Cugalabanza Posted February 17, 2009 Posted February 17, 2009 Just a heads up! Thank you! I did not know that.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Great work by Stafford. 1-0. Go Sabres!! Make it 2-0, Tim-May to Pie-Yay. Go Sabres!!
bills_fan Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Great work by Stafford. 1-0. Go Sabres!! After the abysmal Carolina game, they had better come out flying!
Alaska Darin Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 The reason the goal didn't count is because it was against Toronto.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 The reason the goal didn't count is because it was against Toronto WHEN THE GAME IS BEING PLAYED IN TORONTO. Then there is the double whammy... One can never fight the double whammy! I corrected it a little for you.
KD in CA Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 The reason the goal didn't count is because it was against Toronto. Nice of them to waive it off for no reason so they could hide behind the "call on the ice was upheld" line. Did they ever actually explain why the goal was waived off?
Alaska Darin Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Nice of them to waive it off for no reason so they could hide behind the "call on the ice was upheld" line. Did they ever actually explain why the goal was waived off? Not to us. You'd have had to get out the paddles had they overturned that call because my !@#$ing heart would have stopped.
WWVaBeach Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Sabres are on again on CSN here in Va tomorrow (THU) night against Philly, and on VS next TUE against the Ducks.
PastaJoe Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 Nice of them to waive it off for no reason so they could hide behind the "call on the ice was upheld" line. Did they ever actually explain why the goal was waived off? The ref ruled that he made an intentional motion with his arm to direct the puck into the net. Using any part of your body to intentionally direct the puck into the net is not allowed. It's a judgement call on intent, but that's what he ruled. It would have counted if he had not moved his arm, and it hit him and went in.
Wraith Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 The ref ruled that he made an intentional motion with his arm to direct the puck into the net. Using any part of your body to intentionally direct the puck into the net is not allowed. It's a judgement call on intent, but that's what he ruled. It would have counted if he had not moved his arm, and it hit him and went in. The puck went off his chest. The reverse angle clearly showed that.
Alaska Darin Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 I have been watching hockey for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. I have NEVER seen a goal like that disallowed unless the player was in the crease before the puck, which is no longer a rule. That "No Goal" was a complete "you're playing the Maple Leafs" call. Absolute garbage.
KD in CA Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 It's a judgement call on intent, but that's what he ruled. Which might be reasonable if that was his conclusion after reviewing the tape. But there's no friggin way he can make that call live at that speed. Unless there is a clear and obvious violation, which there was not, the assumption has to be that a puck in the net = goal. It should not have been waived off initially.
Wacka Posted February 18, 2009 Posted February 18, 2009 As I said on the Harbor Club 300 board, it was called off because he used his nipple to redirect it in.
Recommended Posts