Results 51 to 60 of 75
-
05-28-2009, 08:19 PM #51
personally, I do not cheer for either of these teams so no biased opinion here, I think the hit was very clean but from what I have read in this thread, the refs have a way to justify calling that penalty interference and the game misconduct. If the NHL rule book states that possession is the last player to have touched the puck, then there is really no arguing against it. Even if the refs havent called it that way since "forever".
Just wahat I think
-
-
05-28-2009, 08:21 PM #52
i think people are just forgetting that a hit can be clean and against the rules at the same time. In terms of a hit yes it was clean. elbows and stick down, feet planted all that. There are tons of clean fights but fighting is clearly against the rules.
-
05-28-2009, 08:36 PM #53
Well then thats a serious problem dont we think. How can someone make a great clean hit, yet get sent to the dressing room and have their team down a man for 5 minutes? Thats a joke.
The fact is, if Havlat gets up, everyone raves about the great hit. Havlat got pummelled so when he doesnt get up, the refs think they have to hand out a major and the gate? No way. Just because you can find a way to justify the call in the rulebook, doesnt mesan its right and you have to make the call, especially when its pretty clear you were never goign to make the call to begin with. Thats why its a joke. Thats where the NHL is ruining itself and the game. Thats sad.
-
-
05-28-2009, 08:41 PM #54
once again...ask any referee in the world. Puck in feet = possession
-
05-28-2009, 09:09 PM #55
LOrd people!
It was deemed after the play was over that he was hit in a vulnerable position, that's why there was a penalty! That's why they called it interference.
It's a good rule, on I wish was around in the 80's when I played my AAAs.
Still though, you hardly ever see it called.
-
-
05-28-2009, 09:12 PM #56
LMAO...deemed after the play?? Really because they didnt review it at all...so your saying the refs just magically came up with this in their heads right??? Horrible call...everyone says clean hit...legal hit. It was a bad call...and the wrong call...why cant you admit this?
-
05-28-2009, 09:18 PM #57
NO, during the intermission on CBC, Kelly Hrudey had one of his staff call down to the referees room to find out what the call was. After the scrum was over the referees and the linesmen talked it over.
Give it up already.
-
-
05-28-2009, 09:31 PM #58
once again, link it from the NHL rulebook and you win...
And Grim... the hitting part was clean. Unfortunately, he was not a legal target of a hit according to the Interference rules laid out in the NHL Rulebook. If you read through the thread, i cut and pasted the NHL rule #56 which outlines interference which this hit clearly violated, whether or not they call it this way all the time the rules do state this is interference, unless you ask our one friend over here who cant seem to read NHL Rulebooks and likes to make up rules as he goes.Last edited by Cerialthriller; 05-28-2009 at 09:34 PM.
-
05-28-2009, 09:48 PM #59
The problem is they didn't call interference....
They called charging.
So, everyone saying it was the correct call is absolutely wrong.
I'm a non-biased fan from Philadelphia. I dont like the wings, or the hawks. I wanted the Hawks to win it. The refs arms never went up, and the penalty was called after the scrum. Plain and simple I think it was the wrong call. we can all argue this longer, but we will never com eto an agreement.
I might as well have a moderator remove this.
-
05-28-2009, 09:49 PM #60
and my mistake if i thought it was called charging and not inteference. I thought it was charging, but i may be wrong.
Someone please let me know.
Thanks.
-
Originally Posted by Cerialthriller 
