View Single Post
12-18-2008, 03:24 PM
HFBoards Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Vietnam
Posts: 9,285
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Hum, I do understand the rule, so you can suck up your little show of attitude. You should understand by that that Markov was somewhat bent forward and the cross bar was level to his shoulder which doesn't even matter, for a highstick call back (not for a goal), whether it was higher than the crossbar or not doesn't matter, because if you did look, you'll see that the puck bounced off Markov's chest before going in (and there was a replay that CLEARLY showed that). The callback should've been on a highstick call-back (offside highstick), whether it was higher than the shoulder, as the puck wasn't redirected to the net by the stick, but by Markov's body after hitting the stick, so in that case it's the shoulders, not the crossbar.

For Staal's goal, I,ve seen similar goals refused. So you can say whatever you want, I've seen enough of hockey through the years to have seen that type of goal refused. If he hadn't made the forward motion with his skate, I would say otherwise, yet it was a forward motion, which without, the puck might have deviated further right and not go into the goal.

As for the referring, maybe you should stop looking at the Habs players and look at what the opposing team is doing. Many of the calls for the Habs were very borderline (the calls to Daggs and Lats come to mind - twice on Lats as his holding call, the Canes player was holding him, and the tripping call was just absurd as he was going towards the puck and the other numbnut was skating backwards). Also, no diving calls were made against the Canes where several were suspicious. The point is that half of the Habs penalties that were called, I saw the Canes do the same on numerous occasions without any calls. Saying that there were as many non-calls on both is plain ridiculous, as the refs are supposed to call everything. The fact that only ONE penalty was called and for a high-sticking nonetheless, says who the refs were constantly looking at. Also, the penalty shot, Lats got hooked, plus he got slashed. Now really, is that the only time you saw the Cane players do that? If that's the case, maybe you should take my advice and watch the opposing players instead of just the Habs.
For your benefit, I booted up the PVR and looked at the Markov goal again. It didn't go off his chest. It went straight from the stick to the net. I don't know where you saw it went off his chest, and if there's a youtube I'd love to see it. It didn't from what I just saw, which makes the shoulder level moot.

Staal's goal is disputable. The problem with the rule is that it doesn't really define what a kicking motion is, and really if that went off the inside of his skate as opposed to the outside (which it did) it's probably no goal.

I'd probably say that you were looking for penalties, as was everyone else. Yeah, there were things here and there that ought to have been called penalties, but nothing that would come even close to evening up the calls. Most of the Habs penalties were blatant and stupid. If I'd been reffing the game from the comfort of my couch, the penalties might have been 10-5 or something, but still quite lopsided against the Habs. I didn't, and don't, believe that the refs missed an disproportionate amount of calls against the Canes.

Just because one team takes 11 penalties doesn't mean the refs are only looking one way. It usually means that one team is taking blatant penalties.

I'm not interested in arguing with you, but only discussion, and didn't intend any "attitude."

Aside: The Lapierre slash I can't even believe someone's debating. He slashed on a guy's stick up near his hand when the puck was several feet away.

This content is hosted here with the objections of the poster.
coolguy21415 is offline   Reply With Quote