DoktorZaius
Registered User
- Feb 7, 2013
- 3,835
- 48
I didn't see an angle that made it 100% clear either way, but Toronto instructed ref that the stick was under...so presumably they think it hit stick.It was actually of despres glove
I didn't see an angle that made it 100% clear either way, but Toronto instructed ref that the stick was under...so presumably they think it hit stick.It was actually of despres glove
You are allowed to be in the crease if you're not interfering with the goalie.
It went over his glove.
I didn't see an angle that made it 100% clear either way, but Toronto instructed ref that the stick was under...so presumably they think it hit stick.
Looked like it hit Despres' glove. Don't know why they didn't just say "inconclusive though".
The wave-off goal was bad, but they missed a lot of calls for us too throughout the game. Pretty poorly officiated. Chris Lee sucks.
I agree the first call was bad, but I have no idea how people can speak confidently about the second call either way. None of the angles/replays showed made it clear what exactly happened.
How the **** is that not a high-stick?? what a joke.
How the **** is that not a high-stick?? what a joke.
I agree the first call was bad, but I have no idea how people can speak confidently about the second call either way. None of the angles/replays showed made it clear what exactly happened.
I agree the first call was bad, but I'm not sure how people can speak confidently about the second call either way. None of the angles/replays showed made it clear what exactly happened. It's not like there was a super clear view or an ice-level camera to judge height well.
Because it hit Despres' glove and not Bergeron's stick. The refs called it wrong.
Clearly off the stick
I can speak confidently on it based on the call.
The call was, 'The puck hit the stick below the crossbar"
this is, 100%, impossible. If the puck hit the stick - which they are admitting it did - then it's a high stick.
If they had said, 'the call on the ice stands" okay.
If they had said, "the puck went in off of #47's glove" okay
If they had said, "the call on the ice was a goal, and we can't tell what the **** happened because Despres is a moron who threw his hand at the puck for no reason" okay.
But they didn't. They said the puck hit his stick. If it hit his stick, it's clear, from every angle, that the stick was high.
Another thing that bothers me, there's simply no way the ref should have called that a goal on the ice.
How can you be so sure?