GDT: Game 14: New York Rangers vs Columbus Blue Jackets, 7pm ET, MSG

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
The amount of time it took to conspire to call that against us should seriously be investigated.
Dude # 1: "We know it's in because common sense... but we can't clearly see white ice between the puck and goal-line..."

Dude # 2: "But it's clearly in anyway, just look, it's lodged between the goalie's skate and net..."

*10 minutes of overthinking*

Dude # 3: "f*** it this is taking too long, just say there was intent to blow."
 
Hopefully someone in the room said they didn't want that call to make the difference in the game.
 
1980: "We would have flying cars and an inground cargo delivery system that can travel from coast to coast in a fraction of the time and fuel by 2020s"

2023: Ref staring at ipad gif forwarding and rewinding where the view is blocked by himself from 5 minutes ago in time.
 
do you have video of this? you saw the puck in the net before the whistle? Or do you mean you assume it was under his pad? Because the video when Sam was saying you see the puck before the whistle he was wrong and when you actually see the puck is clearly after the whistle. As far as I know it’s always been that you can’t just assume the puck was under his pad if it’s not conclusive you can’t overturn the call on the ice
I was looking at the puck. It was in the net. One ref was signaling no goal but didn’t blow the whistle. Then a second ref came over, whistle at the ready, puck already in — with no whistle until a few seconds later.

You can’t argue “intent” when you’re right there, ready for it, and eventually blow it. That just means “so far so good … and now we’re done.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: SnowblindNYR
Maybe the Rangers should get their heads out of their asses and the won't have to rely on ref calls or non calls.We should be wiping this team all over the ice,but we are playing down to their level.This game is closer than it should be and that's on the Rangers
 
Bad call aside, Rangers are looking analytically pretty shitty.

No high dangers, no expected goals. Just waltzing their way to 5 days off.
 
No more soft euros from western europe. Kakko, Zibanejad, Chytil as nice as he is when healthy have been absolute shit this season
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boris Zubov
do you have video of this? you saw the puck in the net before the whistle? Or do you mean you assume it was under his pad? Because the video when Sam was saying you see the puck before the whistle he was wrong and when you actually see the puck is clearly after the whistle. As far as I know it’s always been that you can’t just assume the puck was under his pad if it’s not conclusive you can’t overturn the call on the ice
That ref never made a call on the ice. The whistle clearly comes from the backside ref. He never waived it off or called it a goal or even looked close to blowing his whistle. He f***ed it up and had make shit up to cover himself.
 
an utterly ridiculous after the fact excuse. they literally never blew the whistle there. if they intended to blow the whistle then they would have blown the whistle.
How else will they manage the game and outcomes? Nyr must lead the league in intent calls against which shouldn't even be allowed. What other sport has whistle intent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ecemleafs
I was looking at the puck. It was in the net. One ref was signaling no goal but didn’t blow the whistle. Then a second ref came over, whistle at the ready, puck already in — with no whistle until a few seconds later.

You can’t argue “intent” when you’re right there, ready for it, and eventually blow it. That just means “so far so good … and now we’re done.”
I don’t like the “intent to blow the whistle” thing either but I’ve seen that called before. That’s not why I would think it’s the right call, from what I saw I don’t think you visibly see the puck in the net until after the whistle. You can assume it was in the net under his skate/pad, but that would be inconclusive and it’s always called that way. On that angle from behind where Sam was talking over it saying it’s in, you clearly don’t see the puck until after the whistle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad