NHL Thread

[Paul Smeenus]

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

I think the Kings are a near lock for game 2. I think they didn't take the Rangers seriously enough in that first period, and in particular Doughty isn't gonna be nearly as sloppy at the blue line like that first goal. I think the Rangers have a good chance in game 3 in the Garden

Never a doubt in my mind.
















(sticking with that)

[FRED HALE SR.]

[QUOTE=Paul Smeenus;1458211]Never a doubt in my mind.






Should be an asterisk next to this game. That was a clear goalie interference and NY should have won 4-3 in regulation. Honestly they screwed the Rangers.

[Paul Smeenus]

As I understand it that play wasn't reviewable for some stupid reason. IMO any scoring play should be reviewable, period.

There were three possible calls. 1. goal stands (obviously what happened) 2. interference penalty 3. no penalty but goal waved off (this would have been the proper call IMO)

I will say that, while the Rangers were screwed on that play, it was 4-3 at that point. We can't assume that the remainder of the period would have played out the same way were that goal disallowed.

I believe NY will in tonight

[FRED HALE SR.]

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

As I understand it that play wasn't reviewable for some stupid reason. IMO any scoring play should be reviewable, period.

There were three possible calls. 1. goal stands (obviously what happened) 2. interference penalty 3. no penalty but goal waved off (this would have been the proper call IMO)

I will say that, while the Rangers were screwed on that play, it was 4-3 at that point. We can't assume that the remainder of the period would have played out the same way were that goal disallowed.

I believe NY will in tonight

You don't believe the game would have played out the way it played out? Huh
There was only one possible call that would suffice. And the goalie interference was reviewed and they called it a good goal. That was an absolute horse**** call. That was an absolute travesty. King went into the crease and ran Lundqvist not allowing him to play the puck without interference. Series should be tied 1-1 there is no other way to look at it.

[Paul Smeenus]

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

You don't believe the game would have played out the way it played out? Huh

I'm saying we can't know. It's one of those step-on-a-butterfly-in-a-time-machine things. The dynamic could have been altered.

I'm just saying it wasn't a 1999 Brett Hull-in-the-crease type 'o deal. It was a bad call but the Rangers could've still won the game.

I didn't watch the game, I listened to ESPN New York with the TuneIn app on my phone, they said the call was not reviewable.

The goal should have been waved off, we can agree on that.

[FRED HALE SR.]

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

I'm saying we can't know. It's one of those step-on-a-butterfly-in-a-time-machine things. The dynamic could have been altered.

I'm just saying it wasn't a 1999 Brett Hull-in-the-crease type 'o deal. It was a bad call but the Rangers could've still won the game.

I didn't watch the game, I listened to ESPN New York with the TuneIn app on my phone, they said the call was not reviewable.

The goal should have been waved off, we can agree on that.

No he clearly ran him and impeded his ability to make a play on the puck, it was obvious. It was an in the crease, run the goalie play. The Rangers would have won the game. The call was reviewed that is incorrect. The goal should have been waived off and he should have been in the box for two minutes. Standard operating procedure. So yes we agree on the goal being waived off.

[Paul Smeenus]

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

The call was reviewed that is incorrect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/sp...ence.html?_r=0

Originally Posted by New York Times

In other words, the referees could not double-check their call with the N.H.L.’s video judges in Toronto, who adjudicate on disputed goals. O’Halloran and the game’s other referee, Wes McCauley, had to make a split-second judgment call on their own.

[FRED HALE SR.]

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/sp...ence.html?_r=0

So you're saying that i'm right and the goal should have been disallowed? LOL

[Paul Smeenus]

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

So you're saying that i'm right and the goal should have been disallowed? LOL

lol pretty much

[FRED HALE SR.]

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus

lol pretty much

You're alright Paul, I don't care what anyone says about you. LOL