[GT] Flames @ Blues

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't think that matters of directed in with a high stock

This.

People are confusing the two high stick rules. For it to be blown down because it was knocked down from a high stick, it would have had to have been touched by a blues player afterwords. That's what Jason York was being confused with.

But you can't deflect a goal off a high stick, regardless of what it hits after

[direwolf]

Huge break for the Flames. Gotta get some offence going now and get back into this.

[Fleury’sOTGoalCelebration]

Nice shift by Raymond

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by driveway

That should have counted, but I'll take it.

Not according to the rules

[Hockeyguy15]

It's just like if he hit it out of the air with his hand and it hits Monahan and goes in. It was directed at the net illegally and therefor won't count unless Monahan gets possession.

[debil]

this was lucky, blues are much better team this period

[dino7c]

its funny when guys paid to analyze hockey don't even know the rules


It doesnt matter if it bounces off a flames player...If money had control and then puts it in, different story

[Gaudreau]

Our D is playing scared from all the hits, hopefully the Blues slow down in the coming periods and we get our confidence back.

[FFFLife]

Originally Posted by Torchdemall

Inconclusive? Does someone need glasses... that was totally a Goal against... Blues got robbed there.

Wrong, but thanks for coming out

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Dougie with a huge hit, nice.

[ScorchyScorch]

Originally Posted by AC

No, because it was "shot" with a high stick.

If Steen had highsticked the puck down and the ref ruled Monahan had possession before misplaying it into his net they could legitimately count it.

Makes sense. But not like you see that play everyday so it was unclear how it would be ruled.

[Vedder]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

No, not really. They've had several good shifts. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it.



If you want to talk about being exposed, it was pretty much Brodie by himself on that Parayko goal. Quite frankly though, I don't blame him as how could you expect that from a 6'6" defenseman. It was a nice play by Parayko more than anything.

Brodie got walked, but Parayko got the puck alone in the slot after the Flames got beat on the cycle. This was after they had the puck and Ferland made a weak play on the boards so they didn't get it out. They had the one good shift where they had zone time, but other than that have struggled like the rest of the team, including the first shift which really set the tone for the first ten minutes.

[Gaudfather]

Originally Posted by Fleury’sOTGoalCelebration

Nice shift by Raymond

That shot was behind Elliott, but off the crossbar. Would have been nice to get one before the period ended.

[ComixZone]

Hamilton just levelled someone and it got no mention...

[Torchdemall]

Ok well that makes sense, but why call it "inconclusive"? Just state it was the right call and you can't hit it in the net off high stick even if it deflects off someone else. Makes them seem like idiots who need glasses.

[Flash Walken]

Great hit by Hamilton.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

At least they got some shots and chances at the end of the period. Need to carry that over.

[dino7c]

Zero chance that was a goal...move on

puck propelled into the net with a high stick

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Torchdemall

Ok well that makes sense, but why call it "inconclusive"? Just state it was the right call and you can't hit it in the net off high stick even if it deflects off someone else. Makes them seem like idiots who need glasses.

Monahan possession was probably the inconclusive part, just not explained by the ref.

[troutman]

They didn't apply any rule. They went with inconclusive.