Support NeoGAF

[Antti]

Toews plowed into Quick all by himself and stripped him off the ability to make the save, but that should've been called on the ice. It's great that they got it right, but they should change the retarded rule first before doing so.

 

[WonkyPanda]

Crawford is the only person on the Hawks with a pulse right now

Gabbo and Kopi are murder right now. Imagine of they had a decent third linemate

Brown am cry.

 

[Jack Remington]

Toews plowed into Quick all by himself and stripped him off the ability to make the save, but that should've been called on the ice. It's great that they got it right, but they should change the retarded rule first before doing so.

This guy gets it.

 

[MeBecomingI]

What a shot! KEITH!!!!

It'll be disallowed.

 

[Calamari41]

Let's wait to see what the refs say before we get excited about this one

 

[Velcro Fly]

I bet that one counts!

 

[Webbie]

There's obviously more to say because it wasn't ruled a goal. So, if something is clearly a goal, as you're suggesting, but it was ruled not a goal, then there is obviously more to say.

Here is my answer, Hawks just scored, it should be 3 to nothing now. later.

 

[Smiley90]

all is right again in this world

Here is my answer, Hawks just scored, it should be 3 to nothing now. later.

By that logic the first goal shouldn't have counted either because it wasn't really a penalty, so it should be 2-1 anyway. w/e, what's done is done. Don't know why that somehow invalidates the LA goal :lol

 

[Pickles the Firecat]

Backbreaker. Ugh.

Play that well for so long and go down a goal....gonna be rough to recover from that

Jesus how many deflections was that

 

[zroid]

ヽ(✿◕‿&#9685ﾉ

 

[Calamari41]

Went off of Lewis' stick? Puck Interference. No goal.

 

[zychi]

DK!

 

[Webbie]

Went off of Lewis' stick? Puck Interference. No goal.

No No, the puck bounced more than two times, DISALLOWED GOAL.

 

[WonkyPanda]

Backbreaker. Ugh.

Play that well for so long and go down a goal....gonna be rough to recover from that

Jesus how many deflections was that

This will be a series lost in the neutral zone, ala last year's WCF

 

[Acid08]

MURDERER KEITH

 

[Webbie]

all is right again in this world



By that logic the first goal shouldn't have counted either because it wasn't really a penalty, so it should be 2-1 anyway. w/e, what's done is done. Don't know why that somehow invalidates the LA goal :lol

Because our 2nd goal should have counted, therefore LA should have never had a goal.

 

[zroid]

Sutter giving a serious interview? Am I dreaming?

 

[Smiley90]

Because our 2nd goal should have counted, therefore LA should have never had a goal.

that's not how it works.

by that logic something that happened in game 1 of the regular season would impact something in the SCF because things would've played out differently afterwards.

Just be happy the Hawks scored, be happy the Hawks scored on a penalty that shouldn't have been one (by your logic then the 2nd Hawks goal also wouldn't have occurred), be upset the Refs are crap.

But don't say "we'd be up 3-0 if the refs were competent" because that's just wrong.

If the Refs were competent the first goal wouldn't have occurred already.

 

[WonkyPanda]

Sutter giving a serious interview? Am I dreaming?

I understood most of the words and the context; we're in trouble.

 

[Webbie]

that's not how it works.

by that logic something that happened in game 1 of the regular season would impact something in the SCF because things would've played out differently afterwards.

Just be happy the Hawks scored, be happy the Hawks scored on a penalty that shouldn't have been one (by your logic then the 2nd Hawks goal also wouldn't have occurred), be upset the Refs are crap.

But don't say "we'd be up 3-0 if the refs were competent" because that's just wrong.

If the Refs were competent the first goal wouldn't have occurred already.

There was a penalty, a legit one. So your opinion fails.

 

[Acid08]

There was a penalty, a legit one. So your opinion fails.

Is this wsox v2.0?

 

[Jack Remington]

There was goalie interference. Legit goalie interference.

You're wearing some of the thickest homer glasses I've ever seen.

 

[apocalidiot]

We should make a separate thread for people that enjoy spending the game discussing/bitching about the refs. I'm sure the rest of us would enjoy the separation

 

[Roflobear]

We should make a separate thread for people that enjoy spending the game discussing/bitching about the refs. I'm sure the rest of us would enjoy the separation

Co-sign

 

[Sanjuro]

We should make a separate thread for people that enjoy spending the game discussing/bitching about the refs. I'm sure the rest of us would enjoy the separation

Sounds good!

 

[zroid]

We should make a separate thread for people that enjoy spending the game discussing/bitching about the refs. I'm sure the rest of us would enjoy the separation

when the thread reaches the post limit, there will be 19000 kingslunk posts and 1000 by everyone else combined

 

[Webbie]

The whole point here is that if that had been the Kings goal being disallowed the Kings fans would be up in arms too. So yeah, as long as it's not your team it is the right call.

 

[MeBecomingI]

Haha, Seabrook screaming at his forwards for not helping out on defense enough and covering zones. Good.

 

[Calamari41]

Maybe kingslunk should start the reffing thread? Here, let me get his attention:

That was not a fight at the end of Game 6 against the Ducks, it was clear roughing.

 

[WonkyPanda]

Hawks just need to keep dropping it in deep. Kings are definitely gassed.

 

[Smiley90]

There was a penalty, a legit one. So your opinion fails.

-sigh- I give up, let me know once the fanboy glasses come off

Is this wsox v2.0?

:lol

There was goalie interference. Legit goalie interference.

You're wearing some of the thickest homer glasses I've ever seen.

I'm actually gonna respond to you this time because your response is the perfect one. If you argue with fanboy glasses on you just accept x as truth when it isn't.

Don't pretend like you're any better than him though, Remington :lol

 

[MeBecomingI]

Come on, PK.

Rozsival saving a goal.

 

[Roflobear]

Split PPs are the worst, especially ones like this that'll be split up in half almost

 

[Jack Remington]

The whole point here is that if that had been the Kings goal being disallowed the Kings fans would be up in arms too. So yeah, as long as it's not your team it is the right call.

There was blatant goalie interference on the Kings' goal?

 

[Pickles the Firecat]

Kings are absolutely outplaying my expectations right now. Coming out down 2 - 1 after a period like that is killer but with they way they're playing, things are looking up. Tons and tons an tons of chances and missed opportunities. Need to capitalize.

 

[Webbie]

There was blatant goalie interference on the Kings' goal?

Even if it was, which it wasn't the play isn't reviewable and yet the refs reviewed it. Goal should have counted.

 

[Pickles the Firecat]

Even if it was, which it wasn't the play isn't reviewable and yet the refs reviewed it. Goal should have counted.

Dude, the Hawks are up 2 - 1. Relax. Enjoy it.

 

[Jack Remington]

Kings are absolutely outplaying my expectations right now. Coming out down 2 - 1 after a period like that is killer but with they way they're playing, things are looking up. Tons and tons an tons of chances and missed opportunities. Need to capitalize.

There were like 3 that should have been easy goals with halfway decent puck control. So frustrating.

 

[MeBecomingI]

Both teams are playing good and it can go either way right now. Gonna be a crazy third.

 

[ShaneB]

Dammit =(

 

[Merguson]

The NHL explanation for the no-goal is even more confusing, lol.

 

[Antti]

This is what they came up with:

At 3:22 of the second period in the Los Angeles Kings/Chicago Blackhawks game, the referee consulted video review to see if Jonathan Toews' initial shot entered the Los Angeles net. It was determined Toews' initial shot did not enter the net. The referee's original call on the ice was "good goal" but a discussion between the on-ice officials resulted in a "no goal" decision because Toews made incidental contact with Kings goaltender Jonathan Quick before the puck crossed the goal line. This is not a reviewable play therefore the decision on the ice stands - no goal and no penalty.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=29472

 

[MightGoThere]

I can see Kings dominating the third and not getting any goal. It's happened before.

 

[Smiley90]

This is what they came up with:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=29472

"The initial call was good goal"

"The play is non-reviewable"

"Therefore, no goal"

What? :lol

 

[Merguson]

"The initial call was good goal"

"The play is non-reviewable"

"Therefore, no goal"

What? :lol

It sounds like they changed their decision before going to the video review to me.

 

[WonkyPanda]

I can see Kings dominating the third and not getting any goal. It's happened before.

We were unequivocally the better 3p team in the Ducks series. Let's hope we can keep that up.

 

[Webbie]

This is what they came up with:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=29472

So basically, they used video review to determine goalie interference when they shouldn't have, disgusting.

 

[Webbie]

Dude, the Hawks are up 2 - 1. Relax. Enjoy it.

I am enjoying it thanks, but they should be up 3-0.

 

[wsoxfan1214]

Stop being a fucking idiot.

 

[MightGoThere]

Fuuuuu