+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: The caps are back in the playoffs! (/showthread.php?tid=7176)
- Apoc - 04-21-2008
I'm putting money on the Caps so the Flyers will win.
- Apoc - 04-22-2008
Bet placed... you guys are in trouble!
- Evan - 04-22-2008
I havent watched any of the games until last nights, which means Im good luck. So if I watch tonights game then Chris' bet is negated and Caps will win.
- mrbaggio - 04-22-2008
Plus I will counter his bet by betting on the flyers, and I always lose my sports bets. CAPS are now +1 to win.
- Apoc - 04-22-2008
The good news is at least I'll get some money out of it.
- damnit458 - 04-22-2008
One hour to gametime!
I was so worthless all day :lol:
- John - 04-22-2008
Unfortunately the game isn't being aired out here on the left coast - so I've been relegated to watching updates online. Looks like a close game thus far - all tied up with one more period to go!
- Evan - 04-22-2008
that last flyers goal was such bullshit......
refs are terrrrrible
- Apoc - 04-22-2008
Laying the groundwork in case they lose?
- Apoc - 04-22-2008
The best $40 I ever spent... well maybe not, but still worth it.
- Evan - 04-22-2008
Apoc Wrote:Laying the groundwork in case they lose?you cant say that goal shouldnt have been waved off
- Apoc - 04-22-2008
It's my understanding that's not part of the goalie interference rules.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nhl.com/ext/0708rules.pdf">http://www.nhl.com/ext/0708rules.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeperÔÇÖs ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease.
For purposes of this rule, ÔÇ£contact,ÔÇØ whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.
I agree the rule can be read as ambiguous. I read it as contact between a goalie and a player from the other team... but I'm sure I'm biased. I've never seen a goal waived off for a defensemen contacting their own goaltender but apparently it's happened. At the least, they should clarify it in the off season.
---------------
As a side, I really didn't want the Flyers to play the Caps in the first round. I've been to ~15 games this season and like watching Ovechkin. I wanted to Flyers to win for obvious reasons but if the Caps won, I got to keep going to playoff hockey. lose/lose
- DavidM - 04-22-2008
Never seen a goal waived off?...the caps had one waved off for the same thing against the lightning this season. Oh well except for the fact that the lightnings goalie wasn't thrown on the ground and pushed 10 feet from the goal. But yea, its never happened.
- Evan - 04-22-2008
yeah, they showed in the highlights, the game against the lightning their goalie barely got bumped by their own defenseman and the goal got waived off.
this was blatant.
- Apoc - 04-22-2008
DavidM Wrote:Never seen a goal waived off?...the caps had one waved off for the same thing against the lightning this season. Oh well except for the fact that the lightnings goalie wasn't thrown on the ground and pushed 10 feet from the goal. But yea, its never happened.
You suck at reading.
I said "I've never seen it but apparently it's happened."
Forgetting about the TB call for a moment, can you guys honestly say you interpret that rule to mean it should be a penalty?
Maybe it was the original call that was bogus... ever consider that? You have a long off-season to think about it.
(For the record, I don't expect the Flyers to make it past Montreal.)
- Evan - 04-22-2008
that call set the precedence for how the 'gray area' should be called.(which I personally dont think is gray at all given the intent of the rule but I am admittedly a casual hockey fan)
- Apoc - 04-22-2008
Evan Wrote:that call set the precedence for how the 'gray area' should be called.(which I personally dont think is gray at all given the intent of the rule but I am admittedly a casual hockey fan)
What about all the other non-calls before it? They don't set a precedent? You don't have to look very far to find goals that come after a defensemen was pushed into the goalie.
- l33t Mr2 - 04-22-2008
looks like alexander is not getting the mvp
- Apoc - 04-22-2008
l33t Mr2 Wrote:looks like alexander is not getting the mvp
Why? You don't have to win the Cup to get it. IMO he should get it. He was off in games the first few games and you saw how much the team needed him. He really is the league's most valuable player.
- DavidM - 04-22-2008
First off, I appologize for my admittadly heated post, obviously I am in a somewhat poor mood, and like you am biased. However it is my (biased) opinion that the rule is intended to keep attackers from interfering with the goalie. Now obviously there are situations where incidental contact causes contact between a defended and a goalie and probably don't warrant a penalty. However thats not the case in this situation, the attacking player clearly and intentionally checked the defenseman into the goalie. This exact situation is not covered in the rules (but i'll bet money it will be stated clearly one way or the other) but it is my opinion that when an attacker initiates contact that interferes with a goalie it should be a penalty.
Oh, and Ovie should deffinately be MVP...first off its a regular season award so the playoffs shouldn't matter at all...but if they do he still put up 4 goals, led the team in points, 2 game winners all while playing against the most physical defense in the league. I don't think your precious crosby would have been nearly that tough.