Содржина: Vancouver Canucks for the Cup

Sedin - Propel the puck in
Bertuzzi - directing the puck in.


Yes the rulebook says to PROPEL, but it ALSO says to DIRECT the puck in.

My argument is the LACK OF CONSISTENCY.

I am saying that is EXACTLY what Bertuzzi did WITH a DISTINCT KICKING MOTION he DIRECTED the puck into the net.

How they translate PROPEL into the net to disallow a goal and completely ignore DIRECT to reverse a no-goal is beyond me.

My statement was and I quote.

"The only consistency I see is their inconsistency."

I have kept saying Sedin's is borderline compared to Bertuzzi's. I wouldn't have overturned Sedin whether they ruled goal or no goal because I could not tell intent the way Mike Murphy can.

I know how the NHL interpreted the no-goal of Sedin's, I listened to Mike Murphy's explanation, that Sedin propelled the puck with a kicking motion that was not distinct, but was purposeful.

,"it was propelled in some way by the skate, not in a distinct kicking motion, but a kicking motion","he knew what he was doing" "he twisted his toe and got a little more emphasis on the puck" and "I think he knew exactly where the puck was, absolutely."

I am NOT wrong in the lack of consistency, to call me daft seems childish, You ignore half the kicking rule, and half my arguement. Then you use the Propel portion of the rule on Bertuzzi when I said Bertuzzi violated the directing into the net with a distinct kicking motion, portion of the rule.

The NHL enforces one part of the rule but actually reverses a no-goal that violated the other part of the rule.

THAT IS a lack on consistency.

I fail to see how that makes me daft. Maybe anyone who disagrees with you is daft, nice road to take this thread down.

If you choose to disagree about the lack of consistency then , calm down read what I wrote, the rule, and argue that it is consistent between the 2 goals without calling anyone daft.

It isn't inconsistent. They declared a year or two ago their new interpretation. They have been consistent with that interpretation.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=318742

You can make your argument all you want, I'm not fighting your argument. I'm telling you how Mike Murphy and the NH: are looking it at and why they made the decision they did.

Besides, Bertuzzi didn't kick it in, he moved his foot so the puck would bounce in. It didn't hit the heel of his foot but it hit the blade and bounced at an angle.

same shit for Ovenchkin againts Montreal no call for Washington all for Montreal.i saw him jumping like one feet in the air to hit Markov the ref didn't say shit BS

Big Dub for the 'Nucks!

Boo

Not very Canadian of you cheering against Canada's best chance...

They bought 2 extra days to get their clubs ready.

Hows bout dem Bruins?

Rask and Miller both put on goaltender clinics with some amazing saves

I cheer for whoever I want. Besides, you'd have a hard time finding people in VanCity who would cheer for the Leafs.

No I wouldn't. When I went to BC I stayed at a Leaf fan's house.

Well, they are few and far between.
Most of them hate the East as part of the country and NHL.

Haha very true haha. But still... Canada's best/only chance really.

From the way I understand it, in BC, the only Leafs they like, they.... well.... smoke.

Um...I live next to Stanley Park and still cheer for the Leafs (though to be honest there's been a lot more crying the last few seasons). Still, I cheer for the home team of the place I live in too--we only see the Leafs every two years...sigh.

no so tough without the hacking PP now are we?