TGDT: 3/9 Blackhawks @ Lightning 6:30PM CSN/VERSUS

[MassHavoc]

I actually thought Frolik did a good job. Q started with putting him on the 3rd line and moving Johnson up. As the game went along Frolik stepped up to the 2nd.



I'm guessing that's what happens.

Stop reposting my stuff like you have any clue what you are talking about. You don't know nothing or nobody.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Stop reposting my stuff like you have any clue what you are talking about. You don't know nothing or nobody.

All I know is how much he pays for his seats.

 

[supraman]

http://sports.yahoo....Ma?urn=nhl-wp24



Good goal? Really? Stop whining, cause whining ain't going to change shit? Okay, fair enough. But stop whining because we clearly got fucked...yeah, I think not. Feel free to not read this: We got fucked!!!! (in my most whiny voice possible)

Blah blah blah, I was there is was a good goal. So one writer disagrees...BFD. maybe when the league says it was a bum goal I'll give a shit, hell I'll even take notice if Bob McKenzie says it was a no goal. You want to ***** about spin-o-ramas in the shoot ***** about the one against Habby 3-4 years ago when the guy plowed into Habby and interfered with him trying to make the save and it was a good goal. Hell we oughta be used to spin-o-rama by now when we had Savvy as a coach every fucking team thought it'd be cool to do a spin-o-rama against the hawks in front of the guy that practically perfected them.



We are starting sound like fucking nuck fans in here.

 

[supraman]

Supra is incorrect. It was not a valid goal. But as this article suggests the NHL even knows what a sham the Shoot Out is, by not making those victories count in the standings. Which is even worse because the STANDINGS are incorrect when it comes to tie breakers.



The Shoot Out is a joke. It's ALWAYS been a joke. The NHL doesn't give a ****. Not one mention on NHL.com about the questionable goal, rather they say soemthing like Spectacular. Fucking Sham!

No I'm not but that's okay.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

That goal looked pretty unconvincing to me.

Guess all they wanted to give the Hawks was one point, although they (the refs) made it really tough to get to overtime (Hammer DOG PIM).



Am I a ****-tard homer for posting this?

 

[supraman]

That goal looked pretty unconvincing to me.

Guess all they wanted to give the Hawks was one point, although they (the refs) made it really tough to get to overtime (Hammer DOG PIM).



Am I a ****-tard homer for posting this?

On the rules who's motion has to be continuous? It doesn't say. Marty never stops, he slows down and coasts but never stops. The puck does stop but does not at any point travel backwards either. Good goal.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Kubina suspended 3 games for elbowing Bolland.

 

[LordKOTL]

I disagree. He stopped, the puck stopped.... Like Biscuit says the Rule is extremely vague.



And just so everyone knows Pat and Eddie are IDIOTS. they did NOT review that play as it's a NON reviewable call. Only the going over the line is questionable/reviewable.

Exactly. The goal violated the spin-o-rama rule because IT WAS NOT A CONTINUOUS MOTION! He spun, STOPPED, and then shot.



Now, Supra, if you're arguing that the goal was good because the on-ice officals said it was...fine. But if you're arguing that it wasn't a bad call and St. Louis didn't stop and was in continuous motion, In my, and it seems like everyone else's opinion, you and the officails were wrong.



Anyhow, enough heartburn over this. Time to gear up for the caps. Here's hoping that Scott takes one for the team and puts Oven-chicken into the 5th row.



One can dream, can't he?

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Exactly. The goal violated the spin-o-rama rule because IT WAS NOT A CONTINUOUS MOTION! He spun, STOPPED, and then shot.



Now, Supra, if you're arguing that the goal was good because the on-ice officals said it was...fine. But if you're arguing that it wasn't a bad call and St. Louis didn't stop and was in continuous motion, In my, and it seems like everyone else's opinion, you and the officails were wrong.



Anyhow, enough heartburn over this. Time to gear up for the caps. Here's hoping that Scott takes one for the team and puts Oven-chicken into the 5th row.



One can dream, can't he?

Best player in the world.

 

[LordKOTL]

Maybe, but I'm still pissed from his hit on Campbell last year.

 

[Pez68]

I thought Frolik did a good job at center when Bolland went down. He was especially noticable in winning faceoffs. Hopefully Bolland is back soon.

 

[supraman]

Exactly. The goal violated the spin-o-rama rule because IT WAS NOT A CONTINUOUS MOTION! He spun, STOPPED, and then shot.



Now, Supra, if you're arguing that the goal was good because the on-ice officals said it was...fine. But if you're arguing that it wasn't a bad call and St. Louis didn't stop and was in continuous motion, In my, and it seems like everyone else's opinion, you and the officails were wrong.



Anyhow, enough heartburn over this. Time to gear up for the caps. Here's hoping that Scott takes one for the team and puts Oven-chicken into the 5th row.



One can dream, can't he?

He didn't stop he coasted, I just watched it 3 times to make sure and I looked at him, he doesn't stop.

 

[R K]

Kubina suspended 3 games for elbowing Bolland.

And no penalty.





Peel and jovanet should be suspended as well.

 

[Tater]

I thought Frolik did a good job at center when Bolland went down. He was especially noticable in winning faceoffs. Hopefully Bolland is back soon.

I agree here. I didn't see the numbers but he seemed to win most of his draws.

 

[R K]

He didn't stop he coasted, I just watched it 3 times to make sure and I looked at him, he doesn't stop.

wording is vague. The puck definitely stops. So does St Pussy.

 

[R K]

All I know is how much he pays for his seats.

well you asked.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Maybe, but I'm still pissed from his hit on Campbell last year.

Same thing as Chara... Ovechkin didn't mean to hurt Campbell. I know this Chara incident would garner much different reactions had it been Kane or Toews hit. We'd hear nothing about "boys will be boys" "hockey play" or anything like that.



All a part of being a fan of a team.

 

[R K]

Same thing as Chara... Ovechkin didn't mean to hurt Campbell. I know this Chara incident would garner much different reactions had it been Kane or Toews hit. We'd hear nothing about "boys will be boys" "hockey play" or anything like that.



All a part of being a fan of a team.

I believe if like Ovechkin, Chara had a history of being reckless he then might have been suspended. You continue to ignore this on your dumb fucking rant.



I was pissed off at Mitchell for charging Toews but it still was a clean hit,.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

I believe if like Ovechkin, Chara had a history of being reckless he then might have been suspended. You continue to ignore this on your dumb fucking rant.

Not a rant... just saying if it was Kane or Toews instead of Pacioretty I doubt anyone here would be saying "oh it was a hockey play".

 

[R K]

Not a rant... just saying if it was Kane or Toews instead of Pacioretty I doubt anyone here would be saying "oh it was a hockey play".

would such it would be our player. I was pissed at Mitchell, but it was still a clean play.