a

that is the result 9 times out of 10 when we play the flyers
- dmarsden2988

ftfy

Does anyone else want Simmonds to replace Hartnell on the top line?

this was definitely the key. that said, the goal should have counted.
- hammarby31

goal is very debatable

but in the end the refs typically side on the end of caution if the goalie is bumped into which influences the play with no to little help from the defender, volchenkov didnt bring hartnell down intentionally, they were tangled and hartnell didnt make i clear move to not make contact with the goalie, refs have to make a quick decision and they will normally say no goal unless they feel that the defender shoved the forward into the goalie

Should Streit have tackled Jagr there? I'm not blaming him for the loss. But that's a weak goal on Mason's part. Never should've happened.
- MJL

and 99 times out of 100 that puck doesn't go in. mason had the post covered. but because it's jagr and it's the devils and it's in philly and the game matters and it's tied in a typical 1-1 situation, the puck has eyes and finds the 3" gap and squirms its way in and they lose, meanwhile marty gets a huge break at the other end.

No, but he could have done a better job stick checking have.
- fecondo

Don't disagree. But Jagr one handed that puck.

It was incidental contact on the disallowed goal. Hartnell didn't slam into Brodeur and Volchenkov also made contact with Brodeur.

Still no idea why they called Toronto, as soon as the ref waves it off, Toronto has zero say in the matter.

Still, that non goal shouldn't have mattered. Flyers went 0-6 on the PP, missed a ton of open shots and really didn't get enough traffic in front of Brodeur until it was too late.

It's incidental contact. That goal would count 9 out of 10 times. It's two players tangled up going to the net. Hartnell did not initiate the contact with goaltender. Which is the key.
- MJL

his own momentum carried him right into Brodeur. I'd say that's initiating contact.

Should Streit have tackled Jagr there? I'm not blaming him for the loss. But that's a weak goal on Mason's part. Never should've happened.
- MJL

Not tackle him, maybe tie his stick up... Something. I don't really blame Mason or Streit for the goal, allowing Zidlicky the space to skate around with the puck for what seemed like 20 seconds was the issue I had.

Don't disagree. But Jagr one handed that puck.
- MJL

Because he's jagr. If streit lifts his stick there's no shot for jags at all. Meh it's all just frustrating

goal is very debatable

but in the end the refs typically side on the end of caution if the goalie is bumped into which influences the play with no to little help from the defender, volchenkov didnt bring hartnell down intentionally, they were tangled and hartnell didnt make i clear move to not make contact with the goalie, refs have to make a quick decision and they will normally say no goal unless they feel that the defender shoved the forward into the goalie
- dmarsden2988

if 2 opposition players are tangled going to the net and the goalie gets grazed the goal should count. i've seen countless goals count in situations exactly like that one. if the forward plows into the goalie or hits the defender into the goalie - that's different and clearly shouldn't count. that's not what happened there.

Does anyone else want Simmonds to replace Hartnell on the top line?
- PLindbergh31

I'd just rather clone Simmonds ... save time.

goal is very debatable

but in the end the refs typically side on the end of caution if the goalie is bumped into which influences the play with no to little help from the defender, volchenkov didnt bring hartnell down intentionally, they were tangled and hartnell didnt make i clear move to not make contact with the goalie, refs have to make a quick decision and they will normally say no goal unless they feel that the defender shoved the forward into the goalie
- dmarsden2988

The rule book is clear on disallowing the goal. The Ref made the wrong call. That's hockey. Two players going hard to the net. The key to the whole play is if Hartnell initiated the contact with the Goalie. He did not. And Hartnell absolutely made an effort to not make contact.

and 99 times out of 100 that puck doesn't go in. mason had the post covered. but because it's jagr and it's the devils and it's in philly and the game matters and it's tied in a typical 1-1 situation, the puck has eyes and finds the 3" gap and squirms its way in and they lose, meanwhile marty gets a huge break at the other end.
- hammarby31

This

Oh god I'm furious.

I think we'd be friends, Hammar

The rule book is clear on disallowing the goal. The Ref made the wrong call. That's hockey. Two players going hard to the net. The key to the whole play is if Hartnell initiated the contact with the Goalie. He did not. And Hartnell absolutely made an effort to not make contact.
- MJL

this.

Because he's jagr. If streit lifts his stick there's no shot for jags at all. Meh it's all just frustrating
- fecondo

Jagr has an incredibly strong stick. Not easy to do. Defenseman much bigger and stronger then Streit have trouble with Jagr around the net and with the puck.

let's be honest here, if NJ scored a last minute goal on Mason in the same way that some of us are saying Hartnell scored ... we'd be screaming BLOODY MURDER.

and 99 times out of 100 that puck doesn't go in. mason had the post covered. but because it's jagr and it's the devils and it's in philly and the game matters and it's tied in a typical 1-1 situation, the puck has eyes and finds the 3" gap and squirms its way in and they lose, meanwhile marty gets a huge break at the other end.
- hammarby31

Tight game ......one guy made the stop the other guy let one in....flyers played well enough to win, but that's the type of games we are going to see foe the next month. One little play here, one little play there are going to decide games....for the Flyers the Playoffs have started.

That was the quickest review I ever saw. I doubt Toronto was even on the headset. Refs just did that to appease the Flyers bench. It was no goal because it was a premature whistle.

Guys my favorite part was when these clowns showed FURTHER INEPTITUDE and phoned up to Toronto on a play that is NONREVIEWABLE by rule

his own momentum carried him right into Brodeur. I'd say that's initiating contact.
- FlyerGuy

There was contact due to being tangled up going to the net with Volchenkov. That is incidental contact where the result of the play should stand.

let's be honest here, if NJ scored a last minute goal on Mason in the same way that some of us are saying Hartnell scored ... we'd be screaming BLOODY MURDER.

- FlyerGuy

For sure.

the other night i checked the score on the pens caps game and it was 2-2; i went to turn the game on like 1 minute later and i thought "i bet the pens are up 3-2" and they were....
tonight i looked at the clock and it was 7:30 and i thought "the game is on....i bet the flyers already are down and/or playing poorly"
some things never change. who didn't at least think this kind of start/game/result wasn't at least an 80% likelihood against this team? what's it been about 30 years since we knew how to play hard for 60 minutes?

if 2 opposition players are tangled going to the net and the goalie gets grazed the goal should count. i've seen countless goals count in situations exactly like that one. if the forward plows into the goalie or hits the defender into the goalie - that's different and clearly shouldn't count. that's not what happened there.
- hammarby31

brodeur wasnt grazed though, brodeur was pushed back which "knocked" the puck in

if he was grazed it would be different, but the fact brodeur was moved due to hartnell and volchenkov going into him then the ref made a call that is called pretty often in goals like that

let's be honest here, if NJ scored a last minute goal on Mason in the same way that some of us are saying Hartnell scored ... we'd be screaming BLOODY MURDER.

- FlyerGuy

I agree, but that doesn't matter or change what the call should've been.

Guys my favorite part was when these clowns showed FURTHER INEPTITUDE and phoned up to Toronto on a play that is NONREVIEWABLE by rule
- Giroux_Is_God

I didn't see how the play was reviewable ? The call was goalie interference...your right it's not reviewable...