[GT] Flames@Preds, Revenge of the frog

[browna]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Puck wasn't above the net already, he catches it by his hip, watch the video again.

The reason the goal wasn't called back is because you can't review the penalty, only if it was a hand pass. Which it wasn't because Weegar touched it.

An "offensive zone stoppage"was the challenge. If he grabbed the puck and threw it, that would also be a offensive zone whistle as well, not just if the Predator player touched it before Weeger. So it was reviewed for both situations.

[3rd liner]

Originally Posted by Buff

It's white gloves like the Keepers of the Cup wear... Either he's already training for his next career or someone told him he's got some silky mitts and he thought they told him to get some.

Wearing white gloves under hockey gloves = f’ing loser.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Read the post I quoted, you said Kelly Hrudey was wrong. So I made nothing up, you are just full of something brown and smelly as usual.

Kelly said he closed his hand on the puck he was wrong. He didn’t say he cupped his hand but by the rule that is considered closing his hand in the puck.

You are trying hard to create an argument for no reason because you have a personal issue with me that you can’t let go.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by browna

An "offensive zone stoppage"was the challenge. If he grabbed the puck and threw it, that would also be a offensive zone whistle as well, not just if the Predator player touched it before Weeger. So it was reviewed for both situations.

No it wasn't.

You can't review that the play should be stopped for a penalty call which is what the initial stoppage would have been.

It was only reviewed for a hand pass.

Here was the NHLs statement where they explicitly state what they reviewed.

https://x.com/ryannpike/status/1727555333625962654?s=46

Rule 79 is referenced. Rule 67 which is the rule I quoted earlier is not reviewable, and is not referenced.

[Burning Beard]

Hockey forums are a funny thing. Arguments about slow motion plays and both sides dig in and argue it out.

By the way, he definitely grabbed it! NHL reffing at its finest.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That was way more than a bump, it was 100% a throw.

https://x.com/ringoffirecgy/status/1...390635575?s=46

Look where the puck first enters his glove, and look how he throws it up.

Wasn't just a bump at all, he tried to throw it to himself

You know, given that Forsberg clearly directs the puck over the net with his hand, this is really on Weegar for not just letting a Predator touch it.

Whatever. There are no bad losses at this point.

#LetpucksinforCelebrimbor

[SportsJunky]

Nm

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Spurs

Kelly said he closed his hand on the puck he was wrong. He didn’t say he cupped his hand but by the rule that is considered closing his hand in the puck.

You are trying hard to create an argument for no reason because you have a personal issue with me that you can’t let go.

What?? Lol. You just said before you never said that. Now you are saying you did. I have no personal issue with you, I do have an issue that you constantly clog up every thread with your trolling. I said you called a guy who was a pro wrong and you must think you know more about the rules than he does. Then you denied it. Now you are embracing it lol. Keep digging up.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

You know, given that Forsberg clearly directs the puck over the net with his hand, this is really on Weegar for not just letting a Predator touch it.

Whatever. There are no bad losses at this point.

#LetpucksinforCelebrimbor

Problem is Forsberg would be allowed to touch it, so Weegar almost has to make that play because it's not a hand pass if Forsberg himself plays it.

The problem is the refs missed what should have been a penalty call (and NHL review rules for what you can or can't review are arbitrary)

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Spurs

LOL

What debate, the people agree with me.

They are debating points I didn’t even make

Indeed, what debate? It's just mindless blathering in circles and delirious claims void of self awareness.

Was the same with JAG. Just walks back his original points despite being presented with new data/strong arguments and talks in circles. Like arguing with the wind. It just keeps blowing cow manure smell at you no matter what you tell it.

[browna]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

No it wasn't.

You can't review that the play should be stopped for a penalty call which is what the initial stoppage would have been.

It was only reviewed for a hand pass.

Here was the NHLs statement where they explicitly state what they reviewed.

https://x.com/ryannpike/status/1727555333625962654?s=46

Fair enough. I still see offensive zone stoppage, hand pass on that NHL rulingz and if they saw a squeeze and throw of the puck, that could be technically a whistle.

And the rules states the puck can be batted, and that's still what occured IMO
Forsberg tried to bat it to himself and he reached his stick over trying to put it in. If he somehow scored they it would be much more debatable whether he batted it to a spot to gain an advantage (yes)...but IMO he didn't grab it, squeeze it and throw it (penalty) as is being contended.

And I also think it was a lot closer 5 seconds earlier to offside on the zone entry.

[Spurs]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What?? Lol. You just said before you never said that. Now you are saying you did. I have no personal issue with you, I do have an issue that you constantly clog up every thread with your trolling. I said you called a guy who was a pro wrong and you must think you know more about the rules than he does. Then you denied it. Now you are embracing it lol. Keep digging up.

Nope never said it what are you talking about? You keep having to make things up to try and continue what is a silly argument to begin with.

And trolling? I posted the same thing many others did about what happened in the game nothing close to trolling.

I don’t come close to posting in every thread either so more lies from you.

Having a different view from you is not trolling, if that is too hard for you to handle use the ignore function. It’s a pretty simple function on message boards.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by browna

Fair enough. I still see offensive zone stoppage, hand pass on that NHL ruling.

And the rules states the puck can be batted, and that's still what occured IMO
Forsberg tried to bat it to himself and he reached his stick over trying to put it in. If he somehow scored they it would be much more debatable whether he batted it to a spot to gain an advantage (yes)...but IMO he didn't grab it, squeeze it and thrown it as is being contended.

They only reviewed the hand pass, the ruling explicitly stats that. It's "Offensive Zone Stoppage - Hand Pass", that's how it's classified.

And it is not batted. It was not above the bar already as you previously stated.

Watch the replay again. He catches it almost by his hip, doesn't fully close his hand but his fingers do close a little to secure the puck, and throws it above the cross bar. The puck is in his hand too long to be classified as a "bat", he cradled it and elevates it.

https://x.com/ringoffirecgy/status/1...390635575?s=46

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

No it wasn't.

You can't review that the play should be stopped for a penalty call which is what the initial stoppage would have been.

It was only reviewed for a hand pass.

Here was the NHLs statement where they explicitly state what they reviewed.

https://x.com/ryannpike/status/1727555333625962654?s=46

So did the Flames video team screw up then?

The Flames video team could see as plainly as I could that Weegar played the puck. So missed stoppage based on a hand pass is not an option there

It has to be reviewed for the penalty, but that’s a judgment call, not automatic. Even as obvious and clear as it is, the refs don’t review and retroactively call penalties

A screw up, almost looked like a decision to throw in the towel and make the refs stand behind their missed call

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So did the Flames video team screw up then?

The Flames video team could see as plainly as I could that Weegar played the puck. So missed stoppage based on a hand pass is not an option there

It has to be reviewed for the penalty, but that’s a judgment call, not automatic. Even as obvious and clear as it is, the refs don’t review and retroactively call penalties

A screw up, almost looked like a decision to throw in the towel and make the refs stand behind their missed call

They did IMO.

It wasn't able to challenge the penalty, and wasn't going to be called a hand pass since Weegar touched it.

I think maybe they thought they refs would see they did miss the call...but really there was nothing the ref could do on the review there.

[browna]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

They only reviewed the hand pass, the ruling explicitly stats that. It's "Offensive Zone Stoppage - Hand Pass", that's how it's classified.

And it is not batted. It was not above the bar already as you previously stated.

Watch the replay again. He catches it almost by his hip, and throws it above the cross bar. The puck is in his hand too long to be classified as a "bat", he cradled it and elevates it.

https://x.com/ringoffirecgy/status/1...390635575?s=46

You really see a catch and hold and throw of the puck there? I don't. Even on that angle you barely lose sight of the puck in his glove.

His glove is open the entire time. He gets the palm of his glove on it and in the the same motion pops it up over the net.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

They did IMO.

It wasn't able to challenge the penalty, and wasn't going to be called a hand pass since Weegar touched it.

I think maybe they thought they refs would see they did miss the call...but really there was nothing the ref could do on the review there.

Yeah, the management should meet with the video staff on that. Huska recently said he trusts them

Can’t afford mistakes like that

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by browna

You really see a catch and hold and throw of the puck there? I don't. Even on that angle you barely lose sight of the puck in his glove.

His glove is open the entire time. He gets the palm of his glove on it and in the the same motion pops it up over the net.

I don't see that as a "bat"

The puck lands in his glove and he clearly propels it up from down around his hip, with his hand up around the crossbar, and directs it in front of the net. His arm almost travels backwards a bit to be able to throw it back in front of the net.

To me that's clearly a throw.

And in real time it's tough for the ref to spot it. And not sure I'd want that called a penalty in another area of the ice TBH. But when the puck is intentionally directed at the net with a throw like that it should be blown down.

I think what they should do is say "You can't intentionally direct the puck towards the net with your hand in the offensive zone. The play automatically will be blown down". Because that would prevent situations like this where Weegar feels like he has to play that puck because Forsberg "directs" the puck to the net with his hand intentionally and Weegar can't let him get it but it clearly creates an unfair advantage for Nashville.

[WhiteTiger]

Wrong Thread

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Problem is Forsberg would be allowed to touch it, so Weegar almost has to make that play because it's not a hand pass if Forsberg himself plays it.

The problem is the refs missed what should have been a penalty call (and NHL review rules for what you can or can't review are arbitrary)

Then light him up when he comes around the other side.

On the subject of how the rule is written - they should rewrite challenge rule like this. Coach submits a ten second time frame for review, identifies the offending incident, and says “you can’t do that.”

And then the refs go take a look and answer “but can you do that?”

Make it a yes or no question. Whichever rule is in violation.

Every ref from here to Whitehorse knows you can’t do what Forsberg did.

These are NhL refs - They may be clowns, but they can quote the rules chapter and verse like Tommy Lee Jones if you get em going.

Infinite ways to make this easier, and none will ever get looked at