Yes. By rule if the defending player pushed the player into the goalie it's allowed. Good goal. - mhp
I understand the rule. I just didn't get to see the replay enough to determine if he was pushed. I'm on my phone so I can't rewind. Also, since I'm at work I only got to pay attention to about 1.5 replays. I just couldn't remember if I saw a Sabre push him or not.
Location: PROUD MEMBER OF RED SOX NATION SINCE 1975!!!! , SD Joined: 01.14.2008
Nov 12 @ 9:25 PM ET
I understand the rule. I just didn't get to see the replay enough to determine if he was pushed. I'm on my phone so I can't rewind. Also, since I'm at work I only got to pay attention to about 1.5 replays. I just couldn't remember if I saw a Sabre push him or not. - JetpackJesus
Location: I Know Nothink ... NOTHINK! Joined: 07.27.2007
Nov 12 @ 9:27 PM ET
I understand the rule. I just didn't get to see the replay enough to determine if he was pushed. I'm on my phone so I can't rewind. Also, since I'm at work I only got to pay attention to about 1.5 replays. I just couldn't remember if I saw a Sabre push him or not. - JetpackJesus
There needs to be a "substantial causation" element introduced to the interpretation.
That offsides on Ennis didn't substantially cause the goal - Ennis just smoked Lou. I would say the reversal was wrong.
Also, if there wan interference on the Panthers goal, it didn't substantially cause the goal. The puck just bounced that way. Upholding the goal was right.
Location: Thank God I don't live in NY anymore, NY Joined: 02.22.2007
Nov 12 @ 9:30 PM ET
There needs to be a "substantial causation" element introduced to the interpretation.
That offsides on Ennis didn't substantially cause the goal - Ennis just smoked Lou. I would say the reversal was wrong.
Also, if there wan interference on the Panthers goal, it didn't substantially cause the goal. The puck just bounced that way. Upholding the goal was right.
Location: I'm very Happy to be here. Las Vegas Via Buffalo N.Y. Joined: 02.17.2007
Nov 12 @ 9:34 PM ET
There needs to be a "substantial causation" element introduced to the interpretation.
That offsides on Ennis didn't substantially cause the goal - Ennis just smoked Lou. I would say the reversal was wrong.
Also, if there wan interference on the Panthers goal, it didn't substantially cause the goal. The puck just bounced that way. Upholding the goal was right.
I'm calling for a real QB on this team - SABRES 89
Taylor has been good this year and rating wise has been one of the best in the league. The jets have a good D. Who are the bills supposed to magically put in at QB week 10?
Location: I'm very Happy to be here. Las Vegas Via Buffalo N.Y. Joined: 02.17.2007
Nov 12 @ 9:42 PM ET
Taylor has been good this year and rating wise has been one of the best in the league. The jets have a good D. Who are the bills supposed to magically put in at QB week 10? - Fattony1187
It's called reverse psychology, the more negative I am when the Bills play, the better off they are