GDT: G:26 BB's Mom's Favorite Team @ BB's Team 6pm CT/2am Finland (FSN+)

Status
Not open for further replies.

2Pair

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
12,633
5,103
That last line is the relevant one.
It's not a deflection if he intentionally plays the puck. That's why the word "directed" is in the rule. For the goal to count, you have to believe that Hyman was not trying to play the puck. I prsonally don't see how anyone could believe that.
 

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,834
24,504
Farmington, MN
It's not a deflection if he intentionally plays the puck. That's why the word "directed" is in the rule. For the goal to count, you have to believe that Hyman was not trying to play the puck. I prsonally don't see how anyone could believe that.
The refs call it a deflection. In slow no, it looks deflected to me, not directed.

That said, my problem isn't the rule or how it was called this time, it's that we've had that same situation called no goal for us every other time I've seen it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NovaLeaf

2Pair

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
12,633
5,103
The refs call it a deflection. In slow no, it looks deflected to me, not directed.

That said, my problem isn't the rule or how it was called this time, it's that we've had that same situation called no goal for us every other time I've seen it.
Do you think Hyman was trying to get his stick on that puck?
 

HwT

Registered User
Mar 9, 2017
930
160
Finland
It's not a deflection if he intentionally plays the puck. That's why the word "directed" is in the rule. For the goal to count, you have to believe that Hyman was not trying to play the puck. I prsonally don't see how anyone could believe that.

Problem comes when trying to decide if an unintentional deflection with a glove while intentionally trying to deflect with the stick counts as intentionally playing the puck (directing).
 

2Pair

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
12,633
5,103
Im just saying, it looks deflected to me, nothing more nothing less, that's my opinion. You're welcome to yours, I'm welcome to mine.
Then you don't know the difference between deflected and directed.
 

MehMild

Not someone whose name means testicles.
Jan 25, 2017
129
12
Do you think Hyman was trying to get his stick on that puck?
I think Dumba lifted his stick and it was a continuation of that movement, not his attempt to direct the puck on net. It happened to hit his hand after that contact and follow through. it wasn't a motion to direct the puck on net. so keyword is deflect which = good goal.

Now let's win.
 

2Pair

Registered User
Oct 8, 2017
12,633
5,103
Problem comes when trying to decide if an unintentional deflection with a glove while intentionally trying to deflect with the stick counts as intentionally playing the puck.
No, because if he's trying to play the puck, then he's directing it with whatever actually touches it. That's why I said the only thing that really matters is if you believe he was trying to play the puck or not.
 

TaLoN

Red 5 standing by
Sponsor
May 30, 2010
50,834
24,504
Farmington, MN
Then you don't know the difference between deflected and directed.
Well, the play was reviewed and they still called it deflected. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's here.

Again, my only problem is I have never seen them call that identical situation in our favor when it's a Wild player's glove.
 

57special

Posting the right way since 2012.
Sep 5, 2012
47,990
19,713
MN
what a joke. We've got-
L the chances, and they've got 3 flukes. Oh, and Pateryn has to rub that guy out on the boards, and that play never would've happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad