- Joined:
- Apr 24, 2010
- Posts:
- 29,059
- Liked Posts:
- 7,249
and if it was the other way around and it was the hawks, I bet you two would be calling it a goal.
thank you for the explaination toronto! theres your ansewer.
What was the reasoning I didn't catch it I'm watching hogs and wolves
If Toronto says they "infer" the stick hit the puck without evidence, boy is that a real slippery slope. I mean, I've seen "infer-able" goals that are under a goaltender's glove past the line that are never called goals because there's no gaps to make anything under the glove visible.
The email stated that there was no way the puck accelerated that way without force from a stick (in a nutshell)
and why are you watching the hog over hawks? give us reports on the hogs!
they are looking at physics and common sense imo
And common sense and physics come into play with the type of play I described. I agreed it was a goal, but I can't say I like the direction of the decision. They should be either be relying on what was seen on the ice (as it always has been) or clear, indisputable evidence to overturn any call.
Hoooray! The only guy who shows heart tonight? Emery. :smh: