cliffclaven
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2018
- 1,549
- 1,044
Lol, what is the rat complaining about? That’s a trip 10 times out of 10.
Lol, what is the rat complaining about? That’s a trip 10 times out of 10.
it's says they're tied in ROW. the tiebreaker after that is head to head pointsWhy is Boston above Montreal? Habs have more ROW. What’s the tiebreakers ?
Awesome thanks. Think I checked the wrong number. After that it’s goal Diff I’m guessing?it's says they're tied in ROW. the tiebreaker after that is head to head points
Shot to the back is not an automatic whistle...
Shot to the back is not an automatic whistle...
Rulebook:
When a player is injured so that he cannot continue play or go to
his bench, the play shall not be stopped until the injured player’s team
has secured control of the puck. If the player’s team is in control of the
puck at the time of injury, play shall be stopped immediately unless his
team is in a scoring position.
In the case where it is obvious that a player has sustained a
serious injury, the Referee and/or Linesman may stop the play
immediately.
When play has been stopped by the Referee or Linesman due to
an injured player, or whenever an injured player is attended to on the
ice by the Trainer or medical personnel, such player must be
substituted for immediately. This injured player cannot return to the ice
until play has resumed.
When play is stopped for an injured player, the ensuing face-off
shall be conducted at the face-off spot in the zone nearest the location
of the puck when the play was stopped. When the injured player’s
team has control of the puck in the attacking zone, the face-off shall
be conducted at one of the face-off spots outside the blue line in the
neutral zone. When the injured player is in his defending zone and
the attacking team is in possession of the puck in the attacking zone,
the face-off shall be conducted at one of the defending team’s endzone
face-off spots.
Torts is gonna sewer the officiating for blowing that play dead on the PP post-game. Must watch.
Don’t disagree. It was an egregious call that Tanev obviously milked without out a stick on a tired PK. Can’t blow that dead, especially at that point of the game.It shouldn't have been blown down, but considering the reason Tanev didn't have a stick to begin with, I won't feel too bad about it.
you mean the reason as in panarins shot breaking his stick ? jets are my #1 but even i saw that and know the play shouldnt have been blown deadIt shouldn't have been blown down, but considering the reason Tanev didn't have a stick to begin with, I won't feel too bad about it.
you mean the reason as in panarins shot breaking his stick ? jets are my #1 but even i saw that and know the play shouldnt have been blown dead
agreedIf that's true, I clearly did not see it well. Regardless, play should not have been blown dead