View Single Post
04-06-2013, 08:58 PM
Stamkos HOF
dbieon12's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,868
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tampa Bay Trio View Post
The definition of a soft goal is one that should never have gone in. Was the soft goal Bishop's fault? No, because he couldn't see the puck. But that would be considered a "soft goal" on any goaltender, on that basis that it was just not a good shot. Who's fault it was has nothing to do with it, something you fail to understand through your wildly emotional state.
Martin understood the situation. It was a good shot. It was on goal and low for a reason. He understood that Bishop is 6'7" and kept the puck low. He understood well enough to keep the puck hidden even through release. Whether intentional or not, the reason that it was a goal was because it was a good shot.

2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs:
Ryan Callahan: 0 points
Martin St. Loser: 2 points
dbieon12 is offline   Reply With Quote