when the opposing goalkeeper has been removed from the ice, a player in control of the puck (or who could have obtained possession and control of the puck) in the neutral or attacking zone is tripped or otherwise fouled with no opposition between him and the opposing goal, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, the Referee shall immediately stop play and award a goal to the attacking team.
Nice catch... cool. You likely know the rules better than them incompetent imbeciles
 

Wafflewhipper

Registered User
Jan 18, 2014
14,114
5,694
A little different scenario here. Was Soup jobbed out of a goal when he wasn’t awarded an automatic goal when he was hooked leading him to hit the post on an empty net. Kerfoot eventually scored, but according to the rules they should have immediately blown it a goal.

Rule 25.1 covers Awarded Goals, as does Rule 57.4 (which is referenced by Rule 55.6, Hooking):
25.1 Awarded Goal – A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when the opposing team has taken their goalkeeper off the ice and an attacking player has possession and control of the puck in the neutral or attacking zone, without a defending player between himself and the opposing goal, and he is prevented from scoring as a result of an infraction committed by the defending team.

Or

57.4 Awarded Goal – If, when the opposing goalkeeper has been removed from the ice, a player in control of the puck (or who could have obtained possession and control of the puck) in the neutral or attacking zone is tripped or otherwise fouled with no opposition between him and the opposing goal, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, the Referee shall immediately stop play and award a goal to the attacking team.
Easily you can see the hook in this link at the very end,last 20 seconds
Marner scores 100th career goal as Leafs sweep two-game series vs. Jets
 

notDatsyuk

Registered User
Jul 20, 2018
9,646
7,521
A little different scenario here. Was Soup jobbed out of a goal when he wasn’t awarded an automatic goal when he was hooked leading him to hit the post on an empty net. Kerfoot eventually scored, but according to the rules they should have immediately blown it a goal.

Rule 25.1 covers Awarded Goals, as does Rule 57.4 (which is referenced by Rule 55.6, Hooking):
25.1 Awarded Goal – A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when the opposing team has taken their goalkeeper off the ice and an attacking player has possession and control of the puck in the neutral or attacking zone, without a defending player between himself and the opposing goal, and he is prevented from scoring as a result of an infraction committed by the defending team.

Or

57.4 Awarded Goal – If, when the opposing goalkeeper has been removed from the ice, a player in control of the puck (or who could have obtained possession and control of the puck) in the neutral or attacking zone is tripped or otherwise fouled with no opposition between him and the opposing goal, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, the Referee shall immediately stop play and award a goal to the attacking team.
It's the same logic as calling a penalty shot on a breakaway. Was he clearly wide open? Was he interfered with enough to prevent his shooting?

So it's a judgement call, and I guess even tougher to justify than a regular penalty shot, which still has a fair chance of being stopped.

(The automatic goal is basically the same as giving a penalty shot with nobody in net.)

In that particular case, I think I would have awarded the goal, but I might be biased, and I wouldn't say the ref made a bad call. At worst, he made the less controversial call.
 

GojuLeaf

Registered User
May 3, 2010
1,380
212
On top of that hold on the jersey in overtime Bunting got straight levelled nowhere near the puck right before the goal and no call of any sort.

Sure is great to put the whistles away after the Bolts manage to tie it up...
 

Mr Papagoergyo

Registered User
Feb 17, 2019
269
161
On a positive note People are taking notice hopefully the refs notice what the bolts are doing.

If your going to be in the BUILDING tommorrow be vocal with plays that you see. Seems the refs do get influenced if everyone in the building is mad as hell about a play.

Not sure if it was just me but Riellys penalty seemed driven by bolts fans losing there minds in that building.
 

notDatsyuk

Registered User
Jul 20, 2018
9,646
7,521
Did we really need to revive this joke thread?

We were two men short because we took two penalties, not because the refs are stupid/blind/paid off/anti-Leafs/ordered to cheat/aliens/scumbags.

(Well maybe a bit of the last.)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->