You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Dont need no explanation, he was stopping on 1 foot basically. It was already going in. There was no distinct kicking motion. So surprised thiz was called back. They needed a slam dunk case to turn this back and they didnt even have anything close
I dunno, I didn't agree with the call. How is that any different than angling your skate to direct the puck in? He's falling on one leg with pressure from behind and his right leg hooked up on Smith's pad.
I dunno, I didn't agree with the call. How is that any different than angling your skate to direct the puck in? He's falling on one leg with pressure from behind and his right leg hooked up on Smith's pad.
Bieksa argued during the intermission that Coleman extended his back leg, and use flat part of his skate blade to make contact with the puck.
I know it seems weird but all they need to prove is, was there a kicking motion that propelled the puck into the net? In this case there was. The guy can say the kicking motion was due to whatever, but that doesn't matter - it was a kicking motion, it hit the puck, it deflected the puck into the goal... No goal
Sports rules seem weird sometimes, but they have to call it by the book, since they can't prove intent. That's why it's worded that way. This goal gets disallowed 10 times out of 10, whether it's in the playoffs, Stanley Cup Finals, or preseason.
Fans of course aren't going to see it that way, but if you look at it objectively, that's how it is. I fucking hope people don't riot over this!
Willing to sell a family member for a few minutes on RS
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North vancouver
Posts: 13,918
Thanked 34,787 Times in 8,344 Posts
Failed 235 Times in 183 Posts
There will be some scuffles, but I don't think people are dumb enough to riot over hockey anymore in Canada. Vancouver's riot was the first one in the smartphone era, and it didn't work out well for lots of people.
GOILERS
__________________
98 technoviolet M3/2/5
Quote:
Originally Posted by boostfever
Westopher is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fsy82
seems like you got a dick up your ass well..get that checked
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkwax
Well.. I’d hate to be the first to say it, but Westopher is correct.
I mean I get being all out of sorts losing in game 7 OT, but they were down 3-1 and being outplayed at pretty much every level. If game 1 wasn't such a gong show, this easily could have been a sweep.
Don't riot over one disallowed goal in a series you basically got swept in
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
