Tkachuk with GOTY Candidate

[Jtown]

Omfg. Dude is a legend. This tkachuk doughty battle is completely one sided

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Omfg. Dude is a legend. This tkachuk doughty battle is completely one sided

I dont think you know what that means.

 

[volcom92886]

Omfg. Dude is a legend. This tkachuk doughty battle is completely one sided

You must have missed how the game ended.....

 

[Jtown]

You must have missed how the game ended.....

Tkachuk got his team a point, so did doughty. About time doughty did something in this rivalry. Good for him.

 

[Puckluck13]

Why didn't LA challenge that? The new rule could have cancelled that goal created off a high stick.

Because it's not reviewable. If tkachuk would have batted it straight in, it's reviewable but because he batted it to his stick and in it's not a reviewable play.

 

[Mobiandi]

Genuinely couldn't care less if it was a high-stick after what happened in Colorado.

Also you'd think Doughty would be able to shrug Tkachuk off pretty easily after winning 2 cups. What a loser lol

 

[TheNumber4]

Don't be naive. Head coaches don't make these calls. They have a team of guys in a room with big screens breaking down each scoring play and talking in his ear. There is too much on the line to rely on a coach looking at a 10" screen at his feet who, in many cases, can't even see his own feet.

Don't be naive. Even a team of guys in a room can miss a play that should be called to review. Has happened before, will happen again, and it happened tonight.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Because it's not reviewable. If tkachuk would have batted it straight in, it's reviewable but because he batted it to his stick and in it's not a reviewable play.

It is reviewable as of this year.

 

[volcom92886]

Because it's not reviewable. If tkachuk would have batted it straight in, it's reviewable but because he batted it to his stick and in it's not a reviewable play.

Incorrect, they changed the rules this off season due to what happened with the Sharks and their blatant hand pass that wasnt called.

 

[Puckluck13]

Incorrect, they changed the rules this off season due to what happened with the Sharks and their blatant hand pass that wasnt called.

You are incorrect, it's not a reviewable play. Post the rule.

 

[McAsuno]

Lul, GOTY? Right... more like obvious high stick. Too bad McLellan probably didn't know about the new rules yet.

 

[Anglesmith]

Don't be naive. Even a team of guys in a room can miss a play that should be called to review. Has happened before, will happen again, and it happened tonight.

Okay, but you said it was obvious to everyone who isn't a Flames fan. Did you mean everyone who doesn't have a motivation to actually be objective?

 

[volcom92886]

You are incorrect, it's not a reviewable play. Post the rule.

EXPANSION OF COACH'S CHALLENGE
NEW CATEGORY: In addition to Coach's Challenge for "Off-side" and "Interference on the Goalkeeper", a third category will allow for the Coach's Challenge of goal calls on the ice that follow plays in the Offensive Zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage, but did not.
This change will allow Challenges of plays that may involve pucks that hit the spectator netting, pucks that are high-sticked to a teammate in the offensive zone, pucks that have gone out of play but are subsequently touched in the offensive zone and hand passes that precede without a play stoppage and ultimately conclude in the scoring of a goal. Plays that entail "discretionary stoppages" (e.g. penalty calls) will not be subject to a Coach's Challenge.
Coach's Challenges for these types of plays (and for "Off-Side" Challenges) will only be available if the puck does not come out of the attacking zone between the time of the "missed" infraction and the time the goal is scored.

 

[Anglesmith]

You are incorrect, it's not a reviewable play. Post the rule.

 

[TheNumber4]

Okay, but you said it was obvious to everyone who isn't a Flames fan. Did you mean everyone who doesn't have a motivation to actually be objective?

Its obvious after watching the replay in slow motion from a particular angle and then viewing it objectively and seeing it as it is. In the heat of the moment and the 15 seconds that's allowed to review and call for a review things can get missed and were missed. To say that it wasn't a high stick at this point, after the game, after dissecting the replay and the screenshots is straight up biased homerism and borderline trolling.

 

[McAsuno]

You are incorrect, it's not a reviewable play. Post the rule.

Nah, you're actually incorrect.

 

[Rangediddy]

Don't be naive. Even a team of guys in a room can miss a play that should be called to review. Has happened before, will happen again, and it happened tonight.

Can you prove it happened tonight?

 

[TheNumber4]

Can you prove it happened tonight?

Durrr can you prove it didn't.

 

[Anglesmith]

Its obvious after watching the replay in slow motion from a particular angle and then viewing it objectively and seeing it as it is. In the heat of the moment and the 15 seconds that's allowed to review and call for a review things can get missed and were missed. To say that it wasn't a high stick at this point, after the game, after dissecting the replay and the screenshots is straight up biased homerism and borderline trolling.

Being flamboyant while being wrong doesn't make you less wrong.

 

[Rangediddy]

EXPANSION OF COACH'S CHALLENGE
NEW CATEGORY: In addition to Coach's Challenge for "Off-side" and "Interference on the Goalkeeper", a third category will allow for the Coach's Challenge of goal calls on the ice that follow plays in the Offensive Zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage, but did not.
This change will allow Challenges of plays that may involve pucks that hit the spectator netting, pucks that are high-sticked to a teammate in the offensive zone, pucks that have gone out of play but are subsequently touched in the offensive zone and hand passes that precede without a play stoppage and ultimately conclude in the scoring of a goal. Plays that entail "discretionary stoppages" (e.g. penalty calls) will not be subject to a Coach's Challenge.
Coach's Challenges for these types of plays (and for "Off-Side" Challenges) will only be available if the puck does not come out of the attacking zone between the time of the "missed" infraction and the time the goal is scored.

Rule doesn’t state a high stick to yourself.

 

[Rangediddy]

Durrr can you prove it didn't.

Yeah... Tkachuk was credited with a goal. Prove me wrong.

 

[Puckluck13]

EXPANSION OF COACH'S CHALLENGE
NEW CATEGORY: In addition to Coach's Challenge for "Off-side" and "Interference on the Goalkeeper", a third category will allow for the Coach's Challenge of goal calls on the ice that follow plays in the Offensive Zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage, but did not.
This change will allow Challenges of plays that may involve pucks that hit the spectator netting, pucks that are high-sticked to a teammate in the offensive zone, pucks that have gone out of play but are subsequently touched in the offensive zone and hand passes that precede without a play stoppage and ultimately conclude in the scoring of a goal. Plays that entail "discretionary stoppages" (e.g. penalty calls) will not be subject to a Coach's Challenge.
Coach's Challenges for these types of plays (and for "Off-Side" Challenges) will only be available if the puck does not come out of the attacking zone between the time of the "missed" infraction and the time the goal is scored.

"Pucks that are high sticked to a teammate" tkachuk passed to himself.

 

[Anglesmith]

"Pucks that are high sticked to a teammate" tkachuk passed to himself.

It says "may involve." The rule itself is referring to potential stoppages of play in general, which includes a whole host of things not on that limited list of examples.

 

[fsanford]

Genuinely couldn't care less if it was a high-stick after what happened in Colorado.

Also you'd think Doughty would be able to shrug Tkachuk off pretty easily after winning 2 cups. What a loser lol

Actually winning 2 cups makes him a winner,..

Throw in a Norris and a couple of golds here and there, kind of makes him one of the most successful hockey players to ever lace them up.

 

[Anglesmith]

Actually winning 2 cups makes him a winner,..

Throw in a Norris and a couple of golds here and there, kind of makes him one of the most successful hockey players to ever lace them up.

To his point, though, from a Flames fan perspective it is super weird for a player with his level of success to not be able to avoid getting dragged into this sort of stuff. His decision to keep making a media circus out of this feud is bizarre.