Toggle sidebar

GDT: MAPLE LEAFS VS DEVILS! 👏👏🍁 HUGE WEDNESDAY GEZAME

  • 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.
Csonked Out said:
The rule states that if incidental contact happens outside of the crease the goal should count.....was a missed one by the refs
Click to expand...

I understand the frustration, but no. You can't do this:



It was not intentional but it was not incidental either. Murray is entitled to get back into his net there.

Tatar was really fortunate not to get a penalty for that.
Larcos_Unal said:
I always regret looking up Kerfoot stat pages....$3.5M just doesn't get you what it used to back in the day

View attachment 612006
Click to expand...

Maybe he wants to stay in Toronto and is tanking his value in the FA market?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ULF_55 and Leaf Rocket
Why is it always the stone hands getting these chances
Bunting, Hyman(before he developed them) and Mikheyev. These guys get so many chances you’d think they would be a bet to get 30 goals..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jojalu
When you have the puck on your stick three times more than the other guys you might make half the mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cleetus
htpwn said:
I understand the frustration, but no. You can't do this:



It was not intentional but it was not incidental either. Murray is entitled to get back into his net there.

Tatar was really fortunate not to get a penalty for that.


Maybe he wants to stay in Toronto and is tanking his value in the FA market?
Click to expand...

Yeap pretty much what I thought. I went to look up the rulebook too...

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact. When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent. Refer also to Reference Tables – Table 16 – Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations (page 154).

I think it didnt look intentionally thats why a penalty wasnt given either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: htpwn
2 Slick said:
Happy that we don't have Kallgren in net after the New Jersey onslaught.
Click to expand...
…..only positive would be that a penalty ends after they score, otherwise they’d have more goals than we have shots
 
Wonder what’s happening with Andreas Johnsson? Maybe we can get him back cheap next year in a depth role.
 
Murray
1669254014614.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Cleetus and Nhlpowerweek
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom