In the last second of the third, the kid from Mahtomedi clearly got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn sounded. It should have been a goal!
I don't understand why when they reviewed it, they kept looking at whether the puck crossed the goal line before time ended. Because that isn't what is important. The important thing is like I said.. whether he got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn blew. And the answer to both questions is yes.. he got the shot off in time.
It's the same concept as in basketball.. if someone throws the ball up before time runs out and/or ref blows the whistle/horn sounds.. it's ruled a basket.
So why wasn't this same concept applied here - what am I missing?
Honest to God, I am so upset right now that I have sworn off the rest of the tournament. I wait for this all year because I love to see these kids play their hearts out. And it just makes me so upset to see the refs take a game away from these kids like that.
HAHAHA, this paragraph just made my day. Thanks for the laughs WW
In the last second of the third, the kid from Mahtomedi clearly got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn sounded. It should have been a goal!
I don't understand why when they reviewed it, they kept looking at whether the puck crossed the goal line before time ended. Because that isn't what is important. The important thing is like I said.. whether he got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn blew. And the answer to both questions is yes.. he got the shot off in time.
It's the same concept as in basketball.. if someone throws the ball up before time runs out and/or ref blows the whistle/horn sounds.. it's ruled a basket.
So why wasn't this same concept applied here - what am I missing?
Honest to God, I am so upset right now that I have sworn off the rest of the tournament. I wait for this all year because I love to see these kids play their hearts out. And it just makes me so upset to see the refs take a game away from these kids like that.
It ain't like basketball...the puck has to be COMPLETELY across the line before time expires for it to be a goal...makes no difference when he took the shot.
I'm sorry, but it does. If there's an empty net on the opposite side of the ice, and someone clears the puck from one end of the ice and the horn sounds just before it slides into the net.. it would be ruled a goal, my friend.
In the last second of the third, the kid from Mahtomedi clearly got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn sounded. It should have been a goal!
I don't understand why when they reviewed it, they kept looking at whether the puck crossed the goal line before time ended. Because that isn't what is important. The important thing is like I said.. whether he got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn blew. And the answer to both questions is yes.. he got the shot off in time.
It's the same concept as in basketball.. if someone throws the ball up before time runs out and/or ref blows the whistle/horn sounds.. it's ruled a basket.
So why wasn't this same concept applied here - what am I missing?
Honest to God, I am so upset right now that I have sworn off the rest of the tournament. I wait for this all year because I love to see these kids play their hearts out. And it just makes me so upset to see the refs take a game away from these kids like that.
HAHAHA, this paragraph just made my day. Thanks for the laughs WW
How is it funny? If you were playing for Mahtomedi you wouldn't find it funny, I can assure you
Weekend_Warrior wrote:If there's an empty net on the opposite side of the ice, and someone clears the puck from one end of the ice and the horn sounds just before it slides into the net.. it would be ruled a goal, my friend.
Like in football, "the receiver was in-bounds when the ball left the quarterback's hands - it would be ruled a touchdown! If not, then it sure as hell should be!"
Weekend_Warrior wrote:If there's an empty net on the opposite side of the ice, and someone clears the puck from one end of the ice and the horn sounds just before it slides into the net.. it would be ruled a goal, my friend.
Like in football, "the receiver was in-bounds when the ball left the quarterback's hands - it would be ruled a touchdown! If not, then it sure as hell should be!"
Are you retarded? Those situations aren't similar at all!
Weekend_Warrior wrote:If there's an empty net on the opposite side of the ice, and someone clears the puck from one end of the ice and the horn sounds just before it slides into the net.. it would be ruled a goal, my friend.
Like in football, "the receiver was in-bounds when the ball left the quarterback's hands - it would be ruled a touchdown! If not, then it sure as hell should be!"
Are you retarded? Those situations aren't similar at all!
In the last second of the third, the kid from Mahtomedi clearly got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn sounded. It should have been a goal!
I don't understand why when they reviewed it, they kept looking at whether the puck crossed the goal line before time ended. Because that isn't what is important. The important thing is like I said.. whether he got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn blew. And the answer to both questions is yes.. he got the shot off in time.
It's the same concept as in basketball.. if someone throws the ball up before time runs out and/or ref blows the whistle/horn sounds.. it's ruled a basket.
So why wasn't this same concept applied here - what am I missing?
Honest to God, I am so upset right now that I have sworn off the rest of the tournament. I wait for this all year because I love to see these kids play their hearts out. And it just makes me so upset to see the refs take a game away from these kids like that.
HAHAHA, this paragraph just made my day. Thanks for the laughs WW
I agree. Watching basketball = hahahahahahahaha.....
I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck crosses the goal line or touches the ice. Not when time expires.
HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck (deflection/tip of the stick/skate) AFTER the puck leaves the shooter's stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.
Last edited by Weekend_Warrior on Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.
HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.
Well again, those are not the rules, but ill give you an E for effort
Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.
HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.
All I have to say is it is the rule, it's not like they made it up today, the rule has been like that in hockey for a very long time. You may think the rule should be changed, but the review showed it should not be allowed under current rules. It is what it is.
hockeydad wrote:You know, I've tried coming up with a witty, sarcastic post that makes fun of Weekend Warrior and his ignorance of the rules of hockey.
I've tried three different things, and erased all three.
hockeydad wrote:You know, I've tried coming up with a witty, sarcastic post that makes fun of Weekend Warrior and his ignorance of the rules of hockey.
I've tried three different things, and erased all three.
It's just too easy to poke fun of him.
As Ron White would say
"You can't fix stupid."
Is that your tractor I hear out in the parking lot?
Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.
HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.
All I have to say is it is the rule, it's not like they made it up today, the rule has been like that in hockey for a very long time. You may think the rule should be changed, but the review showed it should not be allowed under current rules. It is what it is.
You show me the actual rule in the book and I'll go away. But your source has to be legit. It can't be a phony link
Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.
HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.
All I have to say is it is the rule, it's not like they made it up today, the rule has been like that in hockey for a very long time. You may think the rule should be changed, but the review showed it should not be allowed under current rules. It is what it is.
You show me the actual rule in the book and I'll go away. But your source has to be legit. It can't be a phony link
Maybe you should just go away anyway and quit making Mahtomedi fans look bad?
EHSHack wrote:Weekend warrior, shut it your a rube.
How old are you - 15?
Unfortunately (or fortunately if you are a Hawk)...dems da rules man. I don't make the rules but hockey has been that way for a loooonnnng time - forever comes to mind actually. It does make it pretty cut and dried for the replay officials...no need to worry about when it left a stick, was it touched or not, etc.
EHSHack wrote:Weekend warrior, shut it your a rube.
How old are you - 15?
Unfortunately (or fortunately if you are a Hawk)...dems da rules man. I don't make the rules but hockey has been that way for a loooonnnng time - forever comes to mind actually. It does make it pretty cut and dried for the replay officials...no need to worry about when it left a stick, was it touched or not, etc.
BTW...go NORTH!
North as in.. Lakeville North? Pretty sure they lost last night. Sorry you missed it
Hey... Let's not be too hard on the kid. The rules can be confusing. After all, it was a little more than a week ago that three certified officials in a high school playoff game didn't know that a penalty shot that hits the crossbar and then the goalie before going in should count.
Still, you would think when presented with such overwhelming numbers, he'd have just given it up.
(sigh)
Edit... I changed some wording and part of the post I intended to put up was omitted. I restored it to what it was intended.
Last edited by hockeydad on Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck crosses the goal line or touches the ice. Not when time expires.
HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck (deflection/tip of the stick/skate) AFTER the puck leaves the shooter's stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.
Sorry dude, its not the weekend. Your way out of your element.
hockeydad wrote:Hey... Let's not be too hard on the kid. The rules can be confusing. After all, it was a little more than a week ago that three certified officials in a high school playoff game didn't know that a penalty shot that
Still, you would think when presented with such overwhelming numbers, he'd have just given it up.
(sigh)
I'm not a kid. I'm 29. And I know the penalty shot that you are referring to - the one where the puck deflected off the post and against the goalie's leg and in the net. I believe that should have been a goal, as well. Because the puck didn't cross the goal line and was still in motion from the single shot
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
