It's not, though. You're allowed to be in the crease when the goal goes in, so long as you're not a) interfering with the goaltender or b) scoring the goal using something other than your stick.
It's conceivable that under that suggested rule there will be a disallowed goal where a puck happens to go in off of an attacking player's skate that's barely in the crease and nowhere near the goalie, of course. You just have to decide if you're okay with that being called back or not.
The problem is not the rules. You can write rules and rules and more rules.
The problem are the people interpreting the rules.
You think you can write enough rules that it functions like a pachinko machine and that then you can place any ol' person into the role and then viola, consistent results!
You're basically going for the flat tax approach, when there's simply too many edge cases that need to be accounted for.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
But the hull call was correct. Players were always allowed in the crease if they were playing the puck, which Hull was prior to entering the crease and scoring.
I’m not looking for a debate about this, but I completely disregard anything that the NHL says about it. There is still a lot of current debate about it, which indicates that it was and is not cut and dry because the nhl believes rules and spirit are open for interpretation. Seriously, cup for buffalo or in a market it is trying to grow, the US South?
Here’s one thought; tell me that this doesn’t sound familiar…
“The problem was, they had strictly enforced this new rule all season long, including overturning similarly scored goals like Hull's.”
__________________
Franchise > Team > Player
Future historians will celebrate June 24, 2024 as the date when the timeline corrected itself.
The Following User Says Thank You to McG For This Useful Post:
The problem is not the rules. You can write rules and rules and more rules.
The problem are the people interpreting the rules.
You think you can write enough rules that it functions like a pachinko machine and that then you can place any ol' person into the role and then viola, consistent results!
You're basically going for the flat tax approach, when there's simply too many edge cases that need to be accounted for.
The problem is both. Write better rules so the buffoons have less leeway to bungle it. Implement better standards/practices so the buffoons have less leeway to bungle it (ie. conclusive in 2 minutes or else call on ice stands).
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
The problem is both. Write better rules so the buffoons have less leeway to bungle it. Implement better standards/practices so the buffoons have less leeway to bungle it (ie. conclusive in 2 minutes or else call on ice stands).
Colin Campbell: hold my beer.
__________________
Franchise > Team > Player
Future historians will celebrate June 24, 2024 as the date when the timeline corrected itself.
Refs on the Ice called it a good goal. The NHL war room there were 4 people who unanimously overruled the ref.
But what NHL procedure allowed the committee to even initiate a review in the first place? Oilers didn't challenge. Refs didn't ask for a challenge (not that they have the power to)?
That's the answer I've yet to hear.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to browna For This Useful Post:
There was a distinct kicking motion. It was the NHL distinctly kicking the Flames to the curb to guarantee a matchup between MacKinnon and McDavid in the next round.
The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to Macindoc For This Useful Post:
There was a distinct kicking motion. It was the NHL distinctly kicking the Flames to the curb to guarantee a matchup between MacKinnon and McDavid in the next round.
...which was oh, so worth it.
Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk
__________________
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?"
For those not familiar, Jomboy does a great job breaking down weird or interesting plays, mostly of baseball, but they mix in some hockey in there. They have A+ lip reading skills
Glad to see that they did a breakdown of it for the lay-hockey fan. Still shaking my head though...
The Following User Says Thank You to TBone290 For This Useful Post:
For those not familiar, Jomboy does a great job breaking down weird or interesting plays, mostly of baseball, but they mix in some hockey in there. They have A+ lip reading skills
Glad to see that they did a breakdown of it for the lay-hockey fan. Still shaking my head though...
For those not familiar, Jomboy does a great job breaking down weird or interesting plays, mostly of baseball, but they mix in some hockey in there. They have A+ lip reading skills
Glad to see that they did a breakdown of it for the lay-hockey fan. Still shaking my head though...
I can't believe the Las Vegas one in that video was allowed and Coleman's was disallowed.
I don't know how many times I said it this season but I always knew if the Flames faced the Oilers in the playoffs they were going to have to overcome a team and the officiating to win. Unfortunately a key Flames goal was close enough that the NHL could intervene and alter the outcome of an elimination game.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
I don't know how many times I said it this season but I always knew if the Flames faced the Oilers in the playoffs they were going to have to overcome a team and the officiating to win. Unfortunately a key Flames goal was close enough that the NHL could intervene and alter the outcome of an elimination game.
Yep, this is why I wanted no part of a playoff BOA and mentioned it to the people who were starving for one.
Sure beating the Oilers in the playoffs would feel great but you're not just playing the Oilers when they have the league's golden boy playing for them.
I have no doubt if the roles were reversed and the Oilers were down 3-1 the goal would have counted.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Inferno For This Useful Post:
