Page 7 of 8
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:05 pm
by Teak
Weekend_Warrior wrote:I gotta say I'm very surprised that nobody else seems to at least agree with that idea.
It just doesn't seem right to disallow it when there's no puck interference. BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT. Sheesh
And you are certainly entitled to your opinion. The idea of the rule being when the puck leaves the stick on a clean shot is enticing, but when you consider all of the possibilities after the shot, then the current rule makes more sense.
In basketball, once the ball leaves the palm it can only go up in an arc over the defense. If anyone touches it before it goes through that metal hoop, it is either a touch after the clock expires (offensive player) or goal-tending by the defense.
We enjoy humour on these boards very much, so please don't take the joshing personal. We all hide behind nicknames, but in reality, some of us are just rodents who have learned to log on while the house owner is sleeping.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:11 pm
by hockeydad
My last post on the subject...
Warrior. You come on here and say that Mahtomedi was cheated. That implies that you felt someone did something wrong to take away the game from Mahtomedi.
You said the refs "take a game away from these kids like that." (from your original post)
You do not know the rule, in spite of the fact that the hockey experts on TV stated what the rule was, the referees (who in this case applied the rule correctly) reviewed the play and made the call.
And everyone on this message board tells you that you have the rule wrong. yet you stubbornly refuse to listen.
And again, you flat out accuse the refs of cheating and taking the game away
And yet you complain that people are calling you out on this and attackin gyou personally.
Your quote: "You have no intelligence to debate with and so you choose to attack a person's character as a way to win an argument."
Well, you had no knowledge of the rules, yet you chose to attack the character of the referees as a way to win an argument. And when confronted with the facts (rules) you simply say the rules are wrong.
Just go away!
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:25 pm
by Weekend_Warrior
hockeydad wrote:My last post on the subject...
Warrior. You come on here and say that Mahtomedi was cheated. That implies that you felt someone did something wrong to take away the game from Mahtomedi.
You said the refs "take a game away from these kids like that." (from your original post)
You do not know the rule, in spite of the fact that the hockey experts on TV stated what the rule was, the referees (who in this case applied the rule correctly) reviewed the play and made the call.
And everyone on this message board tells you that you have the rule wrong. yet you stubbornly refuse to listen.
And again, you flat out accuse the refs of cheating and taking the game away
And yet you complain that people are calling you out on this and attackin gyou personally.
Your quote: "You have no intelligence to debate with and so you choose to attack a person's character as a way to win an argument."
Well, you had no knowledge of the rules, yet you chose to attack the character of the referees as a way to win an argument. And when confronted with the facts (rules) you simply say the rules are wrong.
Just go away!
Nice try, hockeydad. At least you're trying to be civil now. You should have been in the first place. But that's no longer important
It's true. I wasn't aware of the rule. Again, how many games come down to the last second like this? Not many. So how could I be aware of the rule unless I had seen it before or somebody sat down to explain it to me?
Also, I made references in my previous posts that left the possibility open of a puck going into the net after the buzzer COULD be ruled as a no-goal. But if you read carefully, I then noted that I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE. I think it should be a goal. My opinion
Now I'm fully aware that the league doesn't care what I personally think of the goal. But I just came on here to express frustration and anger. I felt that Mahtomedi got robbed. And despite the rule, I still do believe that. But I am man enough to accept the fact that it is the rule regardless, and that I was wrong in thinking that it wasn't the rule.
This still doesn't give anybody an excuse to start name calling and all that though and calling people stupid. If I'm wrong prove it, but act like an adult about it. But again, this is a high school forum. So maybe I should have considered that before posting
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:44 pm
by bronco2828
Weekend_Warrior wrote:I already admitted that I was wrong. The play call was the right one.
How often does a game come right down to very last second like that? Not many
But I still say that the actual ruling should change. In a situation like this, I believe the shooter should get the benefit of the doubt and be awarded a goal for getting the shot off before time expires.
I gotta say I'm very surprised that nobody else seems to at least agree with that idea.
It may be somewhat tougher for the officials to judge what happened to the puck after it left the stick in key games where there may have been a lot of people in front of the net, and there are no videos to review. But this was a clean shot. I feel it was different
I dunno, the fundamental idea of the shooter getting the shot off before the buzzer still sticks with me. It's difficult to ignore that fact. Rules or no rules. It just doesn't seem right to disallow it when there's no puck interference. BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT. Sheesh
You're the guy that tells the cop, I only had a few beers but I'm fine ossifer, change the law because I feel fine. A rule that has been in place for ah ever and change it now that my team lost because of it. Wow. Should we stop play for line changes like roundball does for player substitutions. Or I know a shot made from the point is worth 2 instead of one. Oh yeah, A free shot from the blue line after every penalty. I can imagine how you feel with the Zephyrs having the best shot at the championship this year. Sorry to say pick up your stick and gloves and don't go away mad just go away,
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:14 pm
by wbmd
east hockey wrote:Weekend_Warrior wrote:BigWorm wrote:
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?
By the way, this isn't a suggestion, newbie.
Lee
The refs did make the wrong call on the Mahtomedi goal that would have won the game.
Let's see how you feel when your Hounds lose to Roseau Saturday.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:17 pm
by east hockey
wbmd wrote:east hockey wrote:Weekend_Warrior wrote: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?
By the way, this isn't a suggestion, newbie.
Lee
The refs did make the wrong call on the Mahtomedi goal that would have won the game.
Let's see how you feel when your Hounds lose to Roseau Saturday.
Lee
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:22 pm
by wbmd
You won't be laughing Saturday. You'll be shedding tears for your Hounds.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:25 pm
by east hockey
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:26 pm
by east hockey
Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't offer up props and congrats to Coach Bruce Plante and his Hawks on an outstanding win today!
Lee
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:49 pm
by lacrosse10
Is anyone going to recognize that ben marshall got completely dragged down right before hermantown scored in overtime. the ref was right next to him and didn't make the call. it was an obvious penalty even for overtime
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:10 pm
by Northhcky
lacrosse10 wrote:Is anyone going to recognize that ben marshall got completely dragged down right before hermantown scored in overtime. the ref was right next to him and didn't make the call. it was an obvious penalty even for overtime
OK where are you from...Hibbing or Virginia? fess up
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:13 pm
by puckster99
After watching the replay on TV, the light comes on before the horn sounded and also if you watch the clock on TV, it only shows the numbers to the left of the tenth dot. after timing it from 2 seconds to 1 second and using that same time frame after the 1 second went to zero, there had to have still been 2 or 3 tenths of a second left. You can even hear the announcers say the light came on. And the light is connected to the clock!!
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:15 pm
by Northhcky
wbmd wrote:east hockey wrote:Weekend_Warrior wrote: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?
By the way, this isn't a suggestion, newbie.
Lee
The refs did make the wrong call on the Mahtomedi goal that would have won the game.
Wasn't it just proven on previous pages that the no goal call was correct?
If you think your right find the rule that says it was a goal and the refs were wrong.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:16 pm
by east hockey
puckster99 wrote:After watching the replay on TV, the light comes on before the horn sounded and also if you watch the clock on TV, it only shows the numbers to the left of the tenth dot. after timing it from 2 seconds to 1 second and using that same time frame after the 1 second went to zero, there had to have still been 2 or 3 tenths of a second left. You can even hear the announcers say the light came on. And the light is connected to the clock!!
I thought they said the red light came on first. Let's see what the DVD recording said...
Lee
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:43 pm
by bronco2828
puckster99 wrote:After watching the replay on TV, the light comes on before the horn sounded and also if you watch the clock on TV, it only shows the numbers to the left of the tenth dot. after timing it from 2 seconds to 1 second and using that same time frame after the 1 second went to zero, there had to have still been 2 or 3 tenths of a second left. You can even hear the announcers say the light came on. And the light is connected to the clock!!
Duhh, Maybe the goal judge turned the light on too early. The video replay says it all. Next we'll hear that the officials up top looking at the replay were Hermantown Fans and they doctored the video tape. Get over it you lost.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:44 pm
by rwfan44
I may be wrong on this or they may of said on tv but I think at the X the red light is not connected to the clock because the green lights on the red light never came on and I have been to many games at the X and have never seen the green horn lights come on!!!
I could be wrong on this but just pointing it out!!
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:46 pm
by MrBoDangles
I was in section 109, 20 rows up(corner behind the net) and the puck was across before the horn. I don't know about the clock. Fans from both sides thought it was over. Funny thing was they didn't show any type of replay until well
into the second game. Just a late horn I would guess...
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:50 pm
by MrBoDangles
Just saw it on tv. Wow it was close!
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:50 pm
by ryno44
Weekend_Warrior wrote:hockeydad wrote:My last post on the subject...
Warrior. You come on here and say that Mahtomedi was cheated. That implies that you felt someone did something wrong to take away the game from Mahtomedi.
You said the refs "take a game away from these kids like that." (from your original post)
You do not know the rule, in spite of the fact that the hockey experts on TV stated what the rule was, the referees (who in this case applied the rule correctly) reviewed the play and made the call.
And everyone on this message board tells you that you have the rule wrong. yet you stubbornly refuse to listen.
And again, you flat out accuse the refs of cheating and taking the game away
And yet you complain that people are calling you out on this and attackin gyou personally.
Your quote: "You have no intelligence to debate with and so you choose to attack a person's character as a way to win an argument."
Well, you had no knowledge of the rules, yet you chose to attack the character of the referees as a way to win an argument. And when confronted with the facts (rules) you simply say the rules are wrong.
Just go away!
Nice try, hockeydad. At least you're trying to be civil now. You should have been in the first place. But that's no longer important
It's true. I wasn't aware of the rule. Again, how many games come down to the last second like this? Not many. So how could I be aware of the rule unless I had seen it before or somebody sat down to explain it to me?
Also, I made references in my previous posts that left the possibility open of a puck going into the net after the buzzer COULD be ruled as a no-goal. But if you read carefully, I then noted that I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE. I think it should be a goal. My opinion
Now I'm fully aware that the league doesn't care what I personally think of the goal. But I just came on here to express frustration and anger. I felt that Mahtomedi got robbed. And despite the rule, I still do believe that. But I am man enough to accept the fact that it is the rule regardless, and that I was wrong in thinking that it wasn't the rule.
This still doesn't give anybody an excuse to start name calling and all that though and calling people stupid. If I'm wrong prove it, but act like an adult about it. But again, this is a high school forum. So maybe I should have considered that before posting
20 posts in a matter of a few hours, I think that is a record! Congrats to Hermantown and go win the championship game tomorrow!
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:19 pm
by nickmon3
ryno44 wrote:Weekend_Warrior wrote:hockeydad wrote:My last post on the subject...
Warrior. You come on here and say that Mahtomedi was cheated. That implies that you felt someone did something wrong to take away the game from Mahtomedi.
You said the refs "take a game away from these kids like that." (from your original post)
You do not know the rule, in spite of the fact that the hockey experts on TV stated what the rule was, the referees (who in this case applied the rule correctly) reviewed the play and made the call.
And everyone on this message board tells you that you have the rule wrong. yet you stubbornly refuse to listen.
And again, you flat out accuse the refs of cheating and taking the game away
And yet you complain that people are calling you out on this and attackin gyou personally.
Your quote: "You have no intelligence to debate with and so you choose to attack a person's character as a way to win an argument."
Well, you had no knowledge of the rules, yet you chose to attack the character of the referees as a way to win an argument. And when confronted with the facts (rules) you simply say the rules are wrong.
Just go away!
Nice try, hockeydad. At least you're trying to be civil now. You should have been in the first place. But that's no longer important
It's true. I wasn't aware of the rule. Again, how many games come down to the last second like this? Not many. So how could I be aware of the rule unless I had seen it before or somebody sat down to explain it to me?
Also, I made references in my previous posts that left the possibility open of a puck going into the net after the buzzer COULD be ruled as a no-goal. But if you read carefully, I then noted that I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE. I think it should be a goal. My opinion
Now I'm fully aware that the league doesn't care what I personally think of the goal. But I just came on here to express frustration and anger. I felt that Mahtomedi got robbed. And despite the rule, I still do believe that. But I am man enough to accept the fact that it is the rule regardless, and that I was wrong in thinking that it wasn't the rule.
This still doesn't give anybody an excuse to start name calling and all that though and calling people stupid. If I'm wrong prove it, but act like an adult about it. But again, this is a high school forum. So maybe I should have considered that before posting
20 posts in a matter of a few hours, I think that is a record! Congrats to Hermantown and go win the championship game tomorrow!
It would be nice to see a northern team kick some serious ass!!!!!!!!
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:26 pm
by crosscheck_this
Good Luck to Hermantown! Show Breck what a team from da north plays like!!
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:18 pm
by headinjury
I was sitting in a suite and thought for sure that the puck was in before the horn buzzed,but after watching the replay on tv they made the right call. HT fans should be put to sleep for their unexceptable actions during our game against Warroad. Fat guy i hope you get help!!!!
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:04 pm
by ryno44
headinjury wrote:I was sitting in a suite and thought for sure that the puck was in before the horn buzzed,but after watching the replay on tv they made the right call. HT fans should be put to sleep for their unexceptable actions during our game against Warroad. Fat guy i hope you get help!!!!
Can you explain to us what happened?
Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:09 pm
by nickmon3
ryno44 wrote:headinjury wrote:I was sitting in a suite and thought for sure that the puck was in before the horn buzzed,but after watching the replay on tv they made the right call. HT fans should be put to sleep for their unexceptable actions during our game against Warroad. Fat guy i hope you get help!!!!
Can you explain to us what happened?
I guess some 300 pound guy with a kid was just being stupid and was kicked out, but im just goin by what i heard.
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:13 pm
by hawkhockey
Weekend_Warrior wrote:I already admitted that I was wrong. The play call was the right one.
How often does a game come right down to very last second like that? Not many
But I still say that the actual ruling should change. In a situation like this, I believe the shooter should get the benefit of the doubt and be awarded a goal for getting the shot off before time expires.
I gotta say I'm very surprised that nobody else seems to at least agree with that idea.
It may be somewhat tougher for the officials to judge what happened to the puck after it left the stick in key games where there may have been a lot of people in front of the net, and there are no videos to review. But this was a clean shot. I feel it was different
I dunno, the fundamental idea of the shooter getting the shot off before the buzzer still sticks with me. It's difficult to ignore that fact. Rules or no rules. It just doesn't seem right to disallow it when there's no puck interference. BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT. Sheesh
if it aint broke, why fix it?