TGDT: 12/8 Stars @ Blackhawks 7:30PM CSN+

[Larmer83]

Looks like a legit Dallas goal.

Link. Fast-forward to about 1:35 of the highlights. The reverse shot (from behind the glass ice level shows a good angle).

Funny how that worked- it was clearly a goal last night and it's still a goal on this replay.



Good to see the play of Bolland/Bickell/Brouwer that was matched against Ribero/Morrow/Benn. In the previous 7 games the Ribero line had 6 goals with a +6 but last night they were held off the score sheet and a -4. Bolland's line was a +5.

 

[puckjim]

I will say this, I was far from a fan of Scott at the beginning of the year... but I will admit, he seems to be catching on lately and is not really a liability out there. I hope he keeps it up.

He has grown on me, as well.



Like RK said, as long as he's not on the blue line, I loves me some @murdersaurus!

 

[R K]

He didn't have it covered, so not sure what you saw.



And since all this occured during a HAWKS game, it's a completely relevant discussion for a Hawks board.



The only frustrating thing for me is having to show my fan card every time I have a different opinion.

Yes, he had it covered. Neils stick knocked it from under his glove. I'm not sure what you were watching but I was about 20ft away from it. Maybe get some glasses or stop consuming alcohol.



and there is NO WAY you saw it from the replay because the camera angle is from the opposite direction and you'd have to see right through Crawford to see it. So either 200ft away from your seat, or no TV, I'm not sure how you could say he didn't have his glove on it. Which is EXACTLY the same reason the REF did not blow the whistle, because he didn't see his glove!



And I don't give a shit about your fan card. You do what you want. Your opinions, I won't get into what I think of some of them.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

He didn't have it covered, so not sure what you saw.



And since all this occured during a HAWKS game, it's a completely relevant discussion for a Hawks board.



The only frustrating thing for me is having to show my fan card every time I have a different opinion.

If the puck was covered, there would have been a huge reaction by the Hawks because of no freezing of the puck by the officials. The players on the ice would have reacted. Q would have been on the bench furious, and even Pat and Eddie would be forced to do their jobs.



We've all seen reactions from goalies that successfully freeze pucks, and some fore checker comes in to rattle the cage.

 

[puckjim]

Yes, he had it covered. Neils stick knocked it from under his glove. I'm not sure what you were watching but I was about 20ft away from it. Maybe get some glasses or stop consuming alcohol.



and there is NO WAY you saw it from the replay because the camera angle is from the opposite direction and you'd have to see right through Crawford to see it. So either 200ft away from your seat, or no TV, I'm not sure how you could say he didn't have his glove on it.

And I don't give a shit about your fan card. You do what you want. Your opinions, I won't get into what I think of some of them.

My iPad is one foot away from my face.

 

[supraman]

If the puck was covered, there would have been a huge reaction by the Hawks because of no freezing of the puck by the officials. The players on the ice would have reacted. Q would have been on the bench furious, and even Pat and Eddie would be forced to do their jobs.



Next.

Ref didnt blow the whistle or waive it off to say he was in the process of blowing the whistle so goal stands. The seabrook throwing the stick thing. It looked like he lost it because he dove/fell but in this case too suspect give the penalty shot. Think of it this way how many trips are accidental? They get called anyway, hell if the guy steps on your stick and falls you still go to the box, happened to me in beer league, the guy that I "tripped" even apologized to me

 

[R K]

If the puck was covered, there would have been a huge reaction by the Hawks because of no freezing of the puck by the officials. The players on the ice would have reacted. Q would have been on the bench furious, and even Pat and Eddie would be forced to do their jobs.



We've all seen reactions from goalies that successfully freeze pucks, and some fore checker comes in to rattle the cage.

Sorry he had his glove over the puck. The timing of Neil was unreal. Not only did he poke the puck from UNDER his glove, he poked it right in the net.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

The positive from this game is 2 points from a team full of injuries, and they also pull a few points ahead from the log jam that has teams battling 5-12 position with 2 points separating them.

 

[R K]

If the puck was covered, there would have been a huge reaction by the Hawks because of no freezing of the puck by the officials. The players on the ice would have reacted. Q would have been on the bench furious, and even Pat and Eddie would be forced to do their jobs.



We've all seen reactions from goalies that successfully freeze pucks, and some fore checker comes in to rattle the cage.

Sorry he had his glove over the puck. The timing of Neil was unreal. Not only did he poke the puck from UNDER his glove, he poked it right in the net.

 

[R K]

Ref didnt blow the whistle or waive it off to say he was in the process of blowing the whistle so goal stands. The seabrook throwing the stick thing. It looked like he lost it because he dove/fell but in this case too suspect give the penalty shot. Think of it this way how many trips are accidental? They get called anyway, hell if the guy steps on your stick and falls you still go to the box, happened to me in beer league, the guy that I "tripped" even apologized to me

The Ref wasn't in position to see it even had he as he was behind Crawford on the direct opposite side of the ice as I sit. Crawford pulled the puck in with his stick and stuck his glove over at it. At almost the same time Neil came in and poked it from under Crawfords glove directly into the net. HAD the official been on my side of the ice, he'd have blown the whistle. No doubt about it.



Either way it was a legit goal.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Sorry he had his glove over the puck. The timing of Neil was unreal. Not only did he poke the puck from UNDER his glove, he poked it right in the net.

The glove was not flush on the ice. I'm not sure what you're not seeing.

Good goal. I posted the replay. Not sure what evidence you need.

I've been to plenty of games live and thought I saw something I didn't until the replay cleared things up.

IF it was covered, the Hawks would have protested like crazy for the ref to freeze the puck.

 

[R K]

My iPad is one foot away from my face.

Good go Twitter something.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Good go Twitter something.

LOL!

See you guys Saturday.

I'm sure this will come up in some sort of conversation.

 

[R K]

The glove was not flush on the ice. I'm not sure what you're not seeing.

Good goal. I posted the replay. Not sure what evidence you need.

I've been to plenty of games live and thought I saw something I didn't until the replay cleared things up.

IF it was covered, the Hawks would have protested like crazy for the ref to freeze the puck.

That replay doesnt show you shit. You don't even see his glove. LOL!!!



Just like the ref didn't see his glove. It's a shame the camera angle doesn't show it.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

That replay doesnt show you shit. You don't even see his glove. LOL!!!



Just like the ref didn't see his glove. It's a shame the camera angle doesn't show it.

Did you watch the replay I linked?

There's an ice level camera following the action from behind the net.

 

[Ton]

Although I was in the 300 level, it didn't look like Crawford had his glove completely over the puck (I was in 332, perfect angle to see that play, just far away). If he would have had another split second his glove would have touched the ice but from what I saw, Neal poked the puck before Crawford could completely cover it.



When a goalie covers a puck like that and another player jabs at it, there's no way it should squirt free unless the glove isn't completely on the ice. In that case, Neal was just quicker and give him credit, he didn't stop skating -- he played until the whistle was blown.

 

[Larmer83]

If the puck was covered, there would have been a huge reaction by the Hawks because of no freezing of the puck by the officials. The players on the ice would have reacted. Q would have been on the bench furious, and even Pat and Eddie would be forced to do their jobs.



We've all seen reactions from goalies that successfully freeze pucks, and some fore checker comes in to rattle the cage.

As opposed to making a lame ass Hogans Heroes reference joke regarding Klinkhammer's last name. Then the two fucks laugh hysterically at their own joke as if it's funny. Fast forward to 10 years from now and Foley will be wearing oversized glasses, pushing Budweiser, and spelling Hossa's name backwards with the pronunciation.

 

[Rex]

Fine.

What next?

put an end to the annoying ass debate on if it was a goal or not.



and I'd like a blue Pontiac G8

 

[R K]

put an end to the annoying ass debate on if it was a goal or not.



and I'd like a blue Pontiac G8

Actually there's no debate it was definitely a goal. No whistle. Far less plays have had the whistle blown and the REF was out of position to see the play either way.

 

[puckjim]

Actually there's no debate it was definitely a goal. No whistle. Far less plays have had the whistle blown and the REF was out of position to see the play either way.

Agreed. I've even seen the whistle blow when it's clearly NOT covered.



I did like Klinks energy. Exactly how someone making their NHL debut is supposed to play.