PDA

View Full Version : WCHA Final Five: Minnesota State Mavericks vs Wisconsin Badgers 2 PM @ The X



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]

bigus
03-22-2013, 03:02 PM
And I'm talking about the next sentence, but whatever.
It doesn't matter, you won by five.

Given his handle, I suspect he did not win by 5.

First Time, Long Time
03-22-2013, 03:43 PM
Given his handle, I suspect he did not win by 5.

Aw crap.

Scott W
03-22-2013, 04:05 PM
I read the rule just fine "they may enter the crease if they are following the puck in"
Dahl was in the crease before the puck was, and again, the goal was not waved off for interference, it was waved off for a man in the crease.
They said so in the arena.

No because you are flat out wrong. The rule was changed because of those times when a player on the far side had one toe in the crease that had nothing to do with the play but the goal was called off for a man in the crease. You can be in the crease as long as you are not interfering with the goaltender in any way.

Scott W
03-22-2013, 04:07 PM
Just to mention I am sorry for keeping the argument going, but I am a stickler for the rules and knowing the rules when you make an argument.

firstpusk
03-22-2013, 04:18 PM
No because you are flat out wrong. The rule was changed because of those times when a player on the far side had one toe in the crease that had nothing to do with the play but the goal was called off for a man in the crease. You can be in the crease as long as you are not interfering with the goaltender in any way.

Well, that clearly wasn't the case here. You might not agree, but I think the call has been made, and I believe that it will stand regardless of your sticklerliness.:p

Scott W
03-22-2013, 04:28 PM
Well, that clearly wasn't the case here. You might not agree, but I think the call has been made, and I believe that it will stand regardless of your sticklerliness.:p

No, you are wrong too. :p

And honestly I don't know why I have even bothered since I don't care for either team.

First Time, Long Time
03-22-2013, 05:24 PM
No because you are flat out wrong. The rule was changed because of those times when a player on the far side had one toe in the crease that had nothing to do with the play but the goal was called off for a man in the crease. You can be in the crease as long as you are not interfering with the goaltender in any way.

Then again, explain the part of the rule I quoted.
That has ZERO to do with the goalie but clearly states you can't be in the crease before the puck.
Also, explain why the call was man in the crease and not goalie interference if you can be in there and not touch the goalie?

Scott W
03-22-2013, 05:49 PM
Then again, explain the part of the rule I quoted.
That has ZERO to do with the goalie but clearly states you can't be in the crease before the puck.
Also, explain why the call was man in the crease and not goalie interference if you can be in there and not touch the goalie?

Wow are you really that dense? Here you go try reading it again and not adding what you want to add.

[QUOTE=hockeykrazy;5682267The crease is the blue painted area in front of the goal, and it is supposed to be the domain of the goaltender. Players may not enter the crease and interfere with the goaltender. They may enter the crease if they are following the puck in. If a player scores a goal while a teammate is in the crease, the goal can be disallowed if it is ruled that the player in the crease was interfering with the goaltender. If a player is in control of the puck, shoots or carries it into the crease and then scores, the goal is allowed. If a player skates into the goaltender with or without the puck, an interference penalty will usually be assessed.[/QUOTE]

The rule was changed to allow players to be in the crease as long as they were not interfering in any with with the goaltender. Here try reading this.

In the new rule, the referee has the discretion to allow a goal if there is an attacking player in the crease, but the attacking player — by the referee’s judgment — has no bearing on the play.

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2005/07/02/ice-hockey-rules-committees-recommendations/#ixzz2OJNaOS4E

First Time, Long Time
03-22-2013, 06:27 PM
Wow are you really that dense? Here you go try reading it again and not adding what you want to add.



The rule was changed to allow players to be in the crease as long as they were not interfering in any with with the goaltender. Here try reading this.

In the new rule, the referee has the discretion to allow a goal if there is an attacking player in the crease, but the attacking player — by the referee’s judgment — has no bearing on the play.

Read more: http://www.uscho.com/2005/07/02/ice-hockey-rules-committees-recommendations/#ixzz2OJNaOS4E

I didn't add anything, what I quoted, time and again, is in the rule you want me to read so bad.
So if they can be in there, then this part I've quoted shouldn't be in the rule if they can be in there without the puck, correct?
You also failed to answer the part about that if the only way it is waved off if by interference, then why wasn't it called interference and instead was called a man in the crease.
I'm sure though, you'll just call me dense again and tell me to read more, so whatever.

MavsFan
03-22-2013, 06:37 PM
I didn't add anything, what I quoted, time and again, is in the rule you want me to read so bad.
So if they can be in there, then this part I've quoted shouldn't be in the rule if they can be in there without the puck, correct?
You also failed to answer the part about that if the only way it is waved off if by interference, then why wasn't it called interference and instead was called a man in the crease.
I'm sure though, you'll just call me dense again and tell me to read more, so whatever.Because goaltender interference is a penalty. They weren't sending anybody to the box. The rule says "interfere" as a part of the definition of what constitutes a man in the crease call. But, unless you're calling the penalty, the call to wave off the goal is "man in the crease." Believe me, you are incorrect on the rule.

Scott W
03-22-2013, 06:53 PM
I didn't add anything, what I quoted, time and again, is in the rule you want me to read so bad.
So if they can be in there, then this part I've quoted shouldn't be in the rule if they can be in there without the puck, correct?
You also failed to answer the part about that if the only way it is waved off if by interference, then why wasn't it called interference and instead was called a man in the crease.
I'm sure though, you'll just call me dense again and tell me to read more, so whatever.

You are dense because obviously you have no reading comprehension at all.

Let me explain this slowly for certain people. The part you keep talking about really only nullifies the interfering with the goalies ability to make the save. If the puck is loose and in the crease then you are not stopping the goalies ability to make the stop because the puck is already there.

First Time, Long Time
03-22-2013, 07:30 PM
Because goaltender interference is a penalty. They weren't sending anybody to the box. The rule says "interfere" as a part of the definition of what constitutes a man in the crease call. But, unless you're calling the penalty, the call to wave off the goal is "man in the crease." Believe me, you are incorrect on the rule.

I've seen several goals waived off for goaltender interference with no penalties called.
I was wondering on the one part, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but apparently some people need to call others stupid and make themselves feel better instead of just explaining it and not being a doosh about it. (Not you BTW)

Scott W
03-22-2013, 08:32 PM
I've seen several goals waived off for goaltender interference with no penalties called.
I was wondering on the one part, and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but apparently some people need to call others stupid and make themselves feel better instead of just explaining it and not being a doosh about it. (Not you BTW)

You were wondering on the one part yet kept telling me I was wrong, and yet I was the one being a doosh about it huh?