Devils fans throw beer on ice, Leafs bench. Cause delay of game.

[Xirik]

Playing Beastie Boys Sabotage after the 3rd disallowed goal

A little bit too on the nose Mr Music guy.

There you have it, Its not the fans fault its the DJ's fault for inciting them!

 

[AcerComputer]

i always find it funny when a poster tries to insult another poster's reading comprehension and, in doing so, showcases his own terrible reading comprehension.

he's talking about the second goal, bucko.

Sorry I am not a mind reader, the controversial goal being discussed was the 1st one, I guess we moved on to the 2nd one now after losing that argument. The rule is equally clear about contact outside the crease, the player must avoid contact, which he did not. It has nothing to do with the subjectivity of what is deemed incidental contact. The fact remains NJ fans should start a Go Fund Me so their arena can have instant reply.

 

[NjDevsRR]

That reads like just pure excuses for why it wasn't a bad look, throwing things at players of another team and on the field of play in general.

Its a bad look.

It will be a bad look everywhere it happens, it happens it most cities over the years. f***ing name a city and it has happened once.

f***ing toronto fans chucked waffles at their OWN players. And they here lecturing, f*** off.

 

[MtoD]

That wasn't "incidental" contact.

The league has said as much already.

Do you have a link to this by chance? i saw it mentioned a few times but it's not anywhere on NHL.com or the relevant NHL twitters.

the refs on the ice clearly thought the contact was incidental (no penalty called on Tatar), so theoretically they just ruled it was incidental but Tatar didn't make a reasonable effort to avoid contact.

 

[AcerComputer]

Yes, but that is subjective. A different ref could have called this incidental quite easily. These refs said it wasn't incidental, sucks for jersey fans, it is what it is. But the fact that it's a subjective call on what is and what is not incidental makes it a debatable call and certainly not one that is a "no brainer" call or anything. LIS earlier, they call this either way it's the right call because what is and isn't incidental is going to be a subjective opinion. That's what makes that one much tougher than the first one in my opinion. I get waiving off the first one from a zero tolerance standpoint.

Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

Not subjective, it is spelled out in the rules.

 

[MtoD]

Sorry I am not a mind reader, the controversial goal being discussed was the 1st one, I guess we moved on to the 2nd one now after losing that argument. The rule is equally clear about contact outside the crease, the player must avoid contact, which he did not. It has nothing to do with the subjectivity of what is deemed incidental contact.

don't need to read minds, just need to read the quoted posts

its okay, reading comprehension is hard.. as you tried to point out.

(you also fail, again, at reading comprehension in this post as the player does not have to avoid contact per the rules. they just need to make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. reading is my hard, my dude.. don't sweat it.)

 

[pcruz]

Its a bad look.

It will be a bad look everywhere it happens, it happens it most cities over the years. f***ing name a city and it has happened once.

f***ing toronto fans chucked waffles at their OWN players. And they here lecturing, f*** off.

And whenever they threw waffles or jerseys on the ice, I was here saying the same things I am now.

Crazy that.

Consistency in one's beliefs regardless of whether it would be a benefit to flip flop.

 

[njdevil26]

Yeah those six people (based on the amount of things thrown on the ice) should definitely be banned from going to a game for some time.

6? Come on buddy… I was there…. There were A LOT of things thrown on the ice.

I don’t even care about that too much. It happens in every city some time or another. What really did disappoint me were the a-holes that were absolutely aiming at Leafs players. I think it was Sandin that got nailed with a full beer. That’s so uncalled for and disgusting.


At the end of the day… the streak is over… and if it had to end, it went down in a blaze of glory. The team played their ass off. Hats off to the Leafs for the work their beat up defense put in.

 

[Forge]

Sorry I am not a mind reader, the controversial goal being discussed was the 1st one, I guess we moved on to the 2nd one now after losing that argument. The rule is equally clear about contact outside the crease, the player must avoid contact, which he did not. It has nothing to do with the subjectivity of what is deemed incidental contact.

You referenced both in your post that i responded about incidental contact and how that was tougher than the first.

You can't run the goalie over while he is getting back into his net, what part of that play is subjective? The interference goal in the crease is a bit more nuanced, but the Leafs have been on both ends of this play several times, so perhaps we have more experience with how this play is called. I've seen goals called back for less.

Whether or not it's incidental.

I actually think that's tougher than the first one

 

[AcerComputer]

don't need to read minds, just need to read the quoted posts

its okay, reading comprehension is hard.. as you tried to point out.

(you also fail, again, at reading comprehension in this post as the player does not have to avoid contact per the rules. they just need to make a reasonable effort to avoid contact. reading is my hard, my dude.. don't sweat it.)

And if you watch any amount of hockey, you know that cutting through the net like that is never deemed to be a reasonable effort to avoid contact. Try watching the sport, before commenting on it.

 

[Knies iT]

Its a bad look.

It will be a bad look everywhere it happens, it happens it most cities over the years. f***ing name a city and it has happened once.

f***ing toronto fans chucked waffles at their OWN players. And they here lecturing, f*** off.

Let's use your own mathematics to break down the degeneracy:

16,514 people there

30ish cans/bottles were thrown

0.0018%

1 waffle thrower

0.00006

NJ fans have a higher degeneracy/60. Bad look no matter how you frame it pal. Hundreds of casuals littered your barn with piss over three textbook illegal plays. Hilariously dumb look.

 

[Forge]

Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

Not subjective, it is spelled out in the rules.

Whether or not me made a reasonable effort to avoid contact is very much subjective as evidenced by the fact that you don't think he did and I do think he did.

 

[NjDevsRR]

And whenever they threw waffles or jerseys on the ice, I was here saying the same things I am now.

Crazy that.

Consistency in one's beliefs regardless of whether it would be a benefit to flip flop.

I never said it wasn’t a bad look. I literally went on Leafs HF and apologized, shit, I was literally hit in the lower level.

But many takes on here acting like this bullshit wouldn’t happen in their arena is laughable.

Let's use your own mathematics to break down the degeneracy:


1 waffle thrower

0.00006

NJ fans have a higher degeneracy/60. Bad look no matter how you frame it pal. Hundreds of casuals littered your barn with piss over three textbook illegal plays. Hilariously dumb look.

Thanks for proving my point

 

[AcerComputer]

You referenced both in your post that i responded about incidental contact and how that was tougher than the first.

They were both incidental contact. Maybe try and form whole sentences that attach together.

 

[MtoD]

And if you watch any amount of hockey, you know that cutting through the net like that is never deemed to be a reasonable effort to avoid contact. Try watching the sport, before commenting on it.

I guess once you fail at telling people they should read better, you just move on to telling them they should watch better? what about listening better??

If you did succeed at reading, you would see that I never stated my opinion on whether the goal should have been allowed or not. Just mostly commented on the continued display of your poor reading comprehension skills.

 

[NjDevsRR]

@Knies iT dont you loser Blue Jay fans love throwing cans onto your field?

Stop with the high horse lecture, you ain’t different at all. All sport cities are the same. Idiot drunk fans will be idiots.

 

[Forge]

They were both incidental contact. Maybe try and form whole sentences that attach together.

Not my fault you can't keep up. Others didn't seem to have issues.

 

[Xirik]

6? Come on buddy… I was there…. There were A LOT of things thrown on the ice.

I don’t even care about that too much. It happens in every city some time or another. What really did disappoint me were the a-holes that were absolutely aiming at Leafs players. I think it was Sandin that got nailed with a full beer. That’s so uncalled for and disgusting.


At the end of the day… the streak is over… and if it had to end, it went down in a blaze of glory. The team played their ass off. Hats off to the Leafs for the work their beat up defense put in.

I suggest reading the rest of the thread.

 

[AcerComputer]

Whether or not me made a reasonable effort to avoid contact is very much subjective as evidenced by the fact that you don't think he did and I do think he did.

Are you a casual fan of the game? It doesn't sound like you have watched enough hockey to know how the rules apply. The goalie has a right to enter back into his net. The NJ players path prevented him from doing so. had he gone the long way round, he would not have made contact with the goalie, thus it is not a reasonable effort to avoid contact when there was a safer route to leave the zone.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Seems like only the first one was iffy. The other two seemed pretty bang on to me.

 

[Forge]

Are you a casual fan of the game? It doesn't sound like you have watched enough hockey to know how the rules apply.

Do you always resort to insulting people when you don't have a leg to stand on in an argument? Seems like it.

Good luck with that.

 

[MtoD]

Let's use your own mathematics to break down the degeneracy:


1 waffle thrower

0.00006

NJ fans have a higher degeneracy/60. Bad look no matter how you frame it pal. Hundreds of casuals littered your barn with piss over three textbook illegal plays. Hilariously dumb look.

hundreds?? probably about 30..

this time next year, Leafs fans will be regaling about that time in New Jersey where their beloved Leafs survived all those two-fisting Devils fans throwing thousands of beer bottles filled with cement at them. Marner already seems like he has PTSD from it..

it's a bad look for those involved, no need to embellish 10-fold..

 

[Forge]

Seems like only the first one was iffy. The other two seemed pretty bang on to me.

Uh oh, be prepared to be called names by this AcerComputer guy.

 

[LemonSauceD]

They should make it so that if fans do this type of crap again the game is automatically forfeited and the away team should get the win.

Or, minus 1 point from a potential 2 points, if the home team wins. It will deter fans from doing something like that again. Chucking full cans of beers and trying to hit the players is criminal battery.

 

[AcerComputer]

Do you always result to insulting people when you don't have a leg to stand on in an argument? Seems like it.

Good luck with that.

The goalie has a right to enter back into his net. The NJ players path prevented him from doing so. Had he gone the long way round, he would not have made contact with the goalie, thus it is not a reasonable effort to avoid contact when there was a safer route to leave the zone. Even if you thought it was a reasonable effort, you have to remember that the goalie must always have the ability to make the save. Anytime there is contact even outside of the crease, you're never gonna get the call for a goal. If you were more than a casual fan you would know that.