Results 11 to 15 of 15
-
12-31-2010, 01:57 PM #11
I'll say tw things:
One, WEAK call by the refs to award it. Stamkos was in BARELY in the clear. A hooking call would have sufficed.
Two, the ensuing goal itself was absolutely FILTHY.
-
-
12-31-2010, 02:06 PM #12
Forward Motion
basically a joke - I have seem MANY shootout and penalty shots where they do some move that has the puck stop or move a bit backwards.....Has anyone seen a goal waved off for not having forward motion at all times?
Spin-o-rama
Its fan friendly....and when you are up (even by one goal or ahead in the shootout AND you are at home....some do ot...Omark did it at home....(did not get fancy on a shootout in LA) and so did Stamkos....I dont think I have seen a fancy move/shot from anyone on the road....
BTW - I dont think anything was wrong with Omark's spin.....the player can do ANYTHING within the rules to score...rookie, veteran, whoever.....the goal is to score and he did - end of story.
-
01-01-2011, 02:21 PM #13
I love that he has the skill to pull off a move like that, but really thing those spin-o-ramas right in front of the net are questionable... though I suppose it is no different than a goalie coming out for a poke check on a penalty shot attempt.
Stammer is crazy.
-
-
01-01-2011, 02:26 PM #14
This kind of situation will require a review of the rules. This kind of moves shoudn't be accepted on a penalty shot; however it would be a great during regular plays, but not on a penalty shot.
-
01-01-2011, 03:06 PM #15
Two things should have happened on that play.
1. 2 Minute Hooking Penalty
2. In lieu of the wrong call on the original play, the PS goal should have been disallowed. He stopped.... end of play, then back-handed the puck.
In the 60's where only 1 or 2 penalty shots per year were handed out by the league, Stamko's goal would have been disallowed.
Filthy move nonetheless. Agree on that part.
-
