HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

What is your opinion of Lupul's goal in the 3rd?

View Poll Results: Should Lupul's goal in the 3rd have counted?
Yes, he redirected it in with his skate 21 11.41%
Yes, it went off him accidentally 133 72.28%
No, he kicked it in 14 7.61%
No, he redirected it in with his shinpad and the Toronto goal judge is on crack 4 2.17%
Other 12 6.52%
Voters: 184. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-26-2008, 01:03 PM
  #51
rocketlives
Registered User
 
rocketlives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 793
vCash: 500
I agree with LeafRefereeeeeees. It was redirected with a leg that was actively moved at an angle to deflect the puck in. Last year, Latendresse scored a goal with his head but there was no forward movement with the head like in soccer to score the goal otherwise it would have been disallowed.

What if a player is rushing the goal and while he's putting on the brakes with his skates (no kicking motion) a linemate shoots the puck at his skates and it goes in off the incoming blade set at a perfect angle to ram it in? Should it count?

I also believe Kovy's goal should have been disallowed. The rule says the stick must hit the puck below the horizontal bar for a goal to be good and Kovy's stick hit the horizontal bar and also a portion of the puck which had to be on the same level or slightly higher than the crossbar otherwise he wouldn't have touched it.

At any rate, Biron admitted that even if Kovalev had not made contact with that puck it would have gone in just the same.


Last edited by rocketlives: 04-26-2008 at 01:14 PM.
rocketlives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 01:07 PM
  #52
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
it was a goal guys... its a weak argument that he intentionally redirected it with his shinpad. How many of those goals are called back per year. It has to be a lot clearer than that for them to call something like that back.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 01:08 PM
  #53
Jean-Guy Drouin*
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sherbrooke
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,413
vCash: 500
The only thing i know about thi goal is that he was waaaayyyy more legal thant the Kovalev one that should have been refused. It should have been refused, because he touched it higher than the goal post. He just should have let it go by itself, anyway Biron would never have been able to stop this.

Jean-Guy Drouin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 01:10 PM
  #54
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Good goal per the rules. But IMO the rule should be changed to disallow any ambiguity. Either allow all goals that go off a leg to stand or none, regardless of 'distinct kicking motion".

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 01:12 PM
  #55
rocketlives
Registered User
 
rocketlives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
it was a goal guys... its a weak argument that he intentionally redirected it with his shinpad. How many of those goals are called back per year. It has to be a lot clearer than that for them to call something like that back.
I agree with you but that's because the League has become a lot more offense oriented to sell the game. A few years ago, both goals would have been disallowed by the refs without even going upstair. However, we now have a new philosophy and new rules. I have nothing against that as long as the decisions are taken in a consistent manner.

rocketlives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 01:15 PM
  #56
katieboo
 
katieboo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Home!
Country: Canada
Posts: 252
vCash: 500
why are we still on this?

katieboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 01:30 PM
  #57
Iwishihadacup
Registered User
 
Iwishihadacup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwishihadacup View Post
as valid as kovy goal and richard penalty

nuff said
great post

Iwishihadacup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 02:42 PM
  #58
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA via Montreal
Posts: 11,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by katieboo View Post
why are we still on this?
Because this is one of the rare instances where 100 people are wrong and we three people are right, but nobody wants to go to www.cbc.com and take another look. He intentionally redirected it in off the shinpad, no goal as per Rule 78.5(i). Any puck "directed, batted, or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick" is no goal as per Rule 78.5 article (i). When it goes off the skate, that's another rule entirely. It did NOT go off the skate.

I think Lupul's goal might have been a makeup call for the Kovy goal.

On the Kovy goal, I might agree on that if the rule is that the puck has to be hit "below" the crossbar. Looked to me like he hit it parallel to the bar, in which case no goal. I could be wrong though.

The Richards penalty was legit. That was a trip. He got caught going to the outside and had to come back in, so he stuck his leg out. I don't think he tried to take out his knee because he had no momentum behind it.

Ok, last post, but seriously, stop talking out of your butt and look at the replay (everybody, not just you Katie).

Go habs Go!


Last edited by tinyzombies: 04-26-2008 at 02:51 PM.
tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 02:51 PM
  #59
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafRefereeeeeees View Post
Because this is one of the rare instances where 100 people are wrong and we three people are right, but nobody wants to go to www.cbc.com and take another look. He intentionally redirected it in off the shinpad, no goal as per Rule 78.5(i). Any puck "directed, batted, or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick" is no goal as per Rule 78.5 article (i). When it goes off the skate, that's another rule entirely. It did NOT go off the skate.

I think Lupul's goal might have been a makeup call for the Kovy goal.

On the Kovy goal, I might agree on that if the rule is that the puck has to be hit "below" the crossbar. Looked to me like he hit it parallel to the bar, in which case no goal. I could be wrong though.

The Richards penalty was legit. That was a trip. He got caught going to the outside and had to come back in, so he stuck his leg out. I don't think he tried to take out his knee because he had no momentum behind it.
same height as the bar = goal
over the bar = no goal.

As for lupul I see your point and I see the rule... but the intent has to be a lot clearer then it was in this case for the goal to be called back. And yes I've seen the replay on CBC.ca. I think he can make the case that he was turning at the time. How many goals have been called back based on this rule this year?? Not many, the standard of how clear the intent has to be is pretty high.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 02:53 PM
  #60
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA via Montreal
Posts: 11,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beakermania View Post
same height as the bar = goal
over the bar = no goal.

As for lupul I see your point and I see the rule... but the intent has to be a lot clearer then it was in this case for the goal to be called back. And yes I've seen the replay on CBC.ca. I think he can make the case that he was turning at the time. How many goals have been called back based on this rule this year?? Not many, the standard of how clear the intent has to be is pretty high.
Ok, so the Kovy goal should have counted.

But Lupul spun around and had his leg span as wide as it could go, then thrust his leg out to redirect the puck off his shinpad. It was an awesome play by Lupul, but it looks clear cut to me - no goal. No way the ref could see that, but Toronto should have easily picked it up.

I know the standard of refereeing is very low this year (for whatever reason), but they've screwed up replays before too (Brett Hull? Calgary no goal in game 6 of the finals, etc.)

I understand what people here are saying. We got some breaks, they got some breaks. We won, so who cares? I agree with that, I'm just trying to get this call right with 20/20 hindsight, because I was totally baffled when they allowed that goal to stand.

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2008, 04:54 PM
  #61
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,412
vCash: 500
Only the most perverse intepretation of the words "directed, batted, or thrown " could be used to disallow that goal.

It was good. Let's move on.

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.