Game Thread: Chicago Blackhawks(3) vs. Los Angeles Kings(3) | WCF

[Cobiemonster]

Nice job Jake Muzzin you shit head

 

[Cobiemonster]

Kings played a really good game though - first goal came because of a dive that wasn't called, second goal was a bad deflection and that third goal, Jake Muzzin had no business going out of his way to make a hit like that, put the team in a bad spot

Two days off now, rest up and get some good practices and be ready again for Game 2

 

[Cobiemonster]

 

[Judge Fudge]

i'm impressed by LA today.

I was thinking blowout like yesterday

 

[puckhead]

also learned today that I dislike the Kings more than the Hawks.
this came as a surprise.


also, I hope this hurt.

 

[Cobiemonster]

lol wtf

 

[forty_three]

also learned today that I dislike the Kings more than the Hawks.
this came as a surprise.


also, I hope this hurt.

There are a few Kings I absolutely cannot stand (Brown, Nolan, Fuck Jeff Carter). But some I really, really like (Gaborik, Kopitar, Toffoli).

Not sure there's anyone on the Hawks I truly dislike. But I hated Chelios and Belfour enough for that to carry over still.

 

[forty_three]

Heh. Kings Twitter guy is pretty funny. But the Hawks dude got him this time.

 

[dare2be]

LOL...11% battery life remaining.

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

I don't get it.

 

[davnlaguna]

I don't get it.

God mode
Konami Code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NDHoosier101]

According to the NHL, the original call of good goal was changed because the officials decided Toews made incidental contact with Quick before the puck crossed the goal line. The league said the ruling was not reviewable, so the call on the ice remained in place.

You're blowing my mind NHL, the original call was a good goal. It wasn't reviewable, so the opposite of the original call remained in place. Right on.

 

[dare2be]

Actually, the final call on the ice was no goal (changed by the officials on the ice after initially calling it a good goal). That's how I read it.

 

[forty_three]

Actually, the final call on the ice was no goal (changed by the officials on the ice after initially calling it a good goal). That's how I read it.

Did they announce before the review that the goal was disallowed? All I saw was the point for "good goal" and then a review overturning it.

 

[Cobiemonster]

You're blowing my mind NHL, the original call was a good goal. It wasn't reviewable, so the opposite of the original call remained in place. Right on.

The issue was that Toews' first shot didn't go in the net, it didn't go in until after he hit Quick, so therefore that makes it a no goal - so if you think about it, he sort of pushed him into the net which made the puck go in - they weren't reviewing whether it was goalie interference or not, it's kind of like the other reviews where they've called incidental contact

 

[NDHoosier101]

The issue was that Toews' first shot didn't go in the net, it didn't go in until after he hit Quick, so therefore that makes it a no goal - so if you think about it, he sort of pushed him into the net which made the puck go in - they weren't reviewing whether it was goalie interference or not, it's kind of like the other reviews where they've called incidental contact

I just thought the statement was funny, it's a no harm no foul type of incident now. But the Kings defender actually kicked it into the net, it wasn't like Quick had it on his pad and was pushed over the line...

Did they announce before the review that the goal was disallowed? All I saw was the point for "good goal" and then a review overturning it.

They did huddle up on the ice, but they certainly didn't announce anything before the review.

 

[Cobiemonster]

I just thought the statement was funny, it's a no harm no foul type of incident now. But the Kings defender actually kicked it into the net, it wasn't like Quick had it on his pad and was pushed over the line...

In the "spirit" of the rule, it was the right call because he made contact with the goalie, which in this case is incidental, so that would be just no goal

 

[pumpkinhead33793]

During the game, the announcers said that they usually would let that kind of incidental contact go if the player was driving hard to the net. So it was iffy for sure for them to overturn it. A lot if times officials wanna make the game more interesting so I can see it. The Hawks are the superior team.

 

[Cobiemonster]

During the game, the announcers said that they usually would let that kind of incidental contact go if the player was driving hard to the net. So it was iffy for sure for them to overturn it. A lot if times officials wanna make the game more interesting so I can see it. The Hawks are the superior team.

Ahahahaha wut

 

[pumpkinhead33793]

Ahahahaha wut

Better record this year
Better head to head record this year
More recent success in previous years

What else you want? The Kings are a good team. The Hawks are a borderline dynasty.