GDT: Leafs @ Devils, 11/23 7 pm Time To Set A Record

[SterioDesign]

Just now, MB3 said:

the fact that these two sentences are in the same post has my head spinning lol. you talk out of the both sides of your mouth frequently but this is next level lol. 

Are you honestly telling me that you didn't pick up on the very obvious and heavy sarcastic tone of the last sentence?

 

[Lateralous]

5 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

 

A penalty is issued when an attacking skater makes contact with the goaltender, impeding, limiting or altogether eliminating his ability to protect the net and stop the puck.

On the first goal... this happened... There was indeniably contact with the goalie and he couldnt slide his pad like he would of normally. Ruff tried to make the argument that it deflected on our player? Not sure why cause that's not changing anything to the fact that there was contact in the crease and it limited the ability to move in his crease. 

 

I don't agree with this.   It never looked like his leg got jammed trying to stretch for that save.   Puck was going wide of the pad and hit Bastian in the skate and went in.   

[Devil Dan 56]

I’m really liking Haula more and more. 

[hystyk28]

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." The way they kept at it is way more important than the W. 

Edited November 24, 2022 by hystyk28

[mfitz804]

Just now, Lateralous said:

I don't agree with this.   It never looked like his leg got jammed trying to stretch for that save.   Puck was going wide of the pad and hit Bastian in the skate and went in.   

Correct. Just before the save, it did. But it was free and he extended it trying to make the save but could not because of the skate deflection. 

[MB3]

1 minute ago, SterioDesign said:

Are you honestly telling me that you didn't pick up on the very obvious and heavy sarcastic tone of the last sentence?

 

Of course I did. That's why it's hysterical that you open a post explaining to everyone *why* people are mad, and then conclude the post making fun of those same people. 

[mfitz804]

1 minute ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

I’m really liking Haula more and more. 

Classy move by him to get out there and try to stop it. And brave, possibly stupid, because there was no way it would work lol. 

[Devil Dan 56]

Also wanted to take a second to applaud Vanecek for being absolutely unbelievable after those 2 quick goals against. He’s keeping the team in it and that’s all you can ask for 

[Dillon]

Well the streak is over but the Devils went down fighting right to the end. Losing the way they did was like Ken Keltner robbing Dimaggio in the field twice to end his 56 game hitting streak. I can't wait till the next game.

 

 

 

[Devil Dan 56]

1 minute ago, mfitz804 said:

Classy move by him to get out there and try to stop it. And brave, possibly stupid, because there was no way it would work lol. 

Just our luck, losing our top face off guy due to a beer to the dome. 

[mfitz804]

Just now, Devil Dan 56 said:

Also wanted to take a second to applaud Vanecek for being absolutely unbelievable after those 2 quick goals against. He’s keeping the team in it and that’s all you can ask for 

Can’t fault him on either goal, really. Awful turnovers and coverage by Severson/Smith, and uncharacteristically, by Hamilton and Siegenthaler. 

[jagknife]

We’re all missing the point, @Colorado Rockies 1976 used a partial purple bar, not a solid one, to start this thread.

it’s his fault.

Boo this man!

[SterioDesign]

Just now, Lateralous said:

I don't agree with this.   It never looked like his leg got jammed trying to stretch for that save.   Puck was going wide of the pad and hit Bastian in the skate and went in.   

It's possible too, that one could have gone either way and i would have been fine with it. But by it not going our way, i certainly don't see it as we got fvcked over.

The problem is that it was called no-goal right away. Then for it to be overturned, it would have required an undeniable proof that there was no contact and that he was not limited in his ability. And that's the part where its arguable and where everyone and their biases will see what they want to see. And with the contact 100% made, it just couldn't be overturn cause there's an argument to be made that he was limited

[mfitz804]

Just now, SterioDesign said:

It's possible too, that one could have gone either way and i would have been fine with it. But by it not going our way, i certainly don't see it as we got fvcked over.

The problem is that it was called no-goal right away. Then for it to be overturned, it would have required an undeniable proof that there was no contact and that he was not limited in his ability. And that's the part where its arguable and where everyone and their biases will see what they want to see. And with the contact 100% made, it just couldn't be overturn cause there's an argument to be made that he was limited

The contact wasn’t in question. Whether he was limited, that’s a judgment call and it went against us. You know I hate instant replay, but if you are going to have it, at least make the right call after seeing the replay. I can’t see how he was impeded form making that save by that contact. 

[mfitz804]

2 minutes ago, jagknife said:

We’re all missing the point, @Colorado Rockies 1976 used a partial purple bar, not a solid one, to start this thread.

it’s his fault.

Boo this man!

It was like the overdone, corporate version of the real purple bar. 

[SterioDesign]

5 minutes ago, MB3 said:

Of course I did. That's why it's hysterical that you open a post explaining to everyone *why* people are mad, and then conclude the post making fun of those same people. 

The first part of my post was specific to the first non-goal. Which according to the rulebook, is a no-goal. But we often see go either way. I said its frustrating that its inconsistently called, but its not like we were fvcked over, just didnt go our way this time.

I then explained how the 2 next goals were indeed no-goals based on the rulebook, its black on white. And then "mocked" people claiming we were officially robbed of 3 goals.

Thank you

 

[Lateralous]

3 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

It's possible too, that one could have gone either way and i would have been fine with it. But by it not going our way, i certainly don't see it as we got fvcked over.

The problem is that it was called no-goal right away. Then for it to be overturned, it would have required an undeniable proof that there was no contact and that he was not limited in his ability. And that's the part where its arguable and where everyone and their biases will see what they want to see. And with the contact 100% made, it just couldn't be overturn cause there's an argument to be made that he was limited

Wasn't that initial call made by the ref in the corner along the goal line?   I don't see how he could have possibly had the right angle to see that.  Whatever they saw on the overhead should immediately overrule it.   Also, didnt they say the call was "confirmed"   

  

[Lateralous]

2 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

The first part of my post was specific to the first non-goal. Which according to the rulebook, is a no-goal. But we often see go either way. I said its frustrating that its inconsistently called, but its not like we were fvcked over, just didnt go our way this time.

I then explained how the 2 next goals were indeed no-goals based on the rulebook, its black on white. And then "mocked" people claiming we were officially robbed of 3 goals.

Thank you

 

Wait, im losing track here.  How is the second goal black and white?  Wasn't the issue that the refs "determined" it was more than incidental contact (which it wasnt)?    Otherwise that's a goal.   

[SterioDesign]

5 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

The contact wasn’t in question. Whether he was limited, that’s a judgment call and it went against us. You know I hate instant replay, but if you are going to have it, at least make the right call after seeing the replay. I can’t see how he was impeded form making that save by that contact. 

Well this is the best angle.

Without Bastian's skate being there, he would have slide across in one motion/push.

But we really see in this case that Bastian's was stopping him and at the second Bastian's skate/weight was off, then Murray's pad finally slide all the way. It was certainly holding it. You see how his leg does sort of spring when the weight is gone

 

 

 

[Satans Hockey]

36 minutes ago, NJDevils1214 said:

The first one was most absurd. I still don't get how you wave that one off as interference. There was even a leaf there pushing Bastian to go through the paint and their stakes barely touched. The NHL is all over the place on those calls, both on the ice and from Toronto.

That was the one Chico was the most mad about on the post game show. He said Murray didn't even get pushed back the other way so that showed how there was no contact that affected the play. 

[SterioDesign]

8 minutes ago, Lateralous said:

Wasn't that initial call made by the ref in the corner along the goal line?   I don't see how he could have possibly had the right angle to see that.  Whatever they saw on the overhead should immediately overrule it.   Also, didnt they say the call was "confirmed"   

  

Well he would have seen the play from the angle of the video i just posted up there and in my opinion thats the best angle to see

[Satans Hockey]

22 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

I’m really liking Haula more and more. 

I saw several fans get dinged in the head pretty good with beer cans because people couldn't toss it over the net. 

That being said Lindy Ruff in his post game interview pretty much hinted at that he enjoyed the hell out of it lol

[mfitz804]

1 minute ago, Lateralous said:

Wait, im losing track here.  How is the second goal black and white?  Wasn't the issue that the refs "determined" it was more than incidental contact (which it wasnt)?    Otherwise that's a goal.   

The rule:

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

Did Tatar make a reasonable effort to avoid contact, or did he try to cut between the goalie and the net and didn’t quite make it, resulting in contact?

[Lateralous]

5 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Well he would have seen the play from the angle of the video i just posted up there and in my opinion thats the best angle to see

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one because I don't think that video shows what you're saying at all.   When Murray's foot hit Bastian's skate, he was merely trying to get set for the shot.   I dont think he was trying to make the save in one motion at all.   

Edited November 24, 2022 by Lateralous

[devlman]

Aside from the incorrectly overturned goals (multiple), the officiating was atrocious. Toronto hacked and hooked their way all night.

The 10-min free breather for Matt Murray when he deliberately knocked off the goal was a disgrace. We had their guys gassed. Not only do they not get a delay of game minor, but Murray got a real breather. I’ve never seen goal moorings needing so much attention right after an intermission. The fix was in tonight.