I'm pretty sure the reason it was allowed is they can only review a goal with a high stick. They can't review a high stick before the goal. Has to be called on the ice
- mdw7413

You may be right Schwein. Makes a lot of sense because he clearly hit the puck over his shoulder.

You may be right Schwein. Makes a lot of sense because he clearly hit the puck over his shoulder.
- nyisles7

I'm not Schwein, although I am inside him a lot...


Yeah, ref should have called it dead. I hate Toronto refs too, but I'm not sure they had a choice on this one

I'm pretty sure the reason it was allowed is they can only review a goal with a high stick. They can't review a high stick before the goal. Has to be called on the ice
- mdw7413

Even if that's true (I don't know that rule), then they still got facked because the refs didn't call it in real time.

I'm pretty sure the reason it was allowed is they can only review a goal with a high stick. They can't review a high stick before the goal. Has to be called on the ice
- mdw7413

Oh.

Well that would make sense then.

Still pissed at Barzal though.

Even if that's true (I don't know that rule), then they still got facked because the refs didn't call it in real time.
- JimmyP

Exactly. Terrible officiating.

Even if that's true (I don't know that rule), then they still got facked because the refs didn't call it in real time.
- JimmyP

Yeah, they did, but apparently your announcers are saying that could be reviewed. I don't (frank)ing know

Exactly. Terrible officiating.
- ziggy_skalica

It was really bad today. They didn't want to call anything unless they absolutely had to.

Y'all got screwed.

Terrible (frank)ing call.

Even if that's true (I don't know that rule), then they still got facked because the refs didn't call it in real time.
- JimmyP

He's correct, and it's dumb as hell.

I'm pretty sure the reason it was allowed is they can only review a goal with a high stick. They can't review a high stick before the goal. Has to be called on the ice
- mdw7413

New rule: Coaches can now challenge more stuff

The details: They were already allowed to ask officials to look for goalie interference or offside on plays that result in a goal. Now they can demand a replay if they think a play should have been whistled dead before a goal for the puck going into the netting or a high-sticked puck or hand pass in the offensive zone. Coaches can now challenge as many plays as they want, but it gets riskier after they get one wrong. The penalty for the first unsuccessful challenge is two minutes. It's four minutes for each one after that.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports...hl-rule-changes-1.5290278

I mean, they weren't killing, what, a minute and a half more of OT PP anyway, but...

I'm not Schwein, although I am inside him a lot...


Yeah, ref should have called it dead. I hate Toronto refs too, but I'm not sure they had a choice on this one
- mdw7413

Sorry mdw I was a little riled up after that

New rule: Coaches can now challenge more stuff

The details: They were already allowed to ask officials to look for goalie interference or offside on plays that result in a goal. Now they can demand a replay if they think a play should have been whistled dead before a goal for the puck going into the netting or a high-sticked puck or hand pass in the offensive zone. Coaches can now challenge as many plays as they want, but it gets riskier after they get one wrong. The penalty for the first unsuccessful challenge is two minutes. It's four minutes for each one after that.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports...hl-rule-changes-1.5290278

I mean, they weren't killing, what, a minute and a half more of OT PP anyway, but...
- UIF

Ah, thanks UIF, so it is reviewable.

New rule: Coaches can now challenge more stuff

The details: They were already allowed to ask officials to look for goalie interference or offside on plays that result in a goal. Now they can demand a replay if they think a play should have been whistled dead before a goal for the puck going into the netting or a high-sticked puck or hand pass in the offensive zone. Coaches can now challenge as many plays as they want, but it gets riskier after they get one wrong. The penalty for the first unsuccessful challenge is two minutes. It's four minutes for each one after that.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports...hl-rule-changes-1.5290278

I mean, they weren't killing, what, a minute and a half more of OT PP anyway, but...
- UIF

Interesting UIF,

Ah, thanks UIF, so it is reviewable.
- mdw7413

I think? I thought I heard Brendan say it was a new rule in the broadcast, but he might have been sharing some of the sauce with Butchie, so I wanted to look it up before saying anything. Here's different wording:


EXPANSION OF COACH’S CHALLENGE

NEW CATEGORY: In addition to Coach’s Challenge for “Off-side” and “Interference on the Goalkeeper”, a third category will allow for the Coach’s Challenge of goal calls on the ice that follow plays in the Offensive Zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage, but did not.

This change will allow Challenges of plays that may involve pucks that hit the spectator netting, pucks that are high-sticked to a teammate in the offensive zone, pucks that have gone out of play but are subsequently touched in the offensive zone and hand passes that precede without a play stoppage and ultimately conclude in the scoring of a goal. Plays that entail “discretionary stoppages” (e.g. penalty calls) will not be subject to a Coach’s Challenge.

https://media.nhl.com/pub.../news/13393?sf104452379=1

I guess the argument might be Trotz himself didn't challenge it...but, I'm pretty sure he would have if given the option since he was barking like a small dog in the window from the moment the announcement was made.

I think? I thought I heard Brendan say it was a new rule in the broadcast, but he might have been sharing some of the sauce with Butchie, so I wanted to look it up before saying anything. Here's different wording:


EXPANSION OF COACH’S CHALLENGE

NEW CATEGORY: In addition to Coach’s Challenge for “Off-side” and “Interference on the Goalkeeper”, a third category will allow for the Coach’s Challenge of goal calls on the ice that follow plays in the Offensive Zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage, but did not.

This change will allow Challenges of plays that may involve pucks that hit the spectator netting, pucks that are high-sticked to a teammate in the offensive zone, pucks that have gone out of play but are subsequently touched in the offensive zone and hand passes that precede without a play stoppage and ultimately conclude in the scoring of a goal. Plays that entail “discretionary stoppages” (e.g. penalty calls) will not be subject to a Coach’s Challenge.

https://media.nhl.com/pub.../news/13393?sf104452379=1

I guess the argument might be Trotz himself didn't challenge it...but, I'm pretty sure he would have if given the option since he was barking like a small dog in the window from the moment the announcement was made.
- UIF

I guess the NHL wants nothing to do with playoff games at the Barn!!!!

(frank) them!
(frank) Trotz for a poop lineup!
(frank) Lou for being Lou!

I guess the NHL wants nothing to do with playoff games at the Barn!!!!

(frank) them!
(frank) Trotz for a poop lineup!
(frank) Lou for being Lou!
- Wario

I guess the NHL wants nothing to do with playoff games at the Barn!!!!

(frank) them!
(frank) Trotz for a poop lineup!
(frank) Lou for being Lou!
- Wario

I mean seriously guys... you give up all those draft picks for Pageau, and then you give him all the millions to put him on a line with Ladd and DalColle....?
Tabarnak!!!!

I mean seriously guys... you give up all those draft picks for Pageau, and then you give him all the millions to put him on a line with Ladd and DalColle....?
Tabarnak!!!!
- Wario

Honestly didn’t think that line was bad. They had some real pushes in the offensive zone. Weren’t on for one against either. Not many options for Trots with the injuries.

Honestly didn’t think that line was bad. They had some real pushes in the offensive zone. Weren’t on for one against either. Not many options for Trots with the injuries.
- nyisles7

Play the freakin kids already!!! Sure they’ll make mistakes.... but at least they will try their best! Can you actually say the same for Bailey, Beauvillier and Brassard!!!!!

It’s a (frank)in easy call to make to sit their lazy asses!!!!

Interesting Lee said the Canes were drawing up a new play thinking it was no goal.

Arthur Staple
@StapeAthletic
·
1m
NHL Situation Room email states Svechnikov’s stick was above the crossbar but below his shoulders. Once puck hit the post and bounced out, it was a legal play — stick above the bar only stops play if puck goes directly in.

Arthur Staple
@StapeAthletic
·
1m
NHL Situation Room email states Svechnikov’s stick was above the crossbar but below his shoulders. Once puck hit the post and bounced out, it was a legal play — stick above the bar only stops play if puck goes directly in.
- UIF

I disagree.

Arthur Staple
@StapeAthletic
·
1m
NHL Situation Room email states Svechnikov’s stick was above the crossbar but below his shoulders. Once puck hit the post and bounced out, it was a legal play — stick above the bar only stops play if puck goes directly in.
- UIF

Yeah they just straight up blew it.

Play the freakin kids already!!! Sure they’ll make mistakes.... but at least they will try their best! Can you actually say the same for Bailey, Beauvillier and Brassard!!!!!

It’s a (frank)in easy call to make to sit their lazy asses!!!!
- Wario

Well for me I would rather have Bailey, Beau, and Brassard in the lineup vs Otto, Bellows and who ever else you want in there. Obviously that’s just my opinion and of course your entitled to yours. Even if it’s wrong