GDT: #19 - 11/15/17 | RANGERS @ blackhawks | 8:00 - NBCSN

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. Nevesis, I think you’ve called out Hank exactly once in 12 years, so pardon me if I don’t defer to your analysis. (Of COURSE the home team pushed back in the second.) I put this game - so far - square on Hank’s shoulders.

Would it have been less deflating if the goal came on a breakaway? How about all those missed chances in the 1st? Or all those 1 too many passes opportunites by the offence?
 
Dallas' music list is probably the GOAT

Is it? I get the Center Ice ticket and watch plenty of Stars games as I also have Benn on my $ fantasy team. I never really noticed. Now tho, seeing you mentioned it, I will pay attention to the tunes there in Dallas...thx for the heads up Plams.
 
Not sure how you can compare driving a car with playing a hockey game. Your analogy doesn't work here. I hope I don't even need to get into why.





The injury example was intentionally extreme. The same would apply if the goalie lost his mask, or the goalie covered the puck.

I think a decent analogy is if a team enters the zone offside and immediately rips a slap shot that goes in before the linesman can blow the whistle. Just because the puck entered the net before the whistle was blown doesn't mean it should count.

I think by and large people hate "intent to blow the whistle" because there is a large amount of ref-specific subjectivity to it. That, I agree with, and can be frustrating. But the rule itself I think is fine.

1. Literally gets called back and we have seen that when the Rangers have played, a recent example was in the playoffs recently against the Caps IIRC

2. People hate intent to blow because it is subjective and not an objective measure, therefore it should not be a rule if it can change between every ref, a la umpiring and how bad that is.

You also claim my example is far fetched and bad yet purposely state you made a poor and extreme example which has literally nothing to do with ITB. You are being obtuse on purpose.

"I intend to invalidate this but I never proceeded to take the right steps to invalidate this until after it was legally carried out and want to retro this matter"
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike14
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad