Game Thread: NHL Games - 1-7-15

[pixburgher66]

Why even have review if you are gonna come out with completely wrong call? It was either off Despres and it's a goal, or off Bergeron and no goal. NHL refs suck balls again.

All they had to say was the call stood, good goal. That explanation is just plain...wrong. If it was deemed off Bergeron's stick, it was certainly high. If it was deemed off Despres, good goal. If inconclusive, say call on the ice stands. But they concluded it wasn't a high stick? Yeahhhh, nope. Not even sure why they ruled it a goal on the ice. Live it looked pretty daggum high.

 

[thedddd]

Yeah calling that a goal originally was wrong. You see a high stick near the puck/goal your reaction as the ref should be to call it a no goal and then review.

 

[joe_baran]

Maybe the ref had some place to be and he was already late? Have to agree with pix last post.

 

[pixburgher66]

Yeah I guess since they said it was goal on the Ice they figured it was too close to overturn?

And that's fine...but then the on-ice explanation is "call on the ice stands". They had a few options on how to call it: 1) off Bergeron above the crossbar, 2) off Despres' glove, 3) inconclusive, call on ice stands...they went with the 4th option: it was a legal tip off Bergeron.

 

[thedddd]

And that's fine...but then the on-ice explanation is "call on the ice stands". They had a few options on how to call it: 1) off Bergeron above the crossbar, 2) off Despres' glove, 3) inconclusive, call on ice stands...they went with the 4th option: it was a legal tip off Bergeron.

Exactly...I am just as dumbfounded on the explanation. Just plain stupid.

 

[pixburgher66]

Not the best picture, but couldn't find a video. Stick is over the guys head. Sheesh. Pens were a solid -2 in "catching breaks" on goals after the one taken away earlier and this one. Still a point, and they were the better team for a good portion of this game. Third was played pretty evenly.


EDIT:

 

[element1286]

"Better team" is being kind to the Bruins, they were junk, IMO.

 

[pixburgher66]

"Better team" is being kind to the Bruins, they were junk, IMO.

I was saying the Pens were the better team, hah. Bruins woke up for about 3 minutes at the end of the first, and pretty much the only time they had sustained pressure in the Pens' zone was when the fourth line was on the ice. The fourth line is junk at the moment. Sill is useless, Adams is old AND useless, and Ebbett is a career AHLer. I know that this all changes when the team gets healthy, but it's a bit frustrating. When 100% healthy zero of those guys are on the ice (Hornqvist, Goc, Dupuis), and when we simply get Hornqvist/Goc back, at least it's only one useless guy on there. I much prefer Farnham in the lineup over Sill/Ebbett/Adams...but it won't happen.

 

[elocomotive]

Noooooo clue how they ruled that Bergeron goal "below the crossbar".

Seemed like a good goal to me.

Though again, I wasn't watching this game.

 

[elocomotive]

Why even have review if you are gonna come out with completely wrong call? It was either off Despres and it's a goal, or off Bergeron and no goal. NHL refs suck balls again.

This is a totally unfair characterization of NHL refs.

Some of them are more taint lickers than ball lickers.

 

[element1286]

Haha, sorry Pix that's what I meant the Pens beat the hell out of the Bruins most of the night, the refs and luck intervened on the Bruins behalf.

Yeah, the 4th line is junk, I will rejoice the day that Craig Adams is no longer a Pittsburgh Penguin.

Also, NHL already back-peddling about what the actual call was.

 

[pixburgher66]

Haha, sorry Pix that's what I meant the Pens beat the hell out of the Bruins most of the night, the refs and luck intervened on the Bruins behalf.

Yeah, the 4th line is junk, I will rejoice the day that Craig Adams is no longer a Pittsburgh Penguin.

Also, NHL already back-peddling about what the actual call was.

[MEDIA=twitter]553040258401837057[/MEDIA]

Could be that's what they said on the headset, and the ref didn't relay the info very well.

 

[element1286]

Could be, but they are still wrong either way when they say "both the glove and stick were at or below the crossbar", they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt on anything really.

 

[bt08]

UMMM...the stick came down to deflect the puck, did the stick start above the crossbar yes, where was it when it made contact with puck...at or below the crossbar=GOAL=2 pts we really needed

 

[element1286]

UMMM...the stick came down to deflect the puck, did the stick start above the crossbar yes, where was it when it made contact with puck...at or below the crossbar=GOAL=2 pts we really needed

Rising shot, visibly knocked down multiple inches, and still just barely squeaks under the crossbar, nah you're wrong.

 

[bt08]

Rising shot, visibly knocked down multiple inches, and still just barely squeaks under the crossbar, nah you're wrong.

that is your opinion... and I would expect nothing less from a Pens fan...hope to see u guys again in the playoffs

 

[elocomotive]

Alright you guys, only one way to settle this debate...

 

[forty_three]

Simmer down Caps fans. You're too excitable.

 

[dash]

^

That's Sue from Landover, Md.

/Uh oh, now I've gone and got eloco all excited.