Question about hockey (the sport)

In article
,
Bender wrote:

> I was watching the Islanders lose tonight (my second favorite past-
> time) and I had a question about a review.
>
> In the third period, some Ottawa shlub knocked the puck in with a high-
> stick. The replay clearly showed his stick was level with his face,
> which was clearly higher than the crossbar. The Ottawa announcers
> said they'd be "shocked" if it counted -- which it did. My question
> is whether anybody knows why? Did it hit the Islander defenseman
> first? Did anyone else see it?
>
> I find it impossible to believe the review was inconclusive (which is
> what the Ottawa announcers attributed it to).

I heard a similar review on a different game last night (I don't
remember which game it was, as I heard parts of three different games;
it *might* have been Vancouver-Calgary). The issue was which part of the
stick the puck hit. So, the blade of the stick could be high and if the
puck hits the shaft and the shaft is below shoulder-level, the goal
counts. (In the game I was listening to, the goal was waved off.)

--
"My goal in Usenet life is to post something funny enough
to become someone's sig line!"
--Bob Horton lives his dream life
 >> Stay informed about: Question about hockey (the sport) 

On Dec 28, 11:59 am, Timmy B wrote:
> Just saw the Isles replay. For the record, Rose and Jaffe(sp) agreed
> it was to close to reverse. That was a close. I just couldn't see
> enough evidence on the replays they showed to overturn the goal. On
> the flip side, If the ref had waved it off I couldn't argue under
> review to reverse it. I would say judging by what I saw, it was
> inconclusive.

The Ottawa replay was conclusive. The puck hit the blade which was at
eye level. I don't understand the goal call at all. They clearly
messed up in Toronto.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about hockey (the sport) 

On Dec 28, 3:50 pm, Bender wrote:
> On Dec 28, 11:59 am, Timmy B wrote:
>
> > Just saw the Isles replay. For the record, Rose and Jaffe(sp) agreed
> > it was to close to reverse. That was a close. I just couldn't see
> > enough evidence on the replays they showed to overturn the goal. On
> > the flip side, If the ref had waved it off I couldn't argue under
> > review to reverse it. I would say judging by what I saw, it was
> > inconclusive.
>
> The Ottawa replay was conclusive.  The puck hit the blade which was at
> eye level.  I don't understand the goal call at all.  They clearly
> messed up in Toronto.

They have done that before.

Signed,
R.J.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about hockey (the sport) 

On 2007-12-28, R.J. wrote:
> On Dec 28, 3:50 pm, Bender wrote:
>>
>> The Ottawa replay was conclusive.  The puck hit the blade which was at
>> eye level.  I don't understand the goal call at all.  They clearly
>> messed up in Toronto.
>
> They have done that before.

I expect the league will suspend you 10 games for that comment.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet.TakeThisOut@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
 >> Stay informed about: Question about hockey (the sport) 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Question about hockey (the sport)