[PGT] Flames get robbed and lose 4-3 to the Blues in OT

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

junglist = Zary mustache = formerpresjamestaylor = moon

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Moon claimed to br a Detroit Lions fan. He was Spurs. Don't think this is Moon.

I think he's just joking, none of those are correct.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Based on the rule book, that's a good goal imo

*Ducks for cover

Not the way I read it.
First sentence of the second paragraph…

[serratedmuffin]

Watching the replay it seemed like a good goal to me and if the Flames were on the other end I wouldn't want it called back.

[otisthedog]

IMO there is enough to call that goal off, but sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. What's lost in this is that the Flames played well enough to win and the young players are doing well. Isn't this what most people on this board and fans of the team wanted? If they play that well and get hosed every game, we will be entertained and they have a good chance at a fantastic draft position...Win/Win

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

In any scramble for a loose puck in the crease you can't intentionally push the goalie into the net, but you have the same right as the goalie to go after that puck. It's a loose puck, you can poke at it and that's fair even if it pushes the pad.

What the second paragraph is specifically referring to, is pushing the goalie into "together with the puck". It's not referring to any pushing of the goalie into the net. It very specifically says "together with the puck". Again, this is an interpretation people can take different ways, but you would ignore the second paragraph of you feel they weren't pushed in "together". The intent of the rule is to prevent pushing a goalie into the net when they have control of the puck, which Vladar did not have.

Yes, but "together with the puck" doesn't mean the goalie has to have the puck covered. I'd say Vladar's pad was pushed in together with he puck.

[Macindoc]

Contact with Vladar was not incidental, it was causal. If there was no contact, the puck would have stayed out. Incidental means that the action (contaxt, in this case) has no bearing on the outcome (the goal). By definition, the contact was not incidental. It’s not even a matter of interpretation in this case, the call was blatantly wrong.

[Toonage]

It stunk, but as is often the case, if you put yourself in a position to lose, who can you really blame?

Don't want to deal with ####ty OT calls? Get that 4th goal or prevent one fewer from going in.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by Toonage

It stunk, but as is often the case, if you put yourself in a position to lose, who can you really blame?

Don't want to deal with ####ty OT calls? Get that 4th goal or prevent one fewer from going in.

I would argue that the Flames didn’t really put themselves in that position. All of the Blues’ goals resulted from lucky bounces or questionable penalty calls. The Flames dominated the play most of the night. They just didn’t have the puck luck or the help of the zebras.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by serratedmuffin

and if the Flames were on the other end I wouldn't want it called back.

We all wouldn't. Even if it's blatantly obvious it shouldn't count.

[Locke]

Well. This PGT was something of a ride.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Huberdeau should have won it on the Kadri feed anyway. The OT call was 50/50; I'd be choked if it was a Flames goal & called back.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Huberdeau should have won it on the Kadri feed anyway. The OT call was 50/50; I'd be choked if it was a Flames goal & called back.

Binnington made a great play to stuff the chance - Huberdeau couldn’t have done much differently.

The Flames should have won in regulation. Zary was in alone, and they had three or four other chances that could easily have gone in.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Binnington made a great play to stuff the chance - Huberdeau couldn’t have done much differently.

The Flames should have won in regulation. Zary was in alone, and they had three or four other chances that could easily have gone in.

Huby had half the net empty & shot it back across the goal at Binnington.
It wasn't a great save, it was a bad shot. Let's not fall for Hrudey's commentary.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Huby had half the net empty & shot it back across the goal at Binnington.
It wasn't a great save, it was a bad shot. Let's not fall for Hrudey's commentary.

Yeah, Hrudey loves to pump the goalies, but that was a bad shot.

[Robbob]

At this point the Flames were lucky not to have a too many men penalty in OT.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Huby had half the net empty & shot it back across the goal at Binnington.
It wasn't a great save, it was a bad shot. Let's not fall for Hrudey's commentary.

That's not what happened.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Moon has been the only poster to get under my skin and it was something he ended up being right about. I suggested one of our prospects was a slam dunk, he said they weren't, called me an idiot...and that prospect completely flamed out. Not only was he a total dick, but he was 100% right about the prospect

Given how often that I too am right, I can see why people might mistake me for moon. But I'm actually a super nice poster who doesn't actually hurl personal attacks on anyone.

In contrast, I have actually defended those 3 posters that seemingly follow me around the board with their mid-wit takes and ad hominem attacks. All three of them come across as complete losers in real life, so I feel bad for them and have come to their defense when other posters start to attack them.

Something isn't adding up here.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Moon has been the only poster to get under my skin and it was something he ended up being right about. I suggested one of our prospects was a slam dunk, he said they weren't, called me an idiot...and that prospect completely flamed out. Not only was he a total dick, but he was 100% right about the prospect

Given how often that I too am right, I can see why people might mistake me for moon. But I'm actually a super nice poster who doesn't actually hurl personal attacks on anyone.

In contrast, I have actually defended those 3 posters that seemingly follow me around the board with their mid-wit takes and ad hominem attacks. All three of them come across as complete losers in real life, so I feel bad for them and have come to their defense when other posters start to attack them.

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Something isn't adding up here.

Contradicts themselves in their own post. Brilliant.

For a person that gets all of their opinions from random Twitter accounts I suppose it's not surprising.

It's one thing to claim you don't throw s### around, but you kind of lose the ethical high ground when you have no problem playing in it and smearing it all over the place.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

The amount of posters that have been accused of being new moon is funny.

Believe gullfoss or bigthief have also been thrown in there.

I think Spurs was him. His refusal to die (the necro activity through a glitch in the board was creepy) tells me that he can't be gone but I don't think he's this junglist.

Junglist and ZM seem eerily similar. I don't think either is moon but their own person.

PrezJamesTaylor was a thorny one but also different.

After review of the "worst poster" thread, I think I mixed up a couple previous posters.

Big Thief = formerpresjamestaylor = mrmastadonfarm
junglist = Zary's Mustache = ? (maybe puckluck or calgaryblood or whoever else got binned)

dissentowner was adamant that zarymustache is moon so I was just going with that.

[flambers]

Good game, however the Flames lack of depth at center is really showing.

They lose the key faceoffs,

Including in OT,

Its an area of weakness for sure,