Went to the game tonight

Martin had an excellent game tonight. (frank) you Burn lol
- Santo_44

Good, agreed. It's about time he should up, needs more of those besides one every 90 games.

- Matthews_Auston

(frank)ing toronto refs totally (frank)ed us today.
- verwustung

Never

With Lums gone, we lost our moral fibre.
- Steven_Seagull

Why did Lums leave?

Why did Lums leave?
- .HOHO.

because of you, obviously

(frank)ing toronto refs totally (frank)ed us today.
- verwustung

Yeah they really did, they made all those saves for the Leafs and only disallowed one stinking goal. LA should have had at least 8 more power plays and two or three penalty shots.

Those bastards. Disallowing that goal by Marner really (frank)ed the Kings over. I feel you.
- PlatosRepucklic

And why did they call it off??? FFS..

And why did they call it off??? FFS..
- bixll

I think it was a good call by the refs.

I think it was a good call by the refs.
- MaximusAurelius

Really, what was the call ?

Really, what was the call ?
- bixll

the call was no interference on Martin getting knocked into Quick.
And the goal being disallowed because of it, also Quick was clearly back on his feet for about 3 seconds before the shot even happened.

Really, what was the call ?
- bixll

no goal due to incidental contact with the goalie and no penalty to Martin on the play

the call was no interference on Martin getting knocked into Quick.
And the goal being disallowed because of it, also Quick was clearly back on his feet for about 3 seconds before the shot even happened.
- bobbyisno1

Should have been a goal. Defender knocked Martin into Quick.
Plain and simple.

the call was no interference on Martin getting knocked into Quick.
And the goal being disallowed because of it, also Quick was clearly back on his feet for about 3 seconds before the shot even happened.
- bobbyisno1

So, if no goal, why no penalty?

Such a mess..

Should have been a goal. Defender knocked Martin into Quick.
Plain and simple.
- .HOHO.

Yes..

no goal due to incidental contact with the goalie and no penalty to Martin on the play
- zazzle

If I'm a goalie and a poop is about to come in,I'm jusy gonna skate off to the corner and say i wasn't ready for it.

If I'm a goalie and a poop is about to come in,I'm jusy gonna skate off to the corner and say i wasn't ready for it.
- walshyleafsfan

Or do a big flop in your crease if a player comes close. That is what happened to Quick, he flopped, got pulled for concussion protocol. When he got to the dark room he had to tell them he faked it and flopped, so no need to go through the BS...

So, if no goal, why no penalty?

Such a mess..
- bixll

because it was 'accidental interference'.
it's a bonus that Martin didn't get 2mins in my view.

because it was 'accidental interference'.
it's a bonus that Martin didn't get 2mins in my view.
- MaximusAurelius

Is that the same as accidental slashing ??? or accidental tripping ?

It is still a penalty. If the goal was called off, Leafs should have gone on the power play. Call should have been against LA.. Martin was the guy laying on the ice.

because it was 'accidental interference'.
it's a bonus that Martin didn't get 2mins in my view.
- MaximusAurelius

Quick had time to recover to his knees, identify Marner had the puck, make 1 lateral move and then one forward move to challenge and cut down the angle. What becomes the cut off between incidental contact and the goalie recovering?

Should have been a goal. Defender knocked Martin into Quick.
Plain and simple.
- .HOHO.

To me it looked like the defender took away the lane in front of the net and Martin put himself in a position where he couldn't stop.

Quick had time to recover to his knees, identify Marner had the puck, make 1 lateral move and then one forward move to challenge and cut down the angle. What becomes the cut off between incidental contact and the goalie recovering?
- vermie22

there's no time restriction. it's a matter of case-by-case.
Seemed clear to me that Quick was hindered in positioning himself correctly (he couldn't get back in position) after the contact.

To me it looked like the defender took away the lane in front of the net and Martin put himself in a position where he couldn't stop.
- TheMussel

I agree with you that if there was someone to 'blame', then it would be Martin.
So yes - maybe Martin should have received 2 mins penalty

I agree with you that if there was someone to 'blame', then it would be Martin.
So yes - maybe Martin should have received 2 mins penalty
- MaximusAurelius

You couldn't understand my questions ?? Or chose to ignore them?

there's no time restriction. it's a matter of case-by-case.
Seemed clear to me that Quick was hindered in positioning himself correctly (he couldn't get back in position) after the contact.
- MaximusAurelius

That's where I see it differently, he had time and did get back into position, but it was simply his fault he made the bad decision to challenge Marner that much.

Just in case you missed this piece of truth the first time around...
- Chardcore709

No one gives a sh1t.
Fack off.
Go hate Subban on the Nashville board.