billfan63 Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 The Canadians tying goal was ridiculous, why have a rule if it means sh&t
Dante Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 The Canadians tying goal was ridiculous, why have a rule if it means sh&t Well being a Bills fan you should be used to bad jokes.
billfan63 Posted October 4, 2009 Author Posted October 4, 2009 Well being a Bills fan you should be used to bad jokes. I know, I've lived through every miserable moment of Bills and Sabres history, but a player sliding through the goal crease and pushing the goalie and puck into the net is another bitter pill thats hard to swallow
thebug Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 I know, I've lived through every miserable moment of Bills and Sabres history, but a player sliding through the goal crease and pushing the goalie and puck into the net is another bitter pill thats hard to swallow I only watched it twice, but it looked like the puck went in first? Oh and it's Canadiens.
Dante Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 I know, I've lived through every miserable moment of Bills and Sabres history, but a player sliding through the goal crease and pushing the goalie and puck into the net is another bitter pill thats hard to swallow I actually didn't see the goal your talking about. I thought the OT goal was unfortunate though. Sabres are going to be ok based on what I saw tonight. Good experienced/skilled/decent speed forwards. Rivet schooling Myers on D will only improve as the season progresses. Goal tending is grade A. Sabres make the playoffs np
BillsWatch Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 The Canadians tying goal was ridiculous, why have a rule if it means sh&t You mean like this one? http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?act=announce&f=48&id=9 Announcement: Circumventing the Language Filter There is a reason why we have a language filter on our forums. Intentionally misspelling words to get around them is not acceptable. Either use the "censored" emoticon or spell it out and let the filter strip it out of the post (maybe you'll feel better by typing it). Regardless, the practice of trying to circumvent the language filter needs to come to an end. Thank you for helping making our forums a better place to post.
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 You mean like this one? http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?act=announce&f=48&id=9 Announcement: Circumventing the Language Filter There is a reason why we have a language filter on our forums. Intentionally misspelling words to get around them is not acceptable. Either use the "censored" emoticon or spell it out and let the filter strip it out of the post (maybe you'll feel better by typing it). Regardless, the practice of trying to circumvent the language filter needs to come to an end. Thank you for helping making our forums a better place to post. Good one. Mother!@#$er.
Booster4324 Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Good one. Mother!@#$er. See there is the spirit, just type what you mean and no worries.
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 See there is the spirit, just type what you mean and no worries. Exactly. That was a 100% pure language filtered post.
jjamie12 Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 From the relevant section of the rulebook (I think). 69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. Isn't this pretty cut and dried? If Moen's (or Gionta's, not sure who they gave it to) goal is completely legal: Why wouldn't this be the strategy from now on? Barrel into the goalie and hope to push the puck into the net before it comes off its moorings? That HAS to be a higher percentage play than any of the other options, no?
Corp000085 Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 I watched the CBC broadcast last night. They went on a 5 minute tirade as to why that goal shouldn't have been allowed and how ridiculous the call was. I'll paraphrase: CBC went on an anti canadian team rant for 5 minutes. If that's not 100% proof that the goal should have been disallowed, then I give up!
Chandler#81 Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 I know it's early -very early!, but I think the 'Dump & Chase' philosophy the Sabres are embracing this season is a joke. It's desparation and speaks poorly of the teams' speed and skill. What's next? Center zone trap? Yawn...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 I watched the CBC broadcast last night. They went on a 5 minute tirade as to why that goal shouldn't have been allowed and how ridiculous the call was. I'll paraphrase: CBC went on an anti canadian team rant for 5 minutes. If that's not 100% proof that the goal should have been disallowed, then I give up! CBC is based in TOR?? Anyway... This is one reason why hockey and the NHL can't be taken seriously... It is so obvious, even the rednecks down south can tell. At least with other sports there can be a bit of charade going on. Don't get me wrong I stil love the game, just too damn flukey... Then mix in the "activist" way the NHL calls the games... And it becomes a total joke. The only reason I root for the Sabres is because I grew up with them and love the home team... Besides that, I hope they stick it to this farce of a league. I try not to give one penny or credit to the NHL... Just the Sabres, which I know the league probably rapes anyway. So far the score is: NHL v. The Sabres 39 years to zero
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 It's no difference than the "we're going to call the instigator penalty more often this season". The first game I watched was Carolina/Philly. Carcillo boards Ray Whitney (Carolina's best player) so Gleason goes over and fights him. Gleason gets 2/5/10 for instigating. Really? So if Carcillo doesn't board Whitney is there a fight? Way to understand your own !@#$ing game, NHL.
WVUFootball29 Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 It's no difference than the "we're going to call the instigator penalty more often this season". The first game I watched was Carolina/Philly. Carcillo boards Ray Whitney (Carolina's best player) so Gleason goes over and fights him. Gleason gets 2/5/10 for instigating. Really? So if Carcillo doesn't board Whitney is there a fight? Way to understand your own !@#$ing game, NHL. Nothing is going to change until they get that idiot Bettman out of there....
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2009 Posted October 4, 2009 Nothing is going to change until they get that idiot Bettman out of there.... I totally agree with that. He take the rest of his flunkies with him.
bills44 Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 It's no difference than the "we're going to call the instigator penalty more often this season". The first game I watched was Carolina/Philly. Carcillo boards Ray Whitney (Carolina's best player) so Gleason goes over and fights him. Gleason gets 2/5/10 for instigating. Really? So if Carcillo doesn't board Whitney is there a fight? Way to understand your own !@#$ing game, NHL. I don't disagree with your stance on the instigator penalty, but Whitney is Carolina's best player? I'll take Staal any day of the week over Whitney.
Alaska Darin Posted October 5, 2009 Posted October 5, 2009 I don't disagree with your stance on the instigator penalty, but Whitney is Carolina's best player? I'll take Staal any day of the week over Whitney. I would too if I were starting a team but night-in/night-out Whitney is more consistent than Staal. Probably to be expected given Whitney's experience.
Recommended Posts