James Mirtle
@mirtle
This is the first time in franchise history the Leafs have 55 points or more after 39 games.

A 116-point pace, their best in franchise history.
12:18 AM · Apr 6, 2021


So, fire Dubas and Keefe?
- Steven_Seagull

Yes and make Babcock GM I believe is the angle. 😆

He blatantly interfered with Lucic being able to get the puck, maybe the issue is your lack of understanding of what interference is. Being fair game to be hit does not allow you to take a penalty on the player.

You are absolutely the RogerRoeper of arguing that refs (frank)ed the leafs. I know you will stay up until 6 am refusing to let this die, full disclosure... I don't really care that much. Have it. 😂
- joel878

Okay what does this even mean? Being fair game to be hit doesn't allow you take a penalty?

“Took best team they ever had and ruined it”
- burn

Yes and make Babcock GM I believe is the angle. 😆
- joel878

Fedorov

Whether he just played it or not, he's not allowed to be interfered with from getting the puck. If he's not hit, he gets the puck. That's a two minute penalty, it's called interference... Having just played the puck does not suddenly make it not a penalty. 🤦🏻‍♂️
- joel878

According to you all hits in the history of nhl is interference.

But someone doesn’t understand interference

Holy (frank). Go to bed.

Do not tell someone they don’t understand when you clearly don’t know what interface is.


What penalty did he commit? You keep saying he was eligible to be hit but that doesn’t mean you are now allowed to commit a penalty.
- burn

Christ man let it go. 😆

The penalty is interference. It's what it's called when you blatantly interfere with another players ability to get to the puck.

Its a fringe call that's open to interpretation, if you just bump him there the ref probably let's it go as he can still bounce past the guy and get to the puck. You drop that player on his complete ass and he has a zero percent chance of getting to a puck of which he had a damn near 100% chance of getting to before the hit occurred. It's a two minute penalty, if the opposition scores you can come out of the box early. 🤷🏻‍♂️

You absolutely don't need to throw an actual tantrum about it, you don't.

Whether he just played it or not, he's not allowed to be interfered with from getting the puck. If he's not hit, he gets the puck. That's a two minute penalty, it's called interference... Having just played the puck does not suddenly make it not a penalty. 🤦🏻‍♂️
- joel878

You are allowed to hit an opposing player if he is in possession or recently in possession of the Puck.

Okay what does this even mean? Being fair game to be hit doesn't allow you take a penalty?
- bobbyisno1

It means that if an opposing player is in a position where he is fair game to be hit, as in he is fair play for you to finish your hit on him.... It doesn't mean you're allowed to take a penalty on that opposing player.

Oh hi there I see you just dished the puck off approximately two seconds ago as I was skating towards you, as such I am allowed to finish my hit and shall elbow you in the face. That's not a thing.

A penalty is a penalty regardless of whether the player is fair game to be hit or not.

According to you all hits in the history of nhl is interference.

But someone doesn’t understand interference
- burn

Noooope. Not what I said, but this is absolutely why you got the RogerRoeper of crying about refs reference. Thanks for the demonstration. 🤣

It means that if an opposing player is in a position where he is fair game to be hit, as in he is fair play for you to finish your hit on him.... It doesn't mean you're allowed to take a penalty on that opposing player.

Oh hi there I see you just dished the puck off approximately two seconds ago as I was skating towards you, as such I am allowed to finish my hit and shall elbow you in the face. That's not a thing.

A penalty is a penalty regardless of whether the player is fair game to be hit or not.
- joel878

There wasn't an elbow, it was a solid hip check.
And you are allowed to separate an opposing player from the Puck.

You are allowed to hit an opposing player if he is in possession or recently in possession of the Puck.
- bobbyisno1

Yes, you are. But if he can still get to a playable puck he is skating towards and about to get to you cannot drop him square on his ass, and completely take away his ability to get to and play that puck.

- Steven_Seagull

was watching game in a restaurant/bar... across the way.

did Tkadyck get benched in the 3rd period?

was watching game in a restaurant/bar... across the way.

did Tkadyck get benched in the 3rd period?
- BorjeFan4Ever

Across what way?

There wasn't an elbow, it was a solid hip check.
And you are allowed to separate an opposing player from the Puck.
- bobbyisno1

Never said there was, it was an example of another penalty someone could take in that scenario that would be a penalty.

Hooking, tripping, spearing, interference, boarding... Pick your favourite and create your own analogy. 🤷🏻‍♂️

It means that if an opposing player is in a position where he is fair game to be hit, as in he is fair play for you to finish your hit on him.... It doesn't mean you're allowed to take a penalty on that opposing player.

Oh hi there I see you just dished the puck off approximately two seconds ago as I was skating towards you, as such I am allowed to finish my hit and shall elbow you in the face. That's not a thing.

A penalty is a penalty regardless of whether the player is fair game to be hit or not.
- joel878

Let me try this one more time.

If I am skating out of my zone, and the puck comes to me, so I chip it off the boards around a defender in front of me, and I proceed to skate forwards after it, the defender may hit me legally for that 1-2 second window following me chipping the puck. They are impeding my progress towards the puck. They are, in your thinking, interfering with me - but they are doing so legally, because I may legally be hit because I played the puck.

If Lucic did not play the puck, then all of your references towards interference are correct. But he did play the puck. That's why we are saying it is not interference.

Never said there was, it was an example of another penalty someone could take in that scenario that would be a penalty.

Hooking, tripping, spearing, interference, boarding... Pick your favourite and create your own analogy. 🤷🏻‍♂️
- joel878

What, he hip checked him, totally legal., Unlike the slew foot that Lucic dished out for Calgary's first goal.

What, he hip checked him, totally legal., Unlike the slew foot that Lucic dished out for Calgary's first goal.
- bobbyisno1

Are you under the impression I'm defending Lucic here... 😂

was watching game in a restaurant/bar... across the way.

did Tkadyck get benched in the 3rd period?
- BorjeFan4Ever

No, he just sucked.

Are you under the impression I'm defending Lucic here... 😂
- joel878

I'm under the impression that you think that that was an actual real honest to goodness penalty.

Let me try this one more time.

If I am skating out of my zone, and the puck comes to me, so I chip it off the boards around a defender in front of me, and I proceed to skate forwards after it, the defender may hit me legally for that 1-2 second window following me chipping the puck. They are impeding my progress towards the puck. They are, in your thinking, interfering with me - but they are doing so legally, because I may legally be hit because I played the puck.

If Lucic did not play the puck, then all of your references towards interference are correct. But he did play the puck. That's why we are saying it is not interference.
- Monkeypunk

And that's where we differ, because if you chip that puck past the defender intentionally to skate passed him and play that puck... And he drops you on your ass as you're going around, that's a penalty. It's a penalty that gets called all the time in this league, you see it when players chip past and the defenceman so much as directs them into the boards sometimes.

A lot of refs call it different ways, but typically when there is a clear infringement on a chip play to the offensive player getting to the puck, it's called. To say it's a clear cut legal play because he just touched the puck just isn't the case.

I could spend all night describing scenarios where a player touches the puck for a fraction of a second and if his progress is impeded in getting to the puck again it's called a penalty.

Noooope. Not what I said, but this is absolutely why you got the RogerRoeper of crying about refs reference. Thanks for the demonstration. 🤣
- joel878

You literally did say exactly that. Nice try.

He was legal to be hit, hence the hit. You keep saying that being legal to be hit doesn’t stop it from being a penalty. The rule book disagrees.

If he’s legal to be hit then a hit isn’t a penalty it’s pretty simple concept.

You literally did say exactly that. Nice try.

He was legal to be hit, hence the hit. You keep saying that being legal to be hit doesn’t stop it from being a penalty. The rule book disagrees.

If he’s legal to be hit then a hit isn’t a penalty it’s pretty simple concept.
- burn

No one said that but you're such a drama queen Burn I can totally see how you came to that conclusion.

And that's where we differ, because if you chip that puck past the defender intentionally to skate passed him and play that puck... And he drops you on your ass as you're going around, that's a penalty. It's a penalty that gets called all the time in this league, you see it when players chip past and the defenceman so much as directs them into the boards sometimes.

A lot of refs call it different ways, but typically when there is a clear infringement on a chip play to the offensive player getting to the puck, it's called. To say it's a clear cut legal play because he just touched the puck just isn't the case.

I could spend all night describing scenarios where a player touches the puck for a fraction of a second and if his progress is impeded in getting to the puck again it's called a penalty.
- joel878

This was my original statement. Due to poor officiating standards, people no longer know what a penalty is.

It might be inconsistently called (I used to see it called more frequently, and it would drive me INSANE), but it is not, and has never been a penalty. If you knee, hold, trip, hook, punch, elbow or slewfoot the guy on their way by that's not a clean hit. But you are entirely legal to hit the guy. Entirely.

This was my original statement. Due to poor officiating standards, people no longer know what a penalty is.

It might be inconsistently called (I used to see it called more frequently, and it would drive me INSANE), but it is not, and has never been a penalty. If you knee, hold, trip, hook, punch, elbow or slewfoot the guy on their way by that's not a clean hit. But you are entirely legal to hit the guy. Entirely.
- Monkeypunk

There are iterations of a clean hit which are penalties, and that's where it becomes muddy.

Hip checks in general often walk that line because it's a bit of a squeeze out hit which occurs when the opposing player is trying to squeeze by to a playable puck.

I find since the focus on offence and putting to death 'clutch and grab' hockey, plays which interfere in offensive progress like that are called more often.

There are facets to the rulebook which are very open to interpretation when push comes to shove, and interference as a penalty is very much one of them. But I'm not surprised when I see it called in an offence friendly league, impeding players from getting to playable pucks is what they're shooting to get rid of and powerplays make for more offence. 🤷🏻‍♂️

man, I should of stayed up last night to watch the third period where the Leafs scored a PP goal after a shorty was scored on them.