On-the-Fly
Registered User
- Feb 6, 2007
- 2,194
- 1,006
By the man with both hands hanging on the net?It's the intent to blow.
Edit. Nope. Not even close to this.
By the man with both hands hanging on the net?It's the intent to blow.
Can't afford any of these guys, or even Bunting, because Dubas signing Matthews for the $15M he wants.
Honestly from my knowlege, you need conclusive to overturn a call. Call was a goal. There was no whistle. Only proof we have of puck crossing the line is after the "whistle" that never was... if it was called a goal, there is no proof that it did not cross or cross the line, so call stands.Any rulebook on goal reviews or is it really just a vague "need conclusive evidence that the puck crossed the line"? I'm genuinely curious.
It's the intent to blow.
You think MLSE is going to let a GM trade their golden boy?Last period with Matthews in a Leafs sweater how we feeling about that?
Colour me shockedRon defending the refs yet again
You think MLSE is going to let a GM trade their golden boy?
That’s just trolling at this pointTime for the Big 4 to step up