No you're right. Typical NHL making a call based on the injury not on the play. It was an unfortunate play but not a penalty.
- Pixote Andolini

It was a penalty, but not a major imo. Really, that play is the textbook definition of boarding - pushing a player into the boards. It doesn't have to be a big hit or a vicious hit.

I don't think he meant to do it, certainly didn't mean to injure him. But he did push him into the boards from several feet away, and that's a penalty.

1 goal against a depleted 2-5 team with a crap rookie goalie.
- Just5

Doesn't matter who the other team has in net anymore. Our players would rather pass the puck in the net then crash the net.

I like Vinnie, Read, and Gusty tonight. Streit looks pretty good. Mason is doing fine.

Tough bounce off Coburn, I'm sure he is the goat boy in here.

It was a penalty, but not a major imo. Really, that play is the textbook definition of boarding - pushing a player into the boards. It doesn't have to be a big hit or a vicious hit.

I don't think he meant to do it, certainly didn't mean to injure him. But he did push him into the boards from several feet away, and that's a penalty.
- BringBack25

Agreed 100%. Towards the end of the hit when Talbot is about to hit the boards you can see the dude try to slow him down and put his hand behind his back.

Agree with everything but Mason. He looks strong and completely in control.
- MJL

He has made some great glove saves in the game and steered a few pucks to the corner nicely, but I felt like half the time we've got stuck in our zone this game it's been due to poor rebound control. Who knows, maybe it's just me looking at it thru Panotch tinted glasses.

Hahaha. Talbots choppy skating pays off
- Just5

fu

It was a penalty, but not a major imo. Really, that play is the textbook definition of boarding - pushing a player into the boards. It doesn't have to be a big hit or a vicious hit.

I don't think he meant to do it, certainly didn't mean to injure him. But he did push him into the boards from several feet away, and that's a penalty.
- BringBack25

He got a game misconduct as well? I think that had more to do with removing him from our reach, than the viscous nature of the penalty.

Makes me sick to my stomach watching it. I hope he's ok, but I'll be shocked if he doesn't sit with a concussion for a bit.
- FlyersGrace

Talbot was in an extremely vulnerable position. That wasnt much of a shove, but then with his momentum and losing his balance, it didnt take much. I always have trouble watching a guy struggle to get himself together after getting destroyed like that... kind of a sick/helpless feeling.

I've got to agree with most people here, the penalty should've just been a 2min minor. There was no intent to injure there. But we need to take advantage of the favorable call.

I like Vinnie, Read, and Gusty tonight. Streit looks pretty good. Mason is doing fine.

Tough bounce off Coburn, I'm sure he is the goat boy in here.
- Marc D

No, not too bad -- most everyone, maybe even everyone, knows it was just an unlucky bounce.

I've got to agree with most people here, the penalty should've just been a 2min minor. There was no intent to injure there. But we need to take advantage of the favorable call.
- EducatedOpinion

we WILL take advantage of this favorable call by not letting the Rangers score short handed.

take that, Rangers!

I've got to agree with most people here, the penalty should've just been a 2min minor. There was no intent to injure there. But we need to take advantage of the favorable call.
- EducatedOpinion

Maybe the refs thought they were doing Pouliot a favor. It will be interesting to see if Paul Stewart weighs in on this later in the week.

I like Vinnie, Read, and Gusty tonight. Streit looks pretty good. Mason is doing fine.

Tough bounce off Coburn, I'm sure he is the goat boy in here.
- Marc D

Vinnie has looked great tonight ... Read as well.

Feels like a crazy goal is about to happen. Hopefully it's for us.

we WILL take advantage of this favorable call by not letting the Rangers score short handed.

take that, Rangers!

- FlyerGuy

The beauty of low expectations.

You added the context. No big deal. Nothing you guys don't do daily to piss everyone off.
- Flyersgod

Now you think I'm the problem? OK. I want some of what you're on.

Here's a bit of info for you:

con·text Noun /ˈkänˌtekst/ The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

So, in a thread where everyone is pointing out what they feel is wrong with a team, a post like that gets interpreted the way his did. Not something anyone adds, it's the way in which he wrote it and how it relates to the other comments in the thread.

Interpretation? Sure, that's on the individual reader. Not context. So yes, based the context of his comment, it was interpreted that he meant Simmonds was a big part of what is wrong with the team.

Yes. When you say "Simmonds HAS to go", you're implying that he's a big part of what is wrong with the team. At least most rational folks would read it that way given the context. And his follow up comments certainly do nothing to dissuade that interpretation. Seem pretty clear he thinks Simmonds is a big part of what is wrong with the team.
- BringBack25

That is not what I was implying. So don't put words into my mouth. Simmonds has been terrible all year. Other guys that are struggling arent turning the puck over like he is. He had a good fight. Hopefully that turns his game around. But this team needs a change and simmonds is the one I'm trading.

major penalty. 0 goals. pa-the-tic. this team (frank)ing sucks.

Now you think I'm the problem? OK. I want some of what you're on.

Here's a bit of info for you:

con·text Noun /ˈkänˌtekst/ The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

So, in a thread where everyone is pointing out what they feel is wrong with a team, a post like that gets interpreted the way his did. Not something anyone adds, it's the way in which he wrote it and how it relates to the other comments in the thread.

Interpretation? Sure, that's on the individual reader. Not context. So yes, based the context of his comment, it was interpreted that he meant Simmonds was a big part of what is wrong with the team.
- BringBack25

Well since you're incapable of ever being wrong, I guess you're right.

Moving on.

Well, we passed really nicely on that PP.

cant score on minor PPs, major PPs, penalty shots. We might actually have a better scoring percentage shorthanded now.

That is not what I was implying. So don't put words into my mouth. Simmonds has been terrible all year. Other guys that are struggling arent turning the puck over like he is. He had a good fight. Hopefully that turns his game around. But this team needs a change and simmonds is the one I'm trading.
- youarewrong

There isn't a single player on this team I wouldn't trade.

Well, we passed really nicely on that PP.
- EducatedOpinion

they've got the perimeter passing part of the game down pat.

I was totally wrong about what the power play would do this year.

I'll own it. Of all the things I could question about the team heading into this year, I never dreamed the power play would be one of them.

Never even dreamed it.

Couburn has increased his trade value.

A player in front of the net, and we score a goal? NO WAY!