We've launched the new forums! Read more here

NHL '09-'10 Season

IceyShanks said:
Carcillo's hit on his own teammate was classic!!!
Click to expand...

It's a shame it was on Carter. He's one of the few decent guys on that team..

And how about pronger being classless? "Oh, I threw the game puck away... because I'm a loser"
 
Canadan said:
It's a shame it was on Carter. He's one of the few decent guys on that team..

And how about pronger being classless? "Oh, I threw the game puck away... because I'm a loser"
Click to expand...

I honestly think Pronger was trying to change the momentum a bit before they head back to philly, I doubt it's going to work.
 
IceyShanks said:
Pronger is a child when it comes to handling his anger and frustration, Lapierre is a great example of an enforncer, Pronger is just a big baby!
Click to expand...

I should have clarified, I was thinking Maxim Lapeirre. I would have to agree that Carcillo is the biggest baby in the final.
 
Islander said:
I should have clarified, I was thinking Maxim Lapeirre. I would have to agree that Carcillo is the biggest baby in the final.
Click to expand...

Funny I was referring to Ian Laperierre, sorry I suck at spelling. As a die hard avs fan he was greatly missed. But I agree Carcillo is a joke.
 
One of the oldest rules is never give the other team further reason to beat you then they already have. Pronger and the Flyer's only have shown that they are a classless organization. This isn't Jr C it's the NHL the Flyer's need to knock off the BS and play hockey, hey they might even win a game or two if they do.
 
put the broom away...they are taking all 3 in Philly!!
 
IceyShanks said:
Funny I was referring to Ian Laperierre, sorry I suck at spelling. As a die hard avs fan he was greatly missed. But I agree Carcillo is a joke.
Click to expand...

As a fellow Avs fan I would never say anything like that about Ian. :act-up:
 
IceyShanks said:
Funny I was referring to Ian Laperierre, sorry I suck at spelling. As a die hard avs fan he was greatly missed. But I agree Carcillo is a joke.
Click to expand...

We missed him in LA too.
 
I bet, he's one of those guys you might not think about too much while he's playing, but you certainly notice the void he leaves after he's gone. A class act for sure.
 
alright we have series now
 
Thats what I'm talkin bout!!
 
Can't believe how much Hartnell, Carcillo, and Pronger got away with in this game. It seemed like every shift they were headhunting.
Nevertheless, they got away with it and won, so I am expecting more of the same...
 
How hilarious was gagne grabbing the stick out of the guys hands and throwing it, and not getting a penalty, yet both times a Chicago player hit and broke the other players stick, it was a slash?

I especially liked Buff's slashing penalty. Gets absolutely cross checked from behind, slashes stick. Stick breaks, Buff goes..

Worst reffing ever.
 
I'm still not entirely convinced that the reviewed Philly goal completely crossed the line. That overhead camera is positioned at a pretty substantial angle as opposed to being straight down, just look at the space between the crossbar and the goal line. Even though there was clear white space between the line and the puck, to me it looked like that could have been due to the combination of the puck angle (slanting upward towards the line) and the aforementioned camera angle.
 
_JL_ said:
I'm still not entirely convinced that the reviewed Philly goal completely crossed the line. That overhead camera is positioned at a pretty substantial angle as opposed to being straight down, just look at the space between the crossbar and the goal line. Even though there was clear white space between the line and the puck, to me it looked like that could have been due to the combination of the puck angle (slanting upward towards the line) and the aforementioned camera angle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I don't know if it would really matter in terms of camera angle or puck angle if there's white showing between the puck and the red line then there has to be a substantial enough of a gap to constitute a goal. I think the weirdest part of the whole thing was that if the puck had been laying flat rather than rolling it wouldn't have been a goal. A great game three for sure. Love OT in the playoffs!
 
IceyShanks said:
Yeah, but I don't know if it would really matter in terms of camera angle or puck angle if there's white showing between the puck and the red line then there has to be a substantial enough of a gap to constitute a goal. I think the weirdest part of the whole thing was that if the puck had been laying flat rather than rolling it wouldn't have been a goal. A great game three for sure. Love OT in the playoffs!
Click to expand...
Interesting. My understanding of the rule was that the puck has to be completely across the line, whether on the ice, in the air, or a combination of both. I guess if the puck is on edge only that edge has to be over?
 
No, it has to fully cross.. I think what shanks was saying was that if it wasn't flopping, it was not far enough forward to be across the line.

I still don't think that was conclusive evidence. The only angle that showed white was the 'overhead' which is a couple feet forward. In my opinion, there was still a good likelihood that the puck was still partially on the line at it's highest point. I feel that the NHL made a big mistake there, but when has the war room NOT affected the outcome of a series?
 
Canadan said:
No, it has to fully cross.. I think what shanks was saying was that if it wasn't flopping, it was not far enough forward to be across the line.

I still don't think that was conclusive evidence. The only angle that showed white was the 'overhead' which is a couple feet forward. In my opinion, there was still a good likelihood that the puck was still partially on the line at it's highest point. I feel that the NHL made a big mistake there, but when has the war room NOT affected the outcome of a series?
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I thought. I've seen way more "conclusive" things called back for being "inconclusive," like when the puck is in the goalie's glove, which is across the goal line, but they can't call it a goal because they can't actually see the puck. I at least thought they should've spent a little more time reviewing it, they made their decision really quick.
 
GRRRRRRRRREAT series!!! Chicago will win the next one and then will when we they get back home and we'll call it a day :wink:
 
_JL_ said:
Interesting. My understanding of the rule was that the puck has to be completely across the line, whether on the ice, in the air, or a combination of both. I guess if the puck is on edge only that edge has to be over?
Click to expand...

correct, as I understand the rules and as I interpreted their explanation last night, but don't quote me, I'm not a referee by any standpoint, just a coach!!!
 
The puck was in but I have to agree with the lop sided calls and it continues tonight again. Refs should be wearing Flyer's sweaters. Flyer's running picks everywhere without a call. Bettman is turning hockey into the WWF. I really don't care who wins the cup but I sure wouldn't mind watching hockey not this joke. I really enjoyed he Memorial Cup this year. I wish the AHL finals where on TV it would have to beat this crap.
 
The refs got paid! They didn't call another penalty against the Flyers! Geeze!! Let's go Blackhawks!

Posted from my BlackBerry using BerryBlab
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top