GDT: LXXI | "Nowhere To Run, Nowhere to Pride" | Oilers vs Sharks | 3.20.23 | 7:30PM | SN1

Should Philip Broberg take a field trip to Bakersfield?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

xoczar99ox

Registered User
Oct 8, 2019
6,064
7,030
You know what I can live with these called back goals but the constant offside after the goals are scored are completely trash.
 

CROTT

Registered User
Aug 25, 2007
1,493
3,069
Edmonton
w
Couture definitely impeded Campbell from getting out to the edge of the crease as it was shot as he was in the crease.

By the way the rules have been called that’s GI as well then.

I don’t think either were, but will they be consistent. Campbell couldn’t get to where he needed to be to see the shot.
You definitely have your Oil coloured glasses on if you think this one is definitely interference, but the Hyman one wasn’t… Both were interference and the right calls were made.
 

GOilers88

#FreeMoustacheRides
Dec 24, 2016
15,127
22,593
At least there was contact that prevented the goalie from moving there.
Honestly I thought the Hyman no goal made far more sense. Hyman was actually in the way of where the puck was going, I thought. Even if it was also weak.

Campbell wasn't impeded at all imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macheteops

Zerotonine

Registered User
Apr 23, 2017
5,275
5,206
Campbell being backed out by officials lol lucky for us for once. Neither goal should of went I'm to begin with
 

nabob

We Love Eu-Gene!!
Aug 3, 2005
35,417
22,610
HF boards
w

You definitely have your Oil coloured glasses on if you think this one is definitely interference, but the Hyman one wasn’t…
There was actual contact with the goalie on this play. Major difference.

Reimer was able to make the save with zero contact with Hyman.

Both are weak AF IMO, it at least they are consistent
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad