How is this 4 of 10 and we don't play again until April 7th?
- gravyface

Leafs last 4 games of the season: Habs, Sens, Habs, Habs

They didn't challenge the Thornton goal, they reviewed it themselves and waived it off.
- burn

No it was waived off immediately.

But they reviewed for the pad push which negated the goal and still called it a good goal.
- burn

And then they reviewed interference. This isn’t Perry Mason

Only ref can call penalty
- Canada Cup

I was only speaking to the potential gluttony of Hab-agony.

And then they reviewed interference. This isn’t Perry Mason
- Canada Cup

The pad push is the interference

Leafs last 4 games of the season: Habs, Sens, Habs, Habs
- Steven_Seagull

To determine if Habs make playoffs

Plan was for Mrs. Wedgie and me to watch the Stanley Tucci thingy after the Leafs game, but she is crashing.

So I gotta ask:

Anyone know how I can stream Bloodsport?
- Atomic Wedgie

I think Roadhouse was on amc last night.

The pad push is the interference
- burn

So? It wasn’t challenged

Leafs last 4 games of the season: Habs, Sens, Habs, Habs
- Steven_Seagull

No, I know. Just seems dumb that we don't play again for that long.

To deter if Habs make playoffs
- Canada Cup

hawt

No, I know. Just seems dumb that we don't play again for that long.
- gravyface

We play Winnipeg 10 times, but have only played them once so far. 2021 scheduling.

I was only speaking to the potential gluttony of Hab-agony.
- The Law

I was about to call a side bar




Or just a bar

So? It wasn’t challenged
- Canada Cup

They reviewed it saw the pad push which is illegal and called it a good goal (it wasn't) and then recinded the call on the challenge because of the pad push.

They didn't review it and then look for something else on the challenge and see something else. They litterally reviewed the goal for pad push, and then Called it off becuase of pad push.

Uh oh .... I sense 'prevent defence' has set it. Spittin' nails time.

Matthews with back to back 4 pts games.
Doesn't happen too often.

He could beat Vaives 54 this season
- Byfuglien Ate Me

Valves wouldn't score 54 in today's improved game

https://lookmovie.io/shows/page/2
- bobbyisno1

Thanks

Thanks
- Atomic Wedgie

You're welcome.

Matthews with back to back 4 pts games.
Doesn't happen too often.
- 21peter

Still think we should at least consider Laine...

They reviewed it saw the pad push which is illegal and called it a good goal (it wasn't) and then recinded the call on the challenge because of the pad push.

They didn't review it and then look for something else on the challenge and see something else. They litterally reviewed the goal for pad push, and then Called it off becuase of pad push.
- burn

Some of you guys are obsessive.

The first review was whether he forced the puck into the net by pushing the goalie in the same way Thornton did a few games ago. (He didn't)

The second review was whether he interfered with the goalie's ability to make the save by interfering with him (He did apparently)

Matthews almost as hot as my boy Haaland
- 21peter

Oh yea Haaland is a phenomenal monster scorer. But he need a better team

34/16/97: relentless stick-checkers.

Some of you guys are obsessive.

The first review was whether he forced the puck into the net by pushing the goalie in the same way Thornton did a few games ago. (He didn't)

The second review was whether he interfered with the goalie's ability to make the save by interfering with him (He did apparently)
- Leafs43

Yes he did, which is why it was called off

Goalie interference because of the pad push.

They reviewed it saw the pad push which is illegal and called it a good goal (it wasn't) and then recinded the call on the challenge because of the pad push.

They didn't review it and then look for something else on the challenge and see something else. They litterally reviewed the goal for pad push, and then Called it off becuase of pad push.
- burn

Think of it as jurisdiction. They had no authority to consider if Andersen was interfered with until Keefe challenged. They looked at the same push to see if the puck went in legally. They determined it did. Then Keefe challenged for interference. They looked at saw he was interfered with and called the goal back.

Some of you guys are obsessive.

The first review was whether he forced the puck into the net by pushing the goalie in the same way Thornton did a few games ago. (He didn't)

The second review was whether he interfered with the goalie's ability to make the save by interfering with him (He did apparently)
- Leafs43

I think what's dumb, is that they're both essentially goaltender interference and either "sub-infraction" should be reviewable at the same time.