Playoffs GDT - FLAMES @ Oilers - Thurs 26 May 2022

[robrob74]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

TO made the call.

BS by butthurt TO people.

so now they have to change the rule so that’s now a legit call

[travel_dude]

We get jobbed in Game 2, now again in Game 5.

[travel_dude]

Next goal wins.

[robrob74]

If Coleman doesn’t touch that with his skate, would it still have gone in? 

[travel_dude]

What a motherBlockchaining poor call from these motherBlockchaining bozos.

Whether it was TO or on ice, it was Blockchaining bullSatoshi Nakamoto.

[Thebrewcrew]

The Oilers allowed a horrific goal in game 4. They could have let that define them. It didn't

 

The Flames have a call go against them. Get the next one and it doesn't matter

[The_People1]

Just now, robrob74 said:

If Coleman doesn’t touch that with his skate, would it still have gone in? 

 

No it wasn't rolling fast enough.  An Oilers was there to make a goal line save in my opinion. 

[travel_dude]

Just now, robrob74 said:

If Coleman doesn’t touch that with his skate, would it still have gone in? 

 

Of course it goes in.

I don't think his skate even propelled it forward.

Maybe a skatepick on it at most.

[The_People1]

If anything, Coleman should've slid into the net with the puck instead of peeling off.

[phoenix66]

League wants McDavid vs McKinnon for ESPN ratings 

[travel_dude]

I am so done with these zebras defining the game by their wishy washy calls.

Call this, not that.

Oilers would have challenged it if they allowed it.

Goalie interference or offside.

[LouCifer]

If I’m not mistaken, the rule book says “distinct kicking motion” and the league has outspokenly said video review is not intended to overturn goals but to ensure the right call is made. Fail on both counts NHL. 

[conundrumed]

Thanks Toronto/League office. Thanks for an unwatchable product.

[Thebrewcrew]

There's no way that the kick had anything to do with the puck going in. That's the frustrating part.

[robrob74]

But! Everyone angles a puck without kick it. It doesn’t matter about intent!

[travel_dude]

Yeah right SN, he kicked it in.

Distinct is the word.

I've seen so many times they allow that even when you direct it in.

[Thebrewcrew]

 

[robrob74]

We have seen others guide a puck in by a glide in on the puck. 

[travel_dude]

Seeing as none of the refs play the game and TO doesn't either, it seems like SN is making a case based on what they do or have done.  The rule changed from when they played.

[Thebrewcrew]

Come on Flames. Flush it.

 

I don't wanna be discussing this call for years to come. 

[robrob74]

It is too bad he touched it because it would have gone in anyway. Or if he fell into it it probably counts because the player pushed him in

[travel_dude]

2 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

 

 

I'm not sure I saw this happen in real time, but I remember another exactly the same.

Rules a goal by good old TO.

 

Again, they ruined a good game.

It wasn't deciding the game but sure ruined either a comeback or an EN goal.

It will be garbage that decides this one.

[Sarasti]

You know, sometimes it really feels like the league does anything they can to give their poster-boy the success he hasn't been able to achieve in the post-season. 

It almost physically hurts to watch because of how blatantly obvious it is.

 

Its pathetic how backwards the officiating has been.

[89Again]

Is anyone else seeing all the picks the Oilers keep setting and no calls? 

[The_People1]

In my honest opinion, that goal was a kicked in (by the spirit of the law).  Coleman extended his leg towards the puck and made sure to direct the puck into the net before he fell over completely... a veteran move.  I think Bieksa was right. Coleman was trying his best to hide his "kick" (whatever a kick is) and he almost got away with it...

 

All that said, because the call on the ice was a goal, there should not have been enough evidence to over turn the call.  So that should've been a goal (by the letter of the law).