HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   What is your opinion of Lupul's goal in the 3rd? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=510321)

tinyzombies 04-24-2008 09:35 PM

What is your opinion of Lupul's goal in the 3rd?
 
Should it have been counted? Does anyone have video of this?

Form and Substance 04-24-2008 09:36 PM

Yes. Just as the penalty to Richards was valid.

Namso 04-24-2008 09:36 PM

of course it should have counted. I dont see any controversy on that goal.

thank god we came back though.

Iwishihadacup 04-24-2008 09:36 PM

as valid as kovy goal and richard penalty

nuff said

JrHockeyFan 04-24-2008 09:37 PM

I think it counts but it is one of those really borderline attempts to put the body/body part in position to put a puck in. You'd need to debate for yrs.

They counted it, we tied and won, move on

Bermy 04-24-2008 09:37 PM

yes. It wasn't the prettiest goal, but it was legal. The first Kovalev goal was more controversial imo

Hackett 04-24-2008 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafRefereeeeeees (Post 13852050)
Should it have been counted?

no doubt about it.

No kicking motion = good goal

anybody who thinks that is a kicking motion needs to take the habs goggles off

tough break but good goal.

chromemaro 04-24-2008 09:37 PM

flyers fan point of view:

Lupul- just hit off him..y not? has to be distinct kicking motion.

Richards- at full speed i thought it looked like a penatly..ill leave it at that. i wouldnt have called it with a min left tho :o

snakeye 04-24-2008 09:38 PM

I don't know. From one angle it seems like it's unintentional, but then from another angle it seems like he moves his skate towards the net even though he's skating towards the boards.

JrHockeyFan 04-24-2008 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bermy (Post 13852115)
yes. It wasn't the prettiest goal, but it was legal. The first Kovalev goal was more controversial imo

Hmmm. What part of Kovy's goal was controversial to you? You think contact was above the bar?

68 04-24-2008 09:39 PM

Flyers were lucky to even go to OT. 2 of the 3 goals were luck + garbage. Next game they won't be that lucky and we will win easily.

Luongo2008* 04-24-2008 09:39 PM

poll closed?

Kirk Muller 04-24-2008 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chromemaro (Post 13852124)
flyers fan point of view:

Lupul- just hit off him..y not? has to be distinct kicking motion.

Richards- at full speed i thought it looked like a penatly..ill leave it at that. i wouldnt have called it with a min left tho :o

I wouldn't of called Komisarek for interference because Upshall jumps on his back that lead the 3-2 goal either but all fans tend to forget the calls that go in their favor.

Namso 04-24-2008 09:40 PM

I agree that Kovy's goal was more borderline...as a hab fan, I'm sure as hell glad it counted!

Lupul's goal was more clear-cut. It was clearly legal.

Richards penalty was also very clearly a penalty.

tinyzombies 04-24-2008 09:41 PM

I think it went in off his shinpad and was intentionally directed in. I don't even think it touched his skate.

My friend thought it went off his pad then his skate.

I need to see it again I guess.

Bermy 04-24-2008 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrHockeyFan (Post 13852148)
Hmmm. What part of Kovy's goal was controversial to you? You think contact was above the bar?

You have to admit it was pretty close, thus making it easy for a controversy. Lupul's goal, however, I thought was an easier call for the guys in Tronna. It looked like a legal goal to me but Kovalev's goal took me more than a couple of glances to see that it was (in my opinion) legal.

Guy Caballero 04-24-2008 09:48 PM

Yes, it should have counted. He angled his shin pad to direct it in, but there was no kicking motion. No problem.

tinyzombies 04-24-2008 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Caballero (Post 13852369)
Yes, it should have counted. He angled his shin pad to direct it in, but there was no kicking motion. No problem.

You aren't allowed to intentionally redirect the puck into the net with any part of your body (except skate with no kick), which he did.

Namso 04-24-2008 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafRefereeeeeees (Post 13852388)
You aren't allowed to redirect the puck into the net with any part of your body, which he did.

you are allowed to redirect the puck with ur body (except hands). You just cant kick it in.

Tuggy 04-24-2008 09:50 PM

Goal was fine.

Watsatheo 04-24-2008 09:50 PM

It was definitely a goal in my opinion.

karho 04-24-2008 09:51 PM

I never doubted that it was a goal, though I had a faint hope that Toronto may conclude that there was a slight kicking motion, thus negating it.

One Man Rock Band 04-24-2008 09:52 PM

He redirected it, but not with his skate. So it's a goal anyway.

tinyzombies 04-24-2008 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Namso (Post 13852420)
you are allowed to redirect the puck with ur body (except hands). You just cant kick it in.

I thought he intentionally thrust his leg and it went off his shinpad. Is this a new rule and you can do this now?

Namso 04-24-2008 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafRefereeeeeees (Post 13852560)
I thought he intentionally thrust his leg and it went off his shinpad. Is this a new rule and you can do this now?

i think it was more him just skating forward then any "thrust" of his leg.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.