doublechili
For all intensive purposes, your nuts
- Apr 11, 2006
- 18,435
- 14,739
The 5 minute Toronto review disagrees.This is easy goaltender interference
What This Means for You:
Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.
In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord ServerThe 5 minute Toronto review disagrees.This is easy goaltender interference
It's not the goalie being in his crease, it's the attacker encroaching on it. Important difference.The goalie WAS IN HIS CREASE...it doesn't matter who initiated contact, EVEN IF IT'S INCIDENTAL....which it was...THE GOALIE...WAS....IN...HIS....CREASE...
Can't spell it out for you much easier than that bud,
I look at that photo and I see skate contact on the line, which per my understanding would be within the crease. And Palmeri's momentum was already taking him into the crease under his own power.Incorrect. His butt was in the crease because Merzlikens clicked his skates
View attachment 999101
Is where first contact occurs. Palmieri is outside the crease, as is his ass
The skate contact causes Palmieri to go offbalance forcing his ass to slightly enter the crease.
Merzlikins pushes Palmieri when Palmieri is already outside of the crease instead of getting set after the initial contact which occurred inside the crease.
Incorrect. His butt was in the crease because Merzlikens clicked his skates
View attachment 999101
Is where first contact occurs. Palmieri is outside the crease, as is his ass
The skate contact causes Palmieri to go offbalance forcing his ass to slightly enter the crease.
His skate is definitely not in the creaseSo Merzlkin's click Palmierie's skates, but Merzlikins is in the crease....per your picture.....explain to me how the click of skates happens if Palmierie doesn't enter the crease....
Yes, I think an NHL goalie could reset in 0.8 seconds after extremely mild contact. Do you not?Ah, got it....so contact happens, an in that .8 seconds between contact and goal is scored, you think somehow he should be able to reset?
Yes, I think an NHL goalie could reset in 0.8 seconds after extremely mild contact. Do you not?
His skate is definitely not in the crease
Yes, I think an NHL goalie could reset in 0.8 seconds after extremely mild contact. Do you not?
something something motivated reasoningI, for one, generally do not. I would actually trust the referees who make these kinds of judgments as well, which you can feel free to not if you wish, as is your right.
If your starting goalie is unable to get set in 0.8 seconds after a tiny bump, I would suggest that he is not an NHL caliber goalie.I, for one, generally do not. I would actually trust the referees who make these kinds of judgments as well, which you can feel free to not if you wish, as is your right.
By that standard, hon, I don't think there's ever been an NHL caliber goalie at any time in the history of the universe.If your starting goalie is unable to get set in 0.8 seconds after a tiny bump, I would suggest that he is not an NHL caliber goalie.
If your starting goalie is unable to get set in 0.8 seconds after a tiny bump, I would suggest that he is not an NHL caliber goalie.
Which, in fairness, Elvis is not.
If he could read, he’d be very upsetFor the record:
69.3.2 - “If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.”
(emphasis mine)
There’s no loophole here. It has already been affirmed by opposing counsel that contact occurred inside the goal crease. Counsel would have it that the goaltender’s initiation of said contact invalidates the application of Rule 69.3. However, counsel appears not to have read the rule in its entirety, as it specifically validates the decision to disallow any goal scored under these circumstances.
Past this point, the rest of the argument crumbles as it is premised upon an incomplete reading, and therefore an inappropriate application, of rule 69.
I rest my case.
Good thing no one cares what fan you’re a team ofYeah, as a Penguins fan who does not have much love for either of these teams, that is a horseshit call, f***ing embarrassing.
With respect hon, if Elvis had time to reach out and push Palmieri and even STILL almost get set for the shot, he had time to get set if not for wasting it on pushing a guy who had already exited the crease.By that standard, hon, I don't think there's ever been an NHL caliber goalie at any time in the history of the universe.
Yes, I think an NHL goalie could reset in 0.8 seconds after extremely mild contact. Do you not?
Palmeri didn't start to exit the crease until Elvis made his initial shove with the blocker; you're fixating on the followup with the catcher, which happened within fractions of a second. Try watching it in realtime.With respect hon, if Elvis had time to reach out and push Palmieri and even STILL almost get set for the shot, he had time to get set if not for wasting it on pushing a guy who had already exited the crease.
With respect hon, if Elvis had time to reach out and push Palmieri and even STILL almost get set for the shot, he had time to get set if not for wasting it on pushing a guy who had already exited the crease.
Why would that be relevant since that wasn't the time frame he had?How about 0.3 seconds? Is that enough time to reset?