When you watch that in slo-mo you see the puck actually hit the top part of Price's goalie stick. Matthews had Price beat, but hit the shaft of the goalie stick.
It is 4-1 now in Vancouver. The Canucks should be doing everything they can to move older players before the deadline, but with such a depleted lineup tonight I don't doubt that Benning justifies this loss as just another unlucky circumstance.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
It is 4-1 now in Vancouver. The Canucks should be doing everything they can to move older players before the deadline, but with such a depleted lineup tonight I don't doubt that Bennington justifies this loss as just another unlucky circumstance.
I can see Benning pull a Hamhuis stunt again this year with Burrows and Ryan Miller.
What follow through? The follow through of the slash? Sorry, he wound-up with two hands but when contact was made only one-hand was on the stick. According to you if only one had is on the stick it isn't a slash? I'm learning so much. So contact was made on the skate, it's still a slash.
What follow through? The follow through of the slash? Sorry, he wound-up with two hands but when contact was made only one-hand was on the stick. According to you if only one had is on the stick it isn't a slash? I'm learning so much.
No, but you called it a 2 handed chop. Which it wasn't.
You also said it was on the arm. Which it wasn't.
He went for the stick to disrupt the shot, and instead catches him in the skate. Sorry, but when the referee is right there and can see the intent of the defensive play, the point of contact, and the fact that it didn't hinder Matthews' scoring chance in an illegal fashion... he's not going to call anything.
Sure, it COULD have been called when seeing it happen live if the referee also mistakenly saw it the way you clearly did. But based on the replay, it was a good non-call.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
No, but you called it a 2 handed chop. Which it wasn't.
You also said it was on the arm. Which it wasn't.
He went for the stick to disrupt the shot, and instead catches him in the skate. Sorry, but when the referee is right there and can see the intent of the defensive play, the point of contact, and the fact that it didn't hinder Matthews' scoring chance in an illegal fashion... he's not going to call anything.
Sure, it COULD have been called when seeing it happen live if the referee also mistakenly saw it the way you clearly did. But based on the replay, it was a good non-call.
OK after seeing it multiple times from different angles in slomo...it's borderline. But live in game when you see a player reach back like that with two-hands and it isn't called but then calls like this are made...I just don't get it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to savemedrzaius For This Useful Post:
I agree live it looks aggressive. If anything it's a credit to that referee that he saw it properly.
And that Chimera call was ridiculous. Looked like a picture perfect defensive play, even live. Very similar to Wideman on McDavid to start the season. I think in both plays the referee made their call based on the defensive player reaching with his stick in the general vicinity of the opponent, and that player not getting a clean shot off. Though in Hunwick's case it was because of a great defensive play, and in McDavid's it was an Elliott pokecheck.
A rested and motivated J Quick is more than just 'good goaltending'. Assuming he is healthy - the Kings are going to rise.
It's been said already, but unless quick can score, it ain't getting better. Budaj's numbers this have been indistinguishable from Quick's historical numbers.
must show all Flames games nationally when they play on Saturdays, Mondays, and Wednesdays !!!
