Just passed the TBTF and felt like flipping them off.

you can sum up last night's game in three words... don van massengill.

nhl must have a set aside for referees with special needs.

I've seen that high-sticking call on a shot follow through called many times now. I don't understand why the officials don't get that one right. It's not a judgement call unless you think the follow through was exaggerated for the purpose of hiting the other guy with the stick. Oh well, that's hockey and we fans just have to deal with it just like the players and coaches I guess.

I've seen that high-sticking call on a shot follow through called many times now. I don't understand why the officials don't get that one right. It's not a judgement call unless you think the follow through was exaggerated for the purpose of hiting the other guy with the stick. Oh well, that's hockey and we fans just have to deal with it just like the players and coaches I guess.
- Glen Miller

seen it happen many times in the neutral zone and defensive zone, so maybe shot means an actual shot on goal or attempt on goal

there were questionable calls on both sides so the whole thought that the refs helped decide the game is bs, one team capitalized the other didn't

You missed the part where that doesn't matter and they say ANY CONTACT above the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.
- jaygeeforty

You missed the part where that is in reference to a wild swing at the puck....

"A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly."

Grammar would indicate that "any contact to an opponent..." follows the "wild wing at a bouncing puck" action. Once again - not just my thoughts. Boucher's and the TV analysts'.

I've seen that high-sticking call on a shot follow through called many times now. I don't understand why the officials don't get that one right. It's not a judgement call unless you think the follow through was exaggerated for the purpose of hiting the other guy with the stick. Oh well, that's hockey and we fans just have to deal with it just like the players and coaches I guess.
- Glen Miller

Cheers to that, Glen.

seen it happen many times in the neutral zone and defensive zone, so maybe shot means an actual shot on goal or attempt on goal

there were questionable calls on both sides so the whole thought that the refs helped decide the game is bs, one team capitalized the other didn't
- dmarsden2988

As said, questionable calls on both sides, and the Lightning missed their chances. However, to be given a lengthy 5-on-3 and then another PP on three calls that shouldn't have been made is pretty iffy. Considering the point of the game that this all transpired, it's foolish to say that it didn't have any impact. I'm not one to blame the refs, but not one of those calls should have been made.

As said, questionable calls on both sides, and the Lightning missed their chances. However, to be given a lengthy 5-on-3 and then another PP on three calls that shouldn't have been made is pretty iffy. Considering the point of the game that this all transpired, it's foolish to say that it didn't have any impact. I'm not one to blame the refs, but not one of those calls should have been made.
- Michael_Stuart

Game time tmow moved to 7 p.m. I guess Sundays game is still a possibility of a cancellation.

The greatest thing about this season is.... Crapitals are in last place!

You missed the part where that is in reference to a wild swing at the puck....

"A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly."

Grammar would indicate that "any contact to an opponent..." follows the "wild wing at a bouncing puck" action. Once again - not just my thoughts. Boucher's and the TV analysts'.
- Michael_Stuart

I think you misinterpreted the rule by thinking it was a continuation, where as the "and" indicates, it's it's own part of the statement, it indicates that yes, "A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through" AND "any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly."

ANY CONTACT does not leave ANY room for misinterpretation.

I've seen that high-sticking call on a shot follow through called many times now. I don't understand why the officials don't get that one right. It's not a judgement call unless you think the follow through was exaggerated for the purpose of hiting the other guy with the stick. Oh well, that's hockey and we fans just have to deal with it just like the players and coaches I guess.
- Glen Miller

Because they're phuckin idiots.

You can see by the wording in their own rule book, it leaves things open to interpretation or misinterpretation....it just depends which 2 eggplants have the orange stripe on their jersey.

I think you misinterpreted the rule by thinking it was a continuation, where as the "and" indicates, it's it's own part of the statement, it indicates that yes, "A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through" AND "any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly."

ANY CONTACT does not leave ANY room for misinterpretation.
- jaygeeforty

It's saying that a wild swing is not considered normal follow through and any contact to an opponent above the shoulder (in that circumstance, as it's part of the same thought)....etc.

Enjoy this.

http://sports.yahoo.com/b...1743543--nhl.html#more-id

Saw the same 4 things.

1. Bad call on St. Louis.
2. Everyone missed the icing.
3. Zajac gets hit in the visor with a high stick.
4. Halls leg starts to move and he and Zajac's legs get tangled.

Saw the same 4 things.

1. Bad call on St. Louis.
2. Everyone missed the icing.
3. Zajac gets hit in the visor with a high stick.

4. Halls leg starts to move and he and Zajac's legs get tangled.
- jaygeeforty

bad call on barch
not an icing linesman ruled that the Tampa player coul have played/got to puck near center ice
under the visor of zajac

bad call on barch
not an icing linesman ruled that the Tampa player coul have played/got to puck near center ice
under the visor of zajac
- dmarsden2988

Under the visor on a follow through of a shooting motion. To quote Guy Boucher - "I saw no penalties. I'll go watch it another twenty times, but I saw no penalties."

bad call on barch
not an icing linesman ruled that the Tampa player coul have played/got to puck near center ice
under the visor of zajac
- dmarsden2988

Missed/bad calls happen. That's not the issue here. The issue is that three were made together at such a pivotal point of the game.

I said several times over the summer and fall, on Hockey Buzz, that Lindback, with regular minutes, will be elite. Looks like he's earning his keep. I wish him all the success in the world. Great kid. Take care of him Bolts.

I said several times over the summer and fall, on Hockey Buzz, that Lindback, with regular minutes, will be elite. Looks like he's earning his keep. I wish him all the success in the world. Great kid. Take care of him Bolts.
- R4Z0R

Thanks for reading; I hope you're right!

Thanks for reading; I hope you're right!
- Michael_Stuart

Its safe to say the Helenius experiment is on life support in Syracuse . A good goalie in Europe yes, North America....Not so much . Perhaps a throw away trade to the guy that drafted him, in THE FIRST FREAKING ROUND .

Probably best for the team that the Bruins game got postponed.
The question now is though, does Garon still get on tomorrow, or are we rolling with Lindy?

Probably best for the team that the Bruins game got postponed.
The question now is though, does Garon still get on tomorrow, or are we rolling with Lindy?
- norbs

I think you roll with Lindy, but that's just my thoughts.

I think you roll with Lindy, but that's just my thoughts.
- Michael_Stuart

Fair enough. I agree in the sense that Anders has been stellar, I just don't think you want to leave Garon out in the cold for too long.

Shame the bruins game got cancelled, now I won't have anything to do tonight. The snow's pretty bad here in connecticut, and I'm basically stuck in my dorm as my car (and the whole parking lot) is under snow

Maybe if the roads are better I'll be able to drive down to MSG tomorrow. Hopefully.

Probably best for the team that the Bruins game got postponed.
The question now is though, does Garon still get on tomorrow, or are we rolling with Lindy?
- norbs

Why wait to postpone the game everyone knew they were getting 30" of snow and there would be a state of emergency Thursday when the Lightning was only 6 miles away from MSG. Instead they travel to Boston enjoy a blizzard and know have to travel back to NY. I know they would like to play the game but a little thinking by the NHL and Boston about their expectations of being able to play the game would have made sense.

Good bet they play it on April 20