Edmonton is No Good XI: Mud, Sweatpants and Tiers

[Redrum]

Just that Edmonton had the confidence to try and challenge that goal shows what kind of calls they're used to getting. The guy was never within half a mile.

They're going to have some serious withdrawl when Connor leaves and the league is no longer trying to showcase the Oilers.

[dirk diggler]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Is Edmonton ever not complaining?

you would complain too if you lived in that track pant, mullet culture. cant be easy even with that "beautiful" mall.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

you would complain too if you lived in that track pant, mullet culture. cant be easy even with that "beautiful" mall.

True. I've spent no more than three days total of my life in Edmonton but I still complain about having had been there.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

True. I've spent no more than three days total of my life in Edmonton but I still complain about having had been there.

Yeah its a dump. Looks like a giant industrial park.

[Enoch Root]

That side-by-side video shows very clearly the difference between the two events, being that Hyman actually moved Binnington, and changed his angle to the shooter, and thus causing interference.

Thanks @zach!

[Rising_Oil_Prices]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That side-by-side video shows very clearly the difference between the two events, being that Hyman actually moved Binnington, and changed his angle to the shooter, and thus causing interference.

Thanks @zach!

The one on the left clearly shows the player’s stick being flexed against Skinners pad. I dare you to take a closer look. Skinner doesn’t often complain, but he did here. If the one on the right was goalie interference then the one on the left should have been as well.

[GioforPM]

“I dare you to take a closer look”

LMFAO.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

The one on the left clearly shows the player’s stick being flexed against Skinners pad. I dare you to take a closer look. Skinner doesn’t often complain, but he did here. If the one on the right was goalie interference then the one on the left should have been as well.

You dare me to take a closer look? Okay then.

'Skinner doesn't often complain' - okay then, I'm convinced. Your unbiased analysis has swayed my vote.

[Rising_Oil_Prices]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You dare me to take a closer look? Okay then.

'Skinner doesn't often complain' - okay then, I'm convinced. Your unbiased analysis has swayed my vote.

I’m old so I don’t know how to put a photo on here, but there’s clear pictures of the guy’s stick actually flexing against Skinner’s blocker. I was like you and the CHED broadcasters, and didn’t think there was much to see there, but this picture of his stick flexed tells a different story.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

I’m old so I don’t know how to put a photo on here, but there’s clear pictures of the guy’s stick actually flexing against Skinner’s blocker. I was like you and the CHED broadcasters, and didn’t think there was much to see there, but this picture of his stick flexed tells a different story.

No, it actually doesn’t. Did Skinner’s position change? No? Then it didn’t make a difference.

Maybe the guys has Gaudreau flex on his stick.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

This coming from the fanbase that tried to convince us that Pissy running through Vladar wasn't GI.. Get lost dweeb

[Rising_Oil_Prices]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, it actually doesn’t. Did Skinner’s position change? No? Then it didn’t make a difference.

Maybe the guys has Gaudreau flex on his stick.

Nah. His stick was clearly bending from the contact.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

Nah. His stick was clearly bending from the contact.

Again, not the issue. Go look at the rule book. Flex of a stick is not actually mentioned.

[Rising_Oil_Prices]

Originally Posted by Lanny'sDaMan

This coming from the fanbase that tried to convince us that Pissy running through Vladar wasn't GI.. Get lost dweeb

Who wants to let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

[Rising_Oil_Prices]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Again, not the issue. Go look at the rule book. Flex of a stick is not actually mentioned.

The flex shows there was contact, that’s all, which would make it goalie interference by the rule.

[timbit]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

Who wants to let facts get in the way of a good story, right?

You always make up good stories.

Don’t be so hard on yourself.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

The flex shows there was contact, that’s all, which would make it goalie interference by the rule.

No, that’s not the rule. No wonder you are confused.

[Vinsta13]

Wrong thread

[AC]

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

The flex shows there was contact, that’s all, which would make it goalie interference by the rule.

Incidental contact is allowed.

You have to have contact that "interferes with or impedes the movements of the goaltender". Just because the stick makes contact doesn't mean it interfered with Skinner's ability to make the save. Whereas with the disallowed Edmonton goal, the stick spun Binnington opening his fivehole for the goal to occur.

[Enoch Root]

What you wrote (and presumably believed):

Originally Posted by Rising_Oil_Prices

The flex shows there was contact, that’s all, which would make it goalie interference by the rule.

The actual rule, as presented by AC:

Originally Posted by AC

Incidental contact is allowed.

You have to have contact that "interferes with or impedes the movements of the goaltender". Just because the stick makes contact doesn't mean it interfered with Skinner's ability to make the save. Whereas with the disallowed Edmonton goal, the stick spun Binnington opening his fivehole for the goal to occur.

Now the question is, did you actually learn something? Or are you just going to keep trolling?