Was Krejci's glove-down legal?

[PB37]

Is anyone mad about the actual game here? It’s an argument about how a rule is applied.

I didn't say they were. 21 pages and 24 hours later, no minds have been changed. Some people think it's a grey area play, some people see a clear toss and violation, others see as bat down. The same people keep coming back and repeating themselves over and over and they're so dug into this issue that they have to be either really salty about this or overly concerned about being right for some f***ed up reason.

 

[Bank Shot]

I didn't say they were. 21 pages and 24 hours later, no minds have been changed. Some people think it's a grey area play, some people see a clear toss and violation, others see as bat down. The same people keep coming back and repeating themselves over and over and they're so dug into this issue that they have to be either really salty about this or overly concerned about being right for some ****ed up reason.

Only a Bruins homer wouldn't view this as a penalty. lol.

It's clear cut.

 

[PB37]

Only a Bruins homer wouldn't view this as a penalty. lol.

It's clear cut.

I see plenty of non Bruins fans in this thread that disagree.

 

[Bank Shot]

I see plenty of non Bruins fans in this thread that disagree.

Are you Jack Edwards? haha.

The first couple of pages are fans unanimously saying it should have been a penalty. Then one or two Don Quixotes came in and started arguing against reality.

 

[Jdavidev]

Wait, penalty? There's no penalty here. It's just a stoppage of play, like playing the puck with a high stick.

It clearly falls under 79.1 which has been posted here several times. The Bruins gained advantage by the puck squirting past the defenseman. Whistle dead. That's all. If Krejci plays the puck at the red line, it's all good. There is no penalty to that.

 

[Beezeral]

Is anyone mad about the actual game here? It’s an argument about how a rule is applied.

It’s also an elementary level physics discussion.

 

[PB37]

Are you Jack Edwards? haha.

The first couple of pages are fans unanimously saying it should have been a penalty. Then one or two Don Quixotes came in and started arguing against reality.

Are you Mr Magoo? Haha.

The first page alone has two non Bruins fans who felt like it wasn't a penalty.

 

[Bank Shot]

Are you Mr Magoo? Haha.

The first page alone has two non Bruins fans who felt like it wasn't a penalty.

2 replies out of 25 thought it wasn't a penalty, and one of those is from Mass.

So 96% percent of replies thought it was a missed call.

You just made your own case worse.

 

[Beezeral]

You mean “dropping it forward”.

I think I need to post the definition of dropping and throwing again for him.

 

[Perrah]

I think I need to post the definition of dropping and throwing again for him.

I dont know why you would waste your time. There are still bruins fans that think Roman Hamrlik dove in the 2011 playoffs when Chris Kelly jabbed him in the throat with the blade of his stick at full speed.

 

[FallsForItEveryYear]

Much in the same way that Buzz Lightyear believed he was flying, you believe Krejci was throwing the puck when in fact he was dropping it with style!

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

I have no horse in this race, but Krejci pretty clearly throws the puck forward to gain an advantage on the d-man. That should be a penalty, I'm not going to go through the rulebook to see if it's exactly covered in there, but there is no way that should be allowed.

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

I don't know why other B's fans can't look at the play objectively.

Picture that being a play by Plekanec in either a leafs or habs jersey and those same defenders would be in here complaining about "Montreal Typical" or "typical favoritism for the leafs".

Krejci definitely got away with one there.

 

[stampedingviking]

Umm the rule states that is how it works

The rule states it's the position of the PUCK. In this case it was in the neutral zone. Easy to see and understand, no?

 

[Beezeral]

I dont know why you would waste your time. There are still bruins fans that think Roman Hamrlik dove in the 2011 playoffs when Chris Kelly jabbed him in the throat with the blade of his stick at full speed.

Because it’s fun watching people who would rather argue against the laws of physics than admit their favorite team caught a break.

 

[BruinsBtn]

Because it’s fun watching people who would rather argue against the laws of physics than admit their favorite team caught a break.

Meh. I'd argue it's such a minor break that it's not worth discussing in a game where Carolina got far bigger breaks (obvious trip and puck over the glass), that it's not worth discussing at all. What we should be discussing is why the Bruins have had the fewest powerplay opportunities in the NHL for a decade.

 

[Perrah]

Because it’s fun watching people who would rather argue against the laws of physics than admit their favorite team caught a break.

Fair enough. Good luck but this is a “special” beast you are fighting.

 

[KCC]

2 replies out of 25 thought it wasn't a penalty, and one of those is from Mass.

So 96% percent of replies thought it was a missed call.

You just made your own case worse.

Exactly. Majority think it is a penalty. It’s clear as crystal it is.

 

[Beezeral]

Meh. I'd argue it's such a minor break that it's not worth discussing in a game where Carolina got far bigger breaks (obvious trip and puck over the glass), that it's not worth discussing at all. What we should be discussing is why the Bruins have had the fewest powerplay opportunities in the NHL for a decade.

case in point. you would rather minimize the impact of the play we are discussing, deflect by trying to argue your team got screwed worse that night, and most hilariously, follow it up by hinting at some long term conspiracy against your team rather then simply admit your team got away with an obvious blown call.

Minor break? lmao. the guy threw the puck past the defenseman, then chased it down and fed a teammate for a goal. But hey, that puck over glass penalty and missed trip cost your team 4 minutes of PP time. In your warped mind, 4 minutes of missed PP time where your team is 22% on the PP had more of an impact on the game then a call that resulted in an actual goal.

This thread is pure fun for me and your contributions have been a main reason. so thank you.

 

[Beezeral]

Fair enough. Good luck but this is a “special” beast you are playing with.

fixed for you. good luck to whatever team you are a fan of unless its a team the Panthers are chasing for that last playoff spot.

 

[Perrah]

fixed for you. good luck to whatever team you are a fan of unless its a team the Panthers are chasing for that last playoff spot.

The habs did their part to help Florida out.

 

[TimmytheTank]

The fact that this has become a 20+ page thread is comical beyond belief.

 

[Lacaar]

They either missed it.

Or they decided it wasn't time for a penalty yet when taking in the context of the game management they're performing.

 

[BruinsBtn]

case in point. you would rather minimize the impact of the play we are discussing, deflect by trying to argue your team got screwed worse that night, and most hilariously, follow it up by hinting at some long term conspiracy against your team rather then simply admit your team got away with an obvious blown call.

Minor break? lmao. the guy threw the puck past the defenseman, then chased it down and fed a teammate for a goal. But hey, that puck over glass penalty and missed trip cost your team 4 minutes of PP time. In your warped mind, 4 minutes of missed PP time where your team is 22% on the PP had more of an impact on the game then a call that resulted in an actual goal.

This thread is pure fun for me and your contributions have been a main reason. so thank you.

All I gave you was stats. Hard facts.

I've never seen so much crying about a minor missed call, you'd think he threw the puck into the net from your description. I can't believe that 40 hours later you're still not over it. Let it go man, you'll feel better.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

And the tears still flow.

I think it is more there are people willing to argue about it on both sides than one side is upset about it.

Also taking the "you mad" approach is quite infantile on your part.