[GT] Jets at flames

[FanIn80]

I couldn’t even bring myself to watch the second after that brutal call on Coleman for getting dragged down to the ice by the guy getting called for holding him.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Passe La Puck

lol get ####ed dude go home

Lol, relax dude.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Lol, I agree with the panel. That was absolutely an accidental on purpose leg stuck out by Markstrom. I loved it, but it was definitely a penalty. When Kelly Hrudey is playfully calling out both a goalie and a Flames goalie, you can read into that, haha.

You think Markstrom can literally react in a quarter of a second after the Andersson bump?

Don’t be absurd.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I don’t think he explained what he meant very well. I think what he was getting at (after he clarified it) was that breakaway penalties should be penalty shots more, not the clear stride / two in front it’s like if you’re in front at all (even just directly in front of the Dman with no separation) it should be penalty shot (if it’s a penalty call).

That was my interpretation anyway.

That's how I read was he was saying as well. He didn't really commit to saying he thought it was a legit infraction. He was insinuating that if you are going to call an infraction on a play like that, that infraction on a breakaway like that would mean penalty shot.

You're right, he didn't explain what he was getting at very well.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I don’t think he explained what he meant very well. I think what he was getting at (after he clarified it) was that breakaway penalties should be penalty shots more, not the clear stride / two in front it’s like if you’re in front at all (even just directly in front of the Dman with no separation) it should be penalty shot (if it’s a penalty call).

That was my interpretation anyway.

But it's not a breakaway though, he is offside.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I would have been fine with no penalty on markstrom for that chicken#### trip if he dropped the gloves. Garbage play. My own bias noted, of course.

My bias noted I could live to 100 and never see the flames get that call to go up 5 on 3

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

I would have been fine with no penalty on markstrom for that chicken#### trip if he dropped the gloves. Garbage play. My own bias noted, of course.

only thing that might have had intention there was the andersson bump . it happened too quickly for markstrom to trip him on purpose there , unless andersson and markstrom have telepathic abilities to combine for a 1-2 combo within a split second . get real

[Flames_Gimp]

escellent play by weegs on that break, got his stick on the players stick knocking the puck away without hooking or holding

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

You think Markstrom can literally react in a quarter of a second after the Andersson bump?

Don’t be absurd.

Of course he can. C'mon, he's an elite NHL goalie, he reacts in less time than that almost every shot, lol. You can see it clear as day in the replays, hence the call and the panel agreeing. Don't act like I'm some idiot that's being absurd, lol.

[Manhattanboy]

Whelp we really have to find a way to get a W here.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Agree to disagree.

The sky is neon green with purple polkadots!

What are you talking about, it’s blue…

Agree to disagree!

[1_Flames_Fan]

How does Dubois not get a penalty out of that either. Such garbage refereeing.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

That's how I read was he was saying as well. He didn't really commit to saying he thought it was a legit infraction. He was insinuating that if you are going to call an infraction on a play like that, that infraction on a breakaway like that would mean penalty shot.

You're right, he didn't explain what he was getting at very well.

I thought Elliot explained it perfectly. If you're going to call a penalty on that play (which they did) then the player had a clear path to the net and therefore it should be a penalty shot.

He was suggesting it was either a penalty shot or not a penalty, if you're making the call.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Penalties can be called after the whistle

Not usually for ticky tack stuff like this. Marky didn't even leave his crease.

Originally Posted by jayswin

I thought Elliot explained it perfectly. If you're going to call a penalty on that play (which they did) then the player had a clear path to the net and therefore it should be a penalty shot.

He was suggesting it was either a penalty shot or not a penalty, if you're making the call.

It was after the whistle so there's no scoring chance being nullified. Calling a penalty shot on something that happened way after the play had already been blown dead makes zero sense.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

How does Dubois not get a penalty out of that either. Such garbage refereeing.

exactly, did he make any effort to avoid Markstrom? no that was the accidental on purpose run on the goalie, and then he whines and draws a penalty

[Bonded]

Lol no shots for the Jets on the pp

[Flames_Gimp]

c'mon kill this !

[Flames_Gimp]

momentum gaining kill

[GioforPM]

Jets holding all over the ice with no call.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I thought Elliot explained it perfectly. If you're going to call a penalty on that play (which they did) then the player had a clear path to the net and therefore it should be a penalty shot.

He was suggesting it was either a penalty shot or not a penalty, if you're making the call.

they actually do call that kind of play a penalty shot more often now, which im ok with.

this particular play shouldn’t have been a penalty at all