Never ever sean it called like that but it makes sense,usually a team passes it back into their zone while opposing players are already in it and all is cool as it is a conscience effort.....but to call it on a crazy bounce to me isnt the spirit of the rule.The fact that they use a replay that is an abomination of the rule and find another way to screw up the intent is just so sad.
- eagle50

Seabrook did not have possession of the puck, if that is the case, then when a goalie pushes the puck into the forbidden zone shouldn't that be a penalty, because he was the last one with possession?

Seabrook did not have possession of the puck, if that is the case, then when a goalie pushes the puck into the forbidden zone shouldn't that be a penalty, because he was the last one with possession?
- powerenforcer

- L_B_R

We was robbed

the way I see it Seabrook blew it when he didnt seal the boards. Not a satistying way to end the game but there are some positives to take from it.


Like Hayden connecting HARD after that grapple fest.

Hartman got a goal.

Forsling had a strong game aside from a few brain farts (unfortunately one ended up in the net)

Rutta looked good. He's better than Kempny in my book.

We was robbed
- eagle50

He wasn't checked he tried to windshield wiper the puck away and missed.

Fer Fracks sake. That was the most frustrating game to watch. I see clutch and grab & holding are alive and strong still. How many tonight were not called on the Wild. Holy hell.

And then to top it off... That ridiculous call and then the penalty.

- L_B_R

But it was never in the o-zone to begin with. That rule only applies when the puck and player start in the o-zone. Read the However clause, that is what the play should follow.

15 played a solid game
If you’re not 100% sure of the challenge you pass and

since when do u pull the goalie with 4:24 to play down 2!

Sorry
This loss is on the Coach.
- Colbyboy

I can agree on that one.. just saying from the first three games.. speed through the middle of the ice is key.. I just think with anisimov as second line center we're not as effective.. and btw I'm kidding about Crawford

and btw I'm kidding about Crawford
- bigfly46

Ok good. You got me

But it was never in the o-zone to begin with. That rule only applies when the puck and player start in the o-zone.
- powerenforcer

Second part of the rule states the the player on O cant use the defender as they did.

But it was never in the o-zone to begin with. That rule only applies when the puck and player start in the o-zone. Read the However clause, that is what the play should follow.
- powerenforcer

Oh, I don't disagree, I was just putting up what they're going to use as an explanation.

Or they'll use the bottom line of this part:



I don't see how Seabrook was carrying the puck but eh.

Wow how bout those NHL refs...

That was absolutely brutal...how many guys are looking at this in Toronto?
Not to mention those ridiculous marketing gimmicks (the tablets) that the officials can't really see anyway.

Meanwhile Anismov iiiissss sllloowww....finally Q put Kero up there and hold on - we have a breaking story - a goal...but downhill after that.

And no question 2 and 7 are starting to show their age a bit...

Second part of the rule states the the player on O cant use the defender as they did.
- eagle50

Exactly correct, I updated my response.

poop i was hoping for 61-0-20...now on pace for 50-16-16

Kane misses Schmaltz and still got an assist
The Captain is back. 1st line is the best line right now.
Is Rutta the 3rd best D on the team?
Great punch by Hayden.
Game turned on a fluke play.
Blackhawks need to be better. I think they'll get there. Need Schmaltz, maybe more.

I can agree on that one.. just saying from the first three games.. speed through the middle of the ice is key.. I just think with anisimov as second line center we're not as effective.. and btw I'm kidding about Crawford
- bigfly46

Agree- When Anisimov plays third line Center it’s all better
Stay healthy Smaltz!

However
You can’t win in this league scoring 1 goal....period

I’ll give Toews 10 games but from what I’ve seen
Patrick Sharp at 1 Million looks as good as Toews at 10 Million- maybe better

Oh, I don't disagree, I was just putting up what they're going to use as an explanation.


Or they'll use the bottom line of this part:



I don't see how Seabrook was carrying the puck but eh.
- L_B_R

OK, not trying to cause an argument, but if they use that (saying Seabs had possession or carried it over the line) then WE ALL KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE GAME. Rules cannot be picked and choosen to fit an argument.

The call was BS, but there are some positives for the team to take away. The Wild were just barely holding the fort and the Hawks continued to press. Not a perfect game, but the Hawks weren't outplayed. The call didn't go their way and that extra penalty gave the Wild momentum and a 3-1 lead. The Hawks will make up the points.

OK, not trying to cause an argument, but if they use that (saying Seabs had possession or carried it over the line) then WE ALL KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE GAME. Rules cannot be picked and choosen to fit an argument.
- powerenforcer

yeah seabs had possession windmilling while sliding on his ass...eehh screw it

Ok good. You got me
- kinigitt

Crawford is going to carry this team until our d finds its identity.. Seabs slowing down... rutta and kempny still adjusting to the NHL... simple as that... it's early but the flow of the game is different with schmaltz being out.. I don't think we get as many quality chances with AA on the second line

OK, not trying to cause an argument, but if they use that (saying Seabs had possession or carried it over the line) then WE ALL KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE GAME. Rules cannot be picked and choosen to fit an argument.
- powerenforcer

I'm not trying to argue either - I understand what they're claiming but idk if I buy it completely. The reason it was especially silly is that it resulted in a PP. That's still dumb.

And now it's official - they do consider Seabrook pushing the puck in the zone as a legal carry.

I'm not trying to argue either - I understand what they're claiming but idk if I buy it completely. The reason it was especially silly is that it resulted in a PP. That's still dumb.

And now it's official - they do consider Seabrook pushing the puck in the zone as a legal carry.


- L_B_R

The league can lie if they want to , but the decision was black and white. ( Think about it).

The league can lie if they want to , but the decision was black and white. ( Think about it).
- powerenforcer

I don't think they're lying - I think the linemens really interpreted the rule that way. Do I think it's the correct way to interpret it? Not really. For it to be a legal carry, the player has to have possession of the puck and I don't see how anyone can say Seabrook has possession. And I feel like there still needs to be intention behind it to be a pass, so just happening to hit Seabrook and be pushed in doesn't quite line up.

I don't think Seabrook had any control and it shouldn't be considered a carry or pass.

I don't think they're lying - I think the linemens really interpreted the rule that way. Do I think it's the correct way to interpret it? Not really. For it to be a legal carry, the player has to have possession of the puck and I don't see how anyone can say Seabrook has possession. And I feel like there still needs to be intention behind it to be a pass, so just happening to hit Seabrook and be pushed in doesn't quite line up.

I don't think Seabrook had any control and it shouldn't be considered a carry or pass.
- L_B_R

So then, I ask my question again. If this was considered possession, then why when a goalie plays the puck in front of the forbidden zone and passes it through the zone into the trapazoid, why don't they call that a penalty for playing it in the corner?

I don't think they're lying - I think the linemens really interpreted the rule that way. Do I think it's the correct way to interpret it? Not really. For it to be a legal carry, the player has to have possession of the puck and I don't see how anyone can say Seabrook has possession. And I feel like there still needs to be intention behind it to be a pass, so just happening to hit Seabrook and be pushed in doesn't quite line up.

I don't think Seabrook had any control and it shouldn't be considered a carry or pass.
- L_B_R

So then, I ask my question again. If this was considered possession, then why when a goalie plays the puck in front of the forbidden zone and passes it through the zone into the trapazoid, why don't they call that a penalty for playing it in the corner?