The bandwagon is starting to fill up, Fors. The Boston Globe figured out today there's still a hockey team in town. The photos of Tom Brady's latest hairstyle got bumped inside the Sports section.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (5/31/2011 4:43 pm)

How does the goalie get points?

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

How does the goalie get points?

2 points for a win.  During the regular season, 1 point for a tie (we don't count shootouts)

Goalies are the exception.  They also get 2 extra points for a shutout and an extra point for a 1 goal game.

I'd say you're mostly rooting for the 'Nucks, then. Their guys on you team are more capable of putting the biscuit in the basket (hockey term) and vice-versa.

The band wagon is officially full, Fors. The lady who works the counter at the convenience store where I get my morning caffeine fix was wearing a black-and-gold "Hub of Hockey" t-shirt this morning.

Good research. I suppose, tehcnically, you could say Boston lost two NFL franchises when the Redskins left for Warshington and the Patriots left Boston proper to go play on a farm.

Wow. Goal post saves Boston's bacon.

Make that crossbar.

Last edited by forsberg_us (6/01/2011 9:47 pm)

Aw crap ...

Pierre Maguire is a master interviewer

Pierre: "Were you onside on the goal?"

It's too bad Kesler can't answer, "Of course not. You saw it you idiot. The ref blew the call"

Last edited by forsberg_us (6/01/2011 10:04 pm)

It was really close. I think his drag foot was even with the line, but there wasn't a conclusive angle that showed whether that foot was on the ice. If not, it should have been offside. The linesman was right there and immediately waved off the offside and he had a much better angle than any of the cameras.

Offsides call. The ESPN sportscenter show today showed a conclusive angle.

Puck just about to clear line, toe clearly behind it. Freeze. Move forward, puck clears line, toe still behind it. It was onsides. I think the ref got it right more by sheer luck than actual skill, but it was a good no-call.

The Brett Hull Cup winning goal was especially bad because of the number of goals that had been waved off during the season because someone had a toe in the crease.  The NHL was too chickenshit to make the teams resume that game.  That they changed the rule the following year was further evidence of just how badly the NHL screwed the pooch on that one.

Fors,

I completely agree with you. They had a very clear (albeit terrible) crease policy in place. If you're in the crease, it's not a goal. You could be shooting from the far left boards and have someone with a quarter inch of toe blade in the crease on the right not affecting anything. No goal. I swear I think they waived off a couple of goals because the centerman was staring at the crease too hard. I watched the Blues games religiously and a lot of the deep playoffs, and don't remember any exception being made to this rule.

Not until triple OT of game 6 of the finals, and I thought that was a piss poor time to let people understand there was a controlled entry clause of the stupid rule.