Around the NHL 2016-2017
- Thread starter Metalleaf
- Start date
KingTucker
New member
Re: Around the NHL 2015-2016
Bruins have Chara out with an injury, traded Hamilton and got rid of Lucic as well. Shouldn't they just have rebuilt/blown up the Cup core, asking Big Z if he wanted to hang around? Seems they are going to just sink into mediocrity at this point.
Also, 3 v 3 is pretty dirty.
Bruins have Chara out with an injury, traded Hamilton and got rid of Lucic as well. Shouldn't they just have rebuilt/blown up the Cup core, asking Big Z if he wanted to hang around? Seems they are going to just sink into mediocrity at this point.
Also, 3 v 3 is pretty dirty.
JackBurton
Well-known member
Re: Around the NHL 2015-2016
The Bruins are a ****ing mess.
Sweeney is such a nightmare for them.
So they trade Seguin at 21, Hamilton at 22 and keep 38 year-old Chara. Huh?
Not enough was made of how old Chara looked last season.
The Bruins are a ****ing mess.
Sweeney is such a nightmare for them.
So they trade Seguin at 21, Hamilton at 22 and keep 38 year-old Chara. Huh?
Not enough was made of how old Chara looked last season.
lecoqsportif
Well-known member
Re: Around the NHL 2015-2016
That makes me so happy.
That makes me so happy.
JohnnyHolmes
Banned
Re: Around the NHL 2015-2016
Clearly off the post. In the replay at least. Oh the offside goal.
Solid victory.
Clearly off the post. In the replay at least. Oh the offside goal.
Solid victory.
Last edited:
LeafGm
Well-known member
Re: Around the NHL 2015-2016
In this day and age, when every game has cameras from a dozen different angles trained on every part of the ice surface, there's no reason why a goal should count purely on the say-so of a guy on the ice surface, when all of the on-camera evidence shows that it blatantly shouldn't have counted.
Yep, it's pretty nice to see the NHL get something right with a rule change.
In this day and age, when every game has cameras from a dozen different angles trained on every part of the ice surface, there's no reason why a goal should count purely on the say-so of a guy on the ice surface, when all of the on-camera evidence shows that it blatantly shouldn't have counted.
Re: Around the NHL 2015-2016
Yeah this is great. Even the goal that the Habs had called off... it sucked cause I wanted the goal, but it was the right call to disallow it.
Only problem I have with it is that you only get one... even if you get it right. Seems ridiculous. Why should you be punished by losing your challenge when the refs are the ones who ****ed up?
Yeah this is great. Even the goal that the Habs had called off... it sucked cause I wanted the goal, but it was the right call to disallow it.
Only problem I have with it is that you only get one... even if you get it right. Seems ridiculous. Why should you be punished by losing your challenge when the refs are the ones who ****ed up?
LeafGm
Well-known member
Re: Around the NHL 2015-2016
And if you do make a challenge, you only lose your timeout if the call on the ice isn't reversed.
Not true. As long as you have a timeout available, you can request a challenge.
And if you do make a challenge, you only lose your timeout if the call on the ice isn't reversed.
Re: Around the NHL 2015-2016
Oh sweet... I hadn't heard that. I seem to recall them saying that you only get one.
Maybe I assumed that you lose it no matter what when they meant that you only get one wrong attempt. That's much better.
Oh sweet... I hadn't heard that. I seem to recall them saying that you only get one.
Maybe I assumed that you lose it no matter what when they meant that you only get one wrong attempt. That's much better.
LeafGm
Well-known member
Re: Around the NHL 2015-2016
Come to think of it though, I'm not a huge fan of not being able to make a challenge if you don't have a timeout.
I think the better way to do it would be to allow teams to still make a challenge if they don't have their timeout (whether due to a previous unsuccessful challenge, or just using their timeout normally). However, if you lose the challenge and don't have a timeout, you get slapped with a two-minute bench minor for delay of game.
Come to think of it though, I'm not a huge fan of not being able to make a challenge if you don't have a timeout.
I think the better way to do it would be to allow teams to still make a challenge if they don't have their timeout (whether due to a previous unsuccessful challenge, or just using their timeout normally). However, if you lose the challenge and don't have a timeout, you get slapped with a two-minute bench minor for delay of game.
