GDT: HFBoards GDT | 11/18/2023 | 12 Games

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
7a3.jpg
 
How is that a goal in NJ when the whistle blew well before it went into the net??? I'm so unbelievably confused.
 
Last game they waive off a Ranger goal because they said they intended to blow the play dead. Tonight they blow the play dead but still award the goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kane One
WTF!!

Shocking by Igor but the ref blew the whistle before it cross the line.

How can they call that a goal if the play was called dead?
 
Nah in a league where "intent to blow the whistle" exists, this goal shouldn't have happened tbh

I know a rule about continuous play exists, but the refs abuse the "intent to blow the whistle" too much for "oh yeah the puck would have gone in without an issue" to be a legitimate argument.
 
Nah in a league where "intent to blow the whistle" exists, this goal shouldn't have happened tbh
They changed the rules explicitly to permit that since it's a continuation of the shot.
Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, "if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown[...]"
 
I can't bother to check, but if someone can find out the rule where the refs can reverse a call and project a goal after they had already blown the whistle, that would be nice. Clearly something like that exists because I don't believe they just made it up.
 
Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, "if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown[...]"
So what about all those goals that have been ruled out because ' the ref was intending to blow the whistle'
 
They changed the rules explicitly to permit that since it's a continuation of the shot.
Show me the alternatives when they disallow a goal due to "intent to blow the whistle" when it's a clear ass goal due to this "continuous play" rule.

Oh wait, that's most of the overturned goals from "intent to whistle"

Literally most among the last few league-wide "intent to blow whistle," sorry.
 
There's a very obvious difference between guys jamming at a puck in a scrum when the whistle has been blown or should have been blown, and a puck trickling in through the pads when somebody stupidly blew the whistle way too quickly.

In fact, the rulebook makes that very distinction.
 
Show me the alternatives when they disallow a goal due to "intent to blow the whistle" when it's a clear ass goal due to this "continuous play" rule.

Oh wait, that's most of the overturned goals from "intent to whistle"
By "continuous play" they mean like what happened here, a shot is taken and the puck keeps going and into the net. They don't mean someone digging at the goalie for a loose puck, those still factor in "intent to blow the whistle". The rule was specifically amended to fix situations exactly like today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrLouniverse
So what about all those goals that have been ruled out because ' the ref was intending to blow the whistle'
The difference is the “continuous play”, and shot unaffected by the whistle part.

Intent to blow the whistle (as annoying as it is), typically happens when a puck should be frozen dead, but players keep whacking at it and it goes in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrLouniverse
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad