Ducks win! Ducks win!

guz · 05-06-2003, 02:15 AM

Woooooooooooooooo!!!! Dallas got a b.s. goal and it still didn't matter. Gooooo Anaheim!

Detroit, down.
Dallas, down.

Next up?

sppunk · 05-06-2003, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by guz
Woooooooooooooooo!!!! Dallas got a b.s. goal and it still didn't matter. Gooooo Anaheim!

Detroit, down.
Dallas, down.

Next up?

BS goal? Are you fucking retarded? He clearly did not altar the puck. They got ass-raped in losing that one. That rule is the most bullshit rule in all of sports.

So a net moves after a puck has been shot? That does not altar the puck or its impact or movement whatsoever.

Bullshit rules for a bullshit game. I hope the Cannucks rape you and Disney for all you have left.

Injektilo · 05-06-2003, 02:19 AM

Hahaha, take that dallas you motherfuckers.

now the ducks can go ahead and bow out gracefully to the canucks, if they ever get their shit together.

guz · 05-06-2003, 02:20 AM

i agree w/ the first one, *but* the same shit happened to the ducks in game 1..and it was called back. both -should have- been goals...but if you call back one, you -have- to call back the other. do you disagree?

the second one was SO an intentional kick.

sppunk · 05-06-2003, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by guz
i agree w/ the first one, *but* the same shit happened to the ducks in game 1..and it was called back. both -should have- been goals...but if you call back one, you -have- to call back the other. do you disagree?

the second one was SO an intentional kick.

Your logic is illogical. Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't unjustly hurt a team because a wrong call was made prior. That's what is wrong with hockey: Refs call delayed penalities if they miss one prior. That's not kosher.

That goal was so unintentional. His foot slid, and they kick was obviously not aimed or it would've cut to the left.

sppunk · 05-06-2003, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Injektilo
Hahaha, take that dallas you motherfuckers.

now the ducks can go ahead and bow out gracefully to the canucks, if they ever get their shit together.

Aren't you an Oilers fan? No wonder you pick on the Stars so much ... you all can't hang.

I'd pick a better team to root for and move on from it.

guz · 05-06-2003, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sppunk

Your logic is illogical. Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't unjustly hurt a team because a wrong call was made prior. That's what is wrong with hockey: Refs call delayed penalities if they miss one prior. That's not kosher.

That goal was so unintentional. His foot slid, and they kick was obviously not aimed or it would've cut to the left.

you're apparently an idiot.

if one rule is called TO TAKE AWAY A GOAL, the SAME RULE applies THROUGHOUT THE SEASON. it was a rule that was called, not judgement. net was raised in game 1, net was raised in game 6.

his foot slid? are you fucking serious? it was in the air in a kicking motion. haha, you're hilarious.

suck it, dallas.

sppunk · 05-06-2003, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by guz

you're apparently an idiot.

if one rule is called TO TAKE AWAY A GOAL, the SAME RULE applies THROUGHOUT THE SEASON. it was a rule that was called, not judgement. net was raised in game 1, net was raised in game 6.

his foot slid? are you fucking serious? it was in the air in a kicking motion. haha, you're hilarious.

suck it, dallas.

Hey dawg, his foot slid before going airborn. You can't really redirect your skate once you slide and are in midair, unless your fuckin' Jagr or some shit.

That rule, like I said, is the most bullshit rule in all of sports. That rule should be taken out of the game altogether. It has no merit or action on a puck or a offensive player. All it could affect would be the goalie, but that should be a judgement/replay decision made on the spot. Not a tell-tale rule that doesn't impact the play 85 percent of the time.

If the net is off its casing before the puck, I could see the rule being somewhat legit. But not if the net is pushed after puck shot. You can't disagree that it is completely useless. I'm not downplaying the play of the Ducks or anything, but that's still not a legit rule.

Vancouver in 6.
Ottawa in 7.
Cannucks in 5.

guz · 05-06-2003, 02:33 AM

like i said, if it's the rule...it has to be enforced in all games. do you seriously think they could have called no goal in game 1, and then ignored it tonight? it was the exact same scenario.

i wanna hear from someone other than you who thinks he did not intentionally kick that puck in. have you ever played hockey? that was so obviously a kick it wasn't even funny.

sppunk · 05-06-2003, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by guz
like i said, if it's the rule...it has to be enforced in all games. do you seriously think they could have called no goal in game 1, and then ignored it tonight? it was the exact same scenario.

i wanna hear from someone other than you who thinks he did not intentionally kick that puck in. have you ever played hockey? that was so obviously a kick it wasn't even funny.

Dude, I agree the ruling, but I don't believe the rule should be allowed, thus calling it in one game does not constitute calling it in another if I believe the entire rule. If they missed the rule in game 1 (not saying they did), then I hope they wouldn't make a wrong call in another game just to "make up for it." That's a bullshit reason if anyone does that in any sport.

I've played a bit of hockey, but nothing major. Growing up in East Texas doesn't lend to the best hockey experience. We play football and, uh, football.

I agree with what Melrose said: Goal was good.

KingJeremy · 05-06-2003, 02:43 AM

Go Canucks!

Unfortunately I think it will be the Devils over Canucks in the finals.

guz · 05-06-2003, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sppunk

Dude, I agree the ruling, but I don't believe the rule should be allowed, thus calling it in one game does not constitute calling it in another if I believe the entire rule. If they missed the rule in game 1 (not saying they did), then I hope they wouldn't make a wrong call in another game just to "make up for it." That's a bullshit reason if anyone does that in any sport.

rules don't change mid-season. if it's a rule in game 1, it's a rule in every game there after. rules are changed in the offseason.

them ruling gm1 not a goal was not a missed call, it was a call based on the rule. gm6 was not a missed call, it was a call based on a rule. why is this so difficult? there was no "making up" for anything.

sppunk · 05-06-2003, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by guz

rules don't change mid-season. if it's a rule in game 1, it's a rule in every game there after. rules are changed in the offseason.

them ruling gm1 not a goal was not a missed call, it was a call based on the rule. gm6 was not a missed call, it was a call based on a rule. why is this so difficult? there was no "making up" for anything.

For the fifth time, the rule is ignorant. I cannot defend a rule that is in obviously error. I understand, for the fifth time, that the rule stands ... however that doesn't makie it *correct.*

Hopefully the owners attempt to can it will finally be heard over the off-season. This rule has hurt too many good teams in the past two years, it's getting ridicolous.

On this stupid argument, I'm off to study for my last final as a college student.

Go Mavs tomorrow, please don't look awful!

Injektilo · 05-06-2003, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sppunk

Aren't you an Oilers fan? No wonder you pick on the Stars so much ... you all can't hang.

I'd pick a better team to root for and move on from it.

yeah, ... i'd respond, but i'm not up on texan slang... what does "y'all can't hang" mean?
and yeah, i pick on the stars cause they keep knocking out edmonton. can you blame me? I also hate teams that can afford to spend lots on expensive players as a general rule. (except detriot, i can't hate detriot for some reason. i actually like them, and i just feel sorry for the Rangers. then i laugh at them).

and i'm too loyal to move on. I've been an oilers fan for 16 yrs now, and i'll stay one till... there's no franchise there anymore basically.

sawdust restaurants · 05-07-2003, 02:40 AM

Fair or not, the rules are the rules; Dallas didn't get "robbed," because the rules apply equally to all teams. If anything, they shouldn't have had the goal he kicked in, either, and the Ducks shouldn't have had to score with a minute left in order to win.

You can argue up and down whether the rules are fair or not, but everybody knows them, and the refs have to abide by them. When everybody's playing under the same set of mandates, they should know to follow them.

And anyway, Rule 7.07 in baseball is a far stupider rule than anything hockey could have invented. Same thing with penalty kicks in soccer.

neopryn · 05-07-2003, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
And anyway, Rule 7.07 in baseball is a far stupider rule than anything hockey could have invented.

?

sawdust restaurants · 05-07-2003, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by neopryn

?

I've been watching baseball since I was old enough to make any sense of it, and I've seen this rule invoked exactly once:

"Rule 7.07. If with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher steps on or in front of home plate without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk and the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead."

I mean, I understand the point of the rule; obviously, it's unfair for a catcher to pull that. I just don't understand why the batter gets to take first base. Yeah, he's interfering with the batter, but wouldn't it be better to just call it a ball or something?

Mooney · 05-07-2003, 04:23 AM

"you cannot compromise the integrity of the scoring area!" pierre mcguire is a moron, but seriously, if the net is off then it makes sense for the goal not to count. the net was raised lets say one inch.. if the shot would have gone off the cross-bar and in while the net was raised how could you expect that to count? you can't start calling shots that aren't oroginally even on net goals. rules have to apply for all possible circumstances, but, because of this in some cases, like where the puck is shot low while the net was raised half an inch, they seem stupid.

as for the second goal, that was a totally legit deflection, he purposely turned his skate to redirect the puck in the net. no distinct kicking motion.

whether or not you agree with the rules or not is one thing, but both were the correct calls last night. now as for that hull overtime stanley cup winner with his skate in the crease not so much.

guz · 05-07-2003, 04:43 AM

i still think it was clearly a kicking motion, as well as all the sports radio discussions i've been listening to today...but oh well, it's over now.

on espn radio here in the morning, some 'league official' was being interviewed and said the reason it was not a kick was that his leg was not in a perfect pendulum motion, but also that he believed it was a 50/50 call. i think the whole skate/kicking rules need to be re-examined. things should be more wide open, less goals being taken away. you can kick the puck around, trap it on the boards....but wait, be careful if you're around the net. the entire rule was developed to protect goalies from being kicked during the typical mad scramble to the loose rebound....but that was prior to the new rules regarding the crease. imo, kicking the puck as a shot should be allowed...just not in the crease.

05-06-2003, 02:15 AM	#1
guz El Gringo Mexicano Location: I'd rather just have dome anyway Posts: 8,599	Ducks win! Ducks win! Woooooooooooooooo!!!! Dallas got a b.s. goal and it still didn't matter. Gooooo Anaheim! Detroit, down. Dallas, down. Next up?

05-07-2003, 04:23 AM	#18
Mooney Socialphobic Location: halifax Posts: 14,821	"you cannot compromise the integrity of the scoring area!" pierre mcguire is a moron, but seriously, if the net is off then it makes sense for the goal not to count. the net was raised lets say one inch.. if the shot would have gone off the cross-bar and in while the net was raised how could you expect that to count? you can't start calling shots that aren't oroginally even on net goals. rules have to apply for all possible circumstances, but, because of this in some cases, like where the puck is shot low while the net was raised half an inch, they seem stupid. as for the second goal, that was a totally legit deflection, he purposely turned his skate to redirect the puck in the net. no distinct kicking motion. whether or not you agree with the rules or not is one thing, but both were the correct calls last night. now as for that hull overtime stanley cup winner with his skate in the crease not so much. __________________

05-06-2003, 02:19 AM	#3
Injektilo twenty some years.... Location: the isle of the cheetah Posts: 5,066	Hahaha, take that dallas you motherfuckers. now the ducks can go ahead and bow out gracefully to the canucks, if they ever get their shit together.

05-06-2003, 02:20 AM	#4
guz El Gringo Mexicano Location: I'd rather just have dome anyway Posts: 8,599	i agree w/ the first one, but the same shit happened to the ducks in game 1..and it was called back. both -should have- been goals...but if you call back one, you -have- to call back the other. do you disagree? the second one was SO an intentional kick.

05-06-2003, 02:33 AM	#9
guz El Gringo Mexicano Location: I'd rather just have dome anyway Posts: 8,599	like i said, if it's the rule...it has to be enforced in all games. do you seriously think they could have called no goal in game 1, and then ignored it tonight? it was the exact same scenario. i wanna hear from someone other than you who thinks he did not intentionally kick that puck in. have you ever played hockey? that was so obviously a kick it wasn't even funny.

05-06-2003, 02:43 AM	#11
KingJeremy Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 2,880	Go Canucks! Unfortunately I think it will be the Devils over Canucks in the finals.

05-07-2003, 02:40 AM	#15
sawdust restaurants Fucking Creep Location: On the East Coast Posts: 5,992	Fair or not, the rules are the rules; Dallas didn't get "robbed," because the rules apply equally to all teams. If anything, they shouldn't have had the goal he kicked in, either, and the Ducks shouldn't have had to score with a minute left in order to win. You can argue up and down whether the rules are fair or not, but everybody knows them, and the refs have to abide by them. When everybody's playing under the same set of mandates, they should know to follow them. And anyway, Rule 7.07 in baseball is a far stupider rule than anything hockey could have invented. Same thing with penalty kicks in soccer.

05-07-2003, 04:43 AM	#19
guz El Gringo Mexicano Location: I'd rather just have dome anyway Posts: 8,599	i still think it was clearly a kicking motion, as well as all the sports radio discussions i've been listening to today...but oh well, it's over now. on espn radio here in the morning, some 'league official' was being interviewed and said the reason it was not a kick was that his leg was not in a perfect pendulum motion, but also that he believed it was a 50/50 call. i think the whole skate/kicking rules need to be re-examined. things should be more wide open, less goals being taken away. you can kick the puck around, trap it on the boards....but wait, be careful if you're around the net. the entire rule was developed to protect goalies from being kicked during the typical mad scramble to the loose rebound....but that was prior to the new rules regarding the crease. imo, kicking the puck as a shot should be allowed...just not in the crease.