Check out the photo another user posted just above this - it was a much better pic and showed the extreme distance. Tank had just jumped on the ice in this one so you can back up Berglund (I think it was him) another couple feet to account for when Tank jumped on and clearly it's too many men.cprice12 wrote: I get what you are saying, but it doesn't work that way. One player could be skating faster than the other. I know when Tarasenko jumped on the ice, he hesitated to wait for a sec Berglund to get closer...not that he waited long enough, but your 35' number and saying it is 7 times what is allowed, is just misleading. Fuzzy math if you will.
I'm not outraged. But I will remember that you are okay with this rule not being enforced as long as it benefits the Blues. You've been pretty vocal about this violation of the rule many times before and how the NHL needed to change this.cprice12 wrote: If you are going to get outraged over this line change, you should be outraged at over a dozen line changes a game. This happens all of the time. To not bring it up until it's convenient to complain about a goal against, is picking and choosing.
I don't remember. Although I do remember last year when you posted a photo of the Hawks celebrating after an OT goal and there were like 8-10 guys out there and how the refs supposedly blew the call and I pointed it was a post game celebration after the winning goal and when other players came on to celebrate.cprice12 wrote: The Hawks take advantage of the lax too many men distance as well. And like was mentioned a couple times before, the Hawks scored with 7 men on the ice against the Blues earlier this year and the goal counted. And if I remember correctly, you defended the non-call. At least I think you did...maybe I'll go back and find the thread to be sure.
No I don't and certainly one doesn't want to lose a game like that. Thankfully it wasn't a playoff game.cprice12 wrote: So you agree it happens all of the time then.
Hey we found some common ground to agree on - a zone outside the benches would be fair and much easier to judge and take away the fudge factor. I would give up reviews of that if it would get others to buy in to having a zone on the ice. Offsides though I disagree with you on - it has to be reviewable - we lost the Stanley Cup in 2014 specifically due to a major offsides by the Kings on one of their goals. Pics were posted at the time and had that been reversed we win in regulation and the cup (as the winner of the West that year was going to beat the Rangers). So yeah I'm happy about the offsides being reviewable.cprice12 wrote: I'm not against a zone outside the benches that is marked on the ice. But I'm not in favor of reviewing that. Hell, I don't like that they can review offsides to take away goals. I don't have a great reason for feeling that way, I just simply don't like it.
