Hopefully the no goal call motivates this team. They seem to be doing better as the game goes on.
- doppelthat

There is some slow, but sure, progress.

There is some slow, but sure, progress.
- Wetbandit1

9 - 15 - 23 line looks hungover as (frank)

Is this real life? You guys wanna female dog about assests giving up for a young center, young goalie and young winger, but you are okay giving them up for a 32 yr old? Honestly what is your thought process here? Or do you just like to complain?
- lung3r

Couldn't possibly be that.

That's tough. I can see both sides of it. I don't really think he made a distinct kicking motion. They need to eliminate the subjectiveness of the rule book. At least by defining vague terms like "distinct".
- Wetbandit1

That was a pretty clear kick, turns his skate pushes off the ground.

That's the right call

9 - 15 - 23 line looks hungover as (frank)
- feetontheair22

Jack has looked ok. They need another PP. Jack was great on the first one, maybe he can work some magic.

Jack has looked ok. They need another PP. Jack was great on the first one, maybe he can work some magic.
- Wetbandit1

I mean Jack always looks ok....I think its fair for us to expect a little more than "ok" out of him every game...

Either way this team needs to throw some icey hot on their balls er something to wake the (frank) up for the 3rd

That was a pretty clear kick, turns his skate pushes off the ground.

That's the right call
- Stripes77

I think so too, but you can see the other side of it. They need to eliminate "distinct" from the wording. Because of course his foot is going to move forward, he's moving forward. To me "distinct" means he bends his knee and hip, brings his foot back and then pushes it forward. He barely moved his hip on that one, just enough to move his foot about 3" farther than where he was already headed. There was no "wind up" either. It's not the call I disagree with, it's the wording of the rule.

I mean Jack always looks ok....I think its fair for us to expect a little more than "ok" out of him every game...

Either way this team needs to throw some icey hot on their balls er something to wake the (frank) up for the 3rd
- feetontheair22

By ok I mean he looks like he normally does, he's not getting much help though. He needs the guys around him to finish the plays he sets up.

Really sad effort by 90% of this team so far..
- feetontheair22

I will watch the 3rd

stats say carrier, guhle, ror, and skunk are playing well

9 - 15 - 23 line looks hungover as (frank)
- feetontheair22

is roy and connolly mentoring these guys?

I think so too, but you can see the other side of it. They need to eliminate "distinct" from the wording. Because of course his foot is going to move forward, he's moving forward. To me "distinct" means he bends his knee and hip, brings his foot back and then pushes it forward. He barely moved his hip on that one, just enough to move his foot about 3" farther than where he was already headed. There was no "wind up" either. It's not the call I disagree with, it's the wording of the rule.
- Wetbandit1

Word burden

I think so too, but you can see the other side of it. They need to eliminate "distinct" from the wording. Because of course his foot is going to move forward, he's moving forward. To me "distinct" means he bends his knee and hip, brings his foot back and then pushes it forward. He barely moved his hip on that one, just enough to move his foot about 3" farther than where he was already headed. There was no "wind up" either. It's not the call I disagree with, it's the wording of the rule.
- Wetbandit1

Gotcha.

On the other hand if he didn't push forward a bit would there be enough momentum for the puck to make it in the net?

First time ive heard his name called (eichel)

Gotcha.

On the other hand if he didn't push forward a bit would there be enough momentum for the puck to make it in the net?
- Stripes77

Maybe.

It's funny they actually define an "open net" in 53.7 as:

For the purpose of this rule, an “open net” is defined as one from which a goalkeeper has been removed for an additional attacking player. The goalkeeper is considered off the ice once the replacement player has entered the playing surface.
- http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2015-2016-Interactive-rulebook.pdf

But they don't define the much more vague "distinct" in rule 49.

First time ive heard his name called (eichel)
- cabin

You haven't been paying attention.

Gotcha.

On the other hand if he didn't push forward a bit would there be enough momentum for the puck to make it in the net?
- Stripes77

My beef is it was not kicked toward the goal. It was kicked forward parallel to the mouth of the goal and Rask bungled it. It is an Own Goal, not a kicking motion.

Is this real life? You guys wanna female dog about assests giving up for a young center, young goalie and young winger, but you are okay giving them up for a 32 yr old? Honestly what is your thought process here? Or do you just like to complain?
- lung3r

I hope this phrase retires at the end of 2016.

WTF?!

You haven't been paying attention.
- Wetbandit1

Too expensive . Carpets shampooed

My beef is it was not kicked toward the goal. It was kicked forward parallel to the mouth of the goal and Rask bungled it. It is an Own Goal, not a kicking motion.
- Der Kaiser

I just watched it again, it probably would have missed the far post but still if it hit any other player it would have counted but the goalie doesn't negate a kicked puck

Ready to hop on the roof . Lights.. Frucking lights

Beer first

My beef is it was not kicked toward the goal. It was kicked forward parallel to the mouth of the goal and Rask bungled it. It is an Own Goal, not a kicking motion.
- Der Kaiser

It doesn't matter. Gionta could've kicked it towards the blue line and gone off a Bruins' skate and then off Rask and in. It can't be kicked in, you can kick it to a stick other than the goalie's, but that's it.

It doesn't matter. Gionta could've kicked it towards the blue line and gone off a Bruins' skate and then off Rask and in. It can't be kicked in, you can kick it to a stick other than the goalie's, but that's it.
- Wetbandit1

Actually I think it would have counted if it went off a Bruins player other than the goalie

Edit you are correct it would have to go off a stick

I just watched it again, it probably would have missed the far post but still if it hit any other player it would have counted but the goalie doesn't negate a kicked puck
- Stripes77

Has to hit a stick other than the goalie's. Skates or other parts don't count.

I hope this phrase retires at the end of 2016.
- sbroads24

I agree....although i would like to see the female doging just to female dog to make it seem you are smarter gone before the end of 2016.