GDT: Penguins at Flames. Mar 13 at 7pm MT on SNW

[Unlimited Chequing]

That's what happens when you try and eat rice with a fork

Not today, I'm using a spoon cause I knew I'd need it to shovel while I watched. The plan was there, the execution was not!

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

How was the third line? I missed everything before the last five minutes of the third period

Playing with Wideman opened up their transition game a bit. Amazing what having a puck mover can do.

 

[Johnny GODreau]

That's what happens when you try and eat rice with a fork

 

[LUV Carti*]

Lazar will never play again!

 

[MonyontheMoney]

I miss Stone already

 

[FlamerForLife]

****ing right boys! 10 in a ****ing row!!!!!! I'M SO ****ING PUMPED RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Calculon]

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Hot take: will the Pens ever win another Cup?

 

[Calculon]

 

[Lunatik]

Seems uppity

 

[tmurfin]

 

[Mobiandi]

I wasn't able to watch the game but 10 wins in a row!!

How did we play?

I saw the highlights and it looks like both goalies made some key saves and Gaudreau scored a beauty

 

[BigRangy]

I wasn't able to watch the game but 10 wins in a row!!

How did we play?

I saw the highlights and it looks like both goalies made some key saves and Gaudreau scored a beauty

Really slow start and the Crosby line took advantage of it. But the Flames chipped away and I thought they played a fairly even game for the rest of it. The 3M line and Gio-Dougie were completely overpowered by the Crosby line, but the Monahan line and the 4th line had one of their best games of the season. Elliott made some great saves and got bailed out by his posts a few times, but Fleury made some great ones too. Gaudreau was doing Gaudreau things again, so that was nice.

 

[Lunatik]

I wasn't able to watch the game but 10 wins in a row!!

How did we play?

I saw the highlights and it looks like both goalies made some key saves and Gaudreau scored a beauty

It was one of the best games played by the Flames in a while. It wasn't flawless because the Pens are so good at forcing mistakes but they played very well.

 

[BigRangy]

Sidney Crosby's 5v5 xGF% tonight?

87

 

[Mobiandi]

I'm glad that we were able to hold our own then, and that we kept it close.

We're finally starting to make use of our games at home this season which is another positive

 

[Lunatik]

I'm glad that we were able to hold our own then, and that we kept it close.

We're finally starting to make use of our games at home this season which is another positive

6 games over .500 at home now, 7 games over .500 on the road.

 

[JPeeper]

Please, I am clearly the best and most knowledgeable poster here.

Flames will win because I said so.

You see.

 

[Anglesmith]

Soooo.... anything happen since I left?

 

[Anglesmith]

So on that Crosby goal, everyone seems focused on when Crosby's stick hits his glove etc., but isn't the real issue the fact that Elliott sees the puck fluttering in and then has to fight through Crosby to bring his glove back to catch it? Seems really clear on the overhead cam that there is some resistance to him being able to catch that puck. Given it's in the crease, that's a pretty clear call based on the rule.

Crosby is allowed to hit that puck in, but he's not allowed to impede Elliott's movement within the crease no matter what. It seems that his positioning impeded Elliott's movement of his glove hand between the deflection and the puck going in the net.


On the other hand, who cares?! 10 straight! Can't believe it!

 

[Lunatik]

So on that Crosby goal, everyone seems focused on when Crosby's stick hits his glove etc., but isn't the real issue the fact that Elliott sees the puck fluttering in and then has to fight through Crosby to bring his glove back to catch it? Seems really clear on the overhead cam that there is some resistance to him being able to catch that puck. Given it's in the crease, that's a pretty clear call based on the rule.

Crosby is allowed to hit that puck in, but he's not allowed to impede Elliott's movement within the crease no matter what. It seems that his positioning impeded Elliott's movement of his glove hand between the deflection and the puck going in the net.


On the other hand, who cares?! 10 straight! Can't believe it!

Once the puck is in the crease, incidental contact is allowed in the process of trying to get the puck. I think that should always be a goal.

 

[Anglesmith]

Once the puck is in the crease, incidental contact is allowed in the process of trying to get the puck. I think that should always be a goal.

Not according to the rules. In brief, the rules say goals should be disallowed only if (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. Obviously of these options, (1) is what applies here, not (2).

It then says that the overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

It has some other stipulations, but none of them refer to different rules if the puck is being played. It's pretty black and white for contact in the crease. If the puck is in the crease, a player can go after it, but can't prevent the goalie from going after it, as it appears Crosby did after propelling it towards the net.

 

[Lunatik]

Not according to the rules. In brief, the rules say goals should be disallowed only if (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. Obviously of these options, (1) is what applies here, not (2).

It then says that the overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

It has some other stipulations, but none of them refer to different rules if the puck is being played. It's pretty black and white for contact in the crease. If the puck is in the crease, a player can go after it, but can't prevent the goalie from going after it, as it appears Crosby did after propelling it towards the net.

Even Elliott didn't argue much, so it was obvious even he didn't think it should come back.

 

[Bounces R Way]

I liked that hockey game and I like this hockey team.

 

[Master Bill]

Even Elliott didn't argue much, so it was obvious even he didn't think it should come back.

How do you know he wasn't yapping at the refs though? It all happened real fast and I don't think Elliott had the breath to strongly plead his case to the refs. Looking at Gulutzan's post-game interview, a replay shows an angle where Elliott does appear to argue to the refs using body language.

Even looking at his post-game interview, he did seem unhappy about it, saying "you're not gonna get that called... I mean it's 87. I don't really understand the goalie interference and I'm a goalie. It's always up in the air"