I did not enjoy watching that game
- senstroll

Not overly stressed that they had a bit of a stinker. A few observations:

* Good to see goalies coming back
* Benn ok but a significant downgrade (he does need games now and then)
* Gio is going to need to some days off here and there pretty soon
* Do they see McAnn in the lineup ahead of other guys not called up or is this a bit of showcasing another depth trade chip?

also that kick no goal should count

also that kick no goal should count
- senstroll

Meh.

Meh.
- AdamFrench

a player kicking the puck up to his stick (or trying to) happens all the time in a game.
it then deflects off another player on the other team.

whats the reason for no allowing it?

a player kicking the puck up to his stick (or trying to) happens all the time in a game.
it then deflects off another player on the other team.

whats the reason for no allowing it?
- senstroll

I agree.

a player kicking the puck up to his stick (or trying to) happens all the time in a game.
it then deflects off another player on the other team.

whats the reason for no allowing it?
- senstroll

Because it only went in the net because it was propelled forward with a distinct kicking motion? They called a goal against New Jersey off against us for that same reason. It was the right call then, and it was the right call last night. That said, I was shocked they made it both times since "kicking motion" is tied with "goalie interference" for the most inconsistently called rule in hockey.

a player kicking the puck up to his stick (or trying to) happens all the time in a game.
it then deflects off another player on the other team.

whats the reason for no allowing it?
- senstroll

The NHL

Because it only went in the net because it was propelled forward with a distinct kicking motion? They called a goal against New Jersey off against us for that same reason. It was the right call then, and it was the right call last night. That said, I was shocked they made it both times since "kicking motion" is tied with "goalie interference" for the most inconsistently called rule in hockey.
- Monkeypunk

it wouldnt have went in if the det player didnt touch it.

I get that it was called the same way before, i am not disputing that they made the right/wrong call. I am just saying in an instance like that...those goals should be allowed

Or.

She's with him on his Island since Elvis never actually died.

Right?

- Scabeh

Playing tennis with Bruce Lee and Jim Morrison.

it wouldnt have went in if the det player didnt touch it.

I get that it was called the same way before, i am not disputing that they made the right/wrong call. I am just saying in an instance like that...those goals should be allowed
- senstroll

Because they don't want guys kicking away at pucks in the crease, because it's dangerous.

And they don't want to have referees make a judgement call about whether or not there was intent. Make it black and white - guys can whine all they want, but in the end, the refs made the correct call.

Because they don't want guys kicking away at pucks in the crease, because it's dangerous.

And they don't want to have referees make a judgement call about whether or not there was intent. Make it black and white - guys can whine all they want, but in the end, the refs made the correct call.
- Atomic Wedgie

I also agree.

Because they don't want guys kicking away at pucks in the crease, because it's dangerous.

And they don't want to have referees make a judgement call about whether or not there was intent. Make it black and white - guys can whine all they want, but in the end, the refs made the correct call.
- Atomic Wedgie

but if he kicked it up to his own stick and scored it would count. that rule doesnt stop kicking the puck

to me its easier and black and white if you say if the puck goes in off your own player into your own net, it counts

Because they don't want guys kicking away at pucks in the crease, because it's dangerous.

And they don't want to have referees make a judgement call about whether or not there was intent. Make it black and white - guys can whine all they want, but in the end, the refs made the correct call.
- Atomic Wedgie

Makes sense, but it also doesn’t stop a guy from kicking away in the crease and then at last second touch it with his stick before crossing the line.

They will say it’s a skilled play that he was able to get his stick on it and the last second.

Not overly stressed that they had a bit of a stinker. A few observations:

* Good to see goalies coming back
* Benn ok but a significant downgrade (he does need games now and then)
* Gio is going to need to some days off here and there pretty soon
* Do they see McAnn in the lineup ahead of other guys not called up or is this a bit of showcasing another depth trade chip?
- Canada Cup

Definitely good to see the goalies both playing well.

I agree that Benn was noticeably poor yesterday - which is really bad when you consider how bad most of the team around him was. When you standout as the worst player amongst guys who look like they didn't even want to be there?

Gio was a close second to Benn in yesterday's game, so I agree that he could probably use a maintenance day. Maybe - at the very least - give him the occasional B2B game off.

My understanding with McMann was that he had played his way onto the team with his play in the AHL - he was deserving. Honestly there's nothing about him that's really going to scream trade market - he's 26 and just played his first NHL game. You could call him a late bloomer, but he'd have to play his ass off for at least 40-50 games with excellent results to move that needle.


I mean Bunting was a late bloomer - put up 10 goals in 21 games with the Coyotes and they apparently didn't even make him an offer to keep him - and he would have been close to a league minimum guy for them. So I would think that a guy like McMann, who is in that same boat, would have to put up better numbers than Bunting (who cleared waivers 4 times previously, too) to be considered a trade chip.

Makes sense, but it also doesn’t stop a guy from kicking away in the crease and then at last second touch it with his stick before crossing the line.

They will say it’s a skilled play that he was able to get his stick on it and the last second.
- bryant

Like most things in life, there is no perfect solution, so let’s just go with the best one.

Let's do a reverse hunger strike. For every day the result isn't corrected, we eat a pound of wings.
- Zezel

This could be dangerous. But I like it!

Definitely good to see the goalies both playing well.

I agree that Benn was noticeably poor yesterday - which is really bad when you consider how bad most of the team around him was. When you standout as the worst player amongst guys who look like they didn't even want to be there?

Gio was a close second to Benn in yesterday's game, so I agree that he could probably use a maintenance day. Maybe - at the very least - give him the occasional B2B game off.

My understanding with McMann was that he had played his way onto the team with his play in the AHL - he was deserving. Honestly there's nothing about him that's really going to scream trade market - he's 26 and just played his first NHL game. You could call him a late bloomer, but he'd have to play his ass off for at least 40-50 games with excellent results to move that needle.


I mean Bunting was a late bloomer - put up 10 goals in 21 games with the Coyotes and they apparently didn't even make him an offer to keep him - and he would have been close to a league minimum guy for them. So I would think that a guy like McMann, who is in that same boat, would have to put up better numbers than Bunting (who cleared waivers 4 times previously, too) to be considered a trade chip.
- Monkeypunk

But I guarantee that if McMann had to clear waivers, he would be snapped up right away.

Because Toronto.

it wouldnt have went in if the det player didnt touch it.

I get that it was called the same way before, i am not disputing that they made the right/wrong call. I am just saying in an instance like that...those goals should be allowed
- senstroll

I see both sides of this argument - we want more scoring, but goalies have become so good that you need to get guys in front of the net and guys crashing the net to create more opportunities - so why not also allow kicked in goals?

While I see that side of the argument, I just bristle at it. I'm a traditionalist about hockey in some ways - there are changes I didn't mind and still don't - like the removal of the 2-line pass off-side, and there are changes I think are dumb - like the automatic penalty for puck-over-glass or the trapezoid - but I personally feel that hockey goals should be scored with the stick, and if the stick propelling the puck towards the net wasn't the impetus for the puck entering the net, then it shouldn't count.

The argument gets into a whole slippery slope - if you allow kicking, what about heading the puck in? What about elbowing the puck in? What about just allowing hands? And while it sounds preposterous, the idea of allowing a puck to be kicked in - just 40 years ago - was a ludicrous idea, and now there are a lot of people saying, "Just let them kick it in."

But I guarantee that if McMann had to clear waivers, he would be snapped up right away.

Because Toronto.
- Atomic Wedgie

Well. Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg are still in the league, aren't they?

But I guarantee that if McMann had to clear waivers, he would be snapped up right away.

Because Toronto.
- Atomic Wedgie

By Arizona to force the Matthews trade

I see both sides of this argument - we want more scoring, but goalies have become so good that you need to get guys in front of the net and guys crashing the net to create more opportunities - so why not also allow kicked in goals?

While I see that side of the argument, I just bristle at it. I'm a traditionalist about hockey in some ways - there are changes I didn't mind and still don't - like the removal of the 2-line pass off-side, and there are changes I think are dumb - like the automatic penalty for puck-over-glass or the trapezoid - but I personally feel that hockey goals should be scored with the stick, and if the stick propelling the puck towards the net wasn't the impetus for the puck entering the net, then it shouldn't count.

The argument gets into a whole slippery slope - if you allow kicking, what about heading the puck in? What about elbowing the puck in? What about just allowing hands? And while it sounds preposterous, the idea of allowing a puck to be kicked in - just 40 years ago - was a ludicrous idea, and now there are a lot of people saying, "Just let them kick it in."
- Monkeypunk

there is no rule against kicking, players can kick the puck all they want.

Bobby Mcmann has some potential

Bobby Mcmann has some potential
- Santo_44

I don't know, man. So far every single goal he's scored has been disallowed.

Definitely good to see the goalies both playing well.

I agree that Benn was noticeably poor yesterday - which is really bad when you consider how bad most of the team around him was. When you standout as the worst player amongst guys who look like they didn't even want to be there?

Gio was a close second to Benn in yesterday's game, so I agree that he could probably use a maintenance day. Maybe - at the very least - give him the occasional B2B game off.

My understanding with McMann was that he had played his way onto the team with his play in the AHL - he was deserving. Honestly there's nothing about him that's really going to scream trade market - he's 26 and just played his first NHL game. You could call him a late bloomer, but he'd have to play his ass off for at least 40-50 games with excellent results to move that needle.


I mean Bunting was a late bloomer - put up 10 goals in 21 games with the Coyotes and they apparently didn't even make him an offer to keep him - and he would have been close to a league minimum guy for them. So I would think that a guy like McMann, who is in that same boat, would have to put up better numbers than Bunting (who cleared waivers 4 times previously, too) to be considered a trade chip.
- Monkeypunk

I like that they reward guys like McMann with a few games. I don’t want to overstate the trade chip thing. He might just be one more guy on a list of Marlies and seeing him in a couple of games might make him a bit more real if they’re adding a guy.

Speaking of Bunting, maybe last night was just an off night like a bunch of guys had off nights or maybe he’s a guy who needs two stars on his line to be effective. I have my eyes on him.

I don't know, man. So far every single goal he's scored has been disallowed.
- Monkeypunk

I hope they kept the puck anyway