GDT: HFBoards GDT 2/18/19

[WSS11]

Because we've seen the conclusive proof that it was a good goal. It just wasn't called correctly.

Obviously it wasn’t

 

[bearcountry17]

Jake Debrusk burned Couture bad on the OT goal. Kids a rocket.

 

[StarCraft]

There’s been more instances of them not doing that

How can you possibly say this if you think the linesmen putting the nets back into play "NEVER" happens? You're obviously going off your own anecdotal experience, but you're stating it like fact.

I can do that too! I've seen the linesmen fix the net dozens of times but I've never seen the situation that happened this game. Therefore, there is more instances of the former than the latter.

(You'd think moderators would be held to a higher posting standard...)

 

[PB37]

That doesn't negate anything I said. It being on its side, there is no white between the top tip of the puck and the goal line which is why it was inconclusive. That's why they didn't rob them of anything because that's not a goal by NHL standards. They had plenty of time to review that and make that call.

There clearly is white, lol.

 

[Slasher45]

I love fans just streaming on to this post who I guarantee didn't watch this whole game just spew off at the mouth..

 

[Sheppy]

Clear goal

Probably the same geeks that called this “no goal” and cost the Bruins a playoff birth.

 

[saffronleaf]

There’s been more instances of them not doing that

Keep changing your answer, because it's still wrong.

 

[PG Canuck]

How can you possibly say this if you think the linesmen putting the nets back into play "NEVER" happens? You're obviously going off your own anecdotal experience, but you're stating it like fact.

I can do that too! I've seen the linesmen fix the net dozens of times but I've never seen the situation that happened this game. Therefore, there is more instances of the former than the latter.

(You'd think moderators would be held to a higher posting standard...)

Do it if you want. It’s a discussion forum.

 

[Crazy Joe Divola]

Maybe be stronger on your skates? Bruins player had the puck and reversed hit the Sharks player. SJ player knocked off the net, no matter how you shake it down

Right, the sharks player got pushed into the bruins net by a bruins player and the bruins, from then on, get to basically play like there was a delayed penalty on the Sharks. Should’ve pulled the goalie for an extra attacker lol

 

[PG Canuck]

Keep changing your answer, because it's still wrong.

Prove me wrong then.

 

[c9777666]

And...... the Leafs have almost no shot of home-ice in round 1

 

[compan]

High stick goal
Missing the net being off
Yeah..Okay

Maybe you’ve missed the multiple times I said the Sharks also got screwed. Or are you just choosing to think it’s a conspiracy against San Jose?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

There clearly is white, lol.

No, there isn't.

 

[Crazy Joe Divola]

Prove me wrong then.

No need, the vast majority of people here already know you are wrong

 

[PB37]

No, there isn't.

LOL

 

[Pinkfloyd]

LOL

Again, they had plenty of time while play was going on to review that and you can't tell from that angle. It's inconclusive and the right call was made for the situation. Only people lying to themselves believe what you believe.

 

[c9777666]

View attachment 188657

I think it's more Boston good fortune than Boston pro-refs.

 

[Bizzare]

From the rule book:

When the net is accidentally displaced by an attacking player, and the defending side is in control of the puck and moving out of their zone, play shall be permitted to continue until such time as the nonoffending team loses control of the puck. The resulting face-off will take place at a face-off spot in the zone nearest the location where the play was stopped, unless it is in the non-offending team’s defending zone, and as such the ensuing face-off would be outside the blue line at one of the face-off spots in the neutral zone. It is possible for a goal to be scored at one end of the rink while the net at the other end has been dislodged, provided that the team being scored upon is the team responsible for dislodging the net at the other end of the rink

 

[compan]

Again, they had plenty of time while play was going on to review that and you can't tell from that angle. It's inconclusive and the right call was made for the situation. Only people lying to themselves believe what you believe.

“Right call” seems awfully subjective here.

Maybe it was also the “right call” on Wagner’s goal then, you know, since it benefited my team.

 

[Sheppy]

This thread is hilarious

 

[Groo]

Maybe you’ve missed the multiple times I said the Sharks also got screwed. Or are you just choosing to think it’s a conspiracy against San Jose?

If I were to point to the Bruins getting the short end of it, it would be with the no goal call

 

[c9777666]

This thread is hilarious

Feels like the 8-7 game was a day ago. From that to this.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

“Right call” seems awfully subjective here.

Maybe it was also the “right call” on Wagner’s goal then, you know, since it benefited my team.

No, these are pretty objective calls to be made. If you can't see white between the puck and the goal line, no goal is to be called. And the high touch was a pretty easy call to make since he touched the puck above his shoulders. Calls get missed which happens but it doesn't change that the right calls weren't made.

 

[PB37]

Again, they had plenty of time while play was going on to review that and you can't tell from that angle. It's inconclusive and the right call was made for the situation. Only people lying to themselves believe what you believe.

LOL you can clearly tell from that screenshot that it's a goal. Keep lying to yourself that it wasn't. It's all moot anyway; hockey justice was served.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

LOL you can clearly tell from that screenshot that it's a goal. Keep lying to yourself that it wasn't. It's all moot anyway; hockey justice was served.

No you can't because you can't see white from the top of the puck and the goal line. This isn't that hard buddy.