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

[bigus]

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]

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

Aw crap.

 

[Scott W]

Re: WCHA Final Five: Minnesota State Mavericks vs Wisconsin Badgers 2 PM @ The X

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]

Re: WCHA Final Five: Minnesota State Mavericks vs Wisconsin Badgers 2 PM @ The X

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]

Re: WCHA Final Five: Minnesota State Mavericks vs Wisconsin Badgers 2 PM @ The X

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.

 

[Scott W]

Re: WCHA Final Five: Minnesota State Mavericks vs Wisconsin Badgers 2 PM @ The X

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.

No, you are wrong too.

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

 

[First Time Long Time]

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]

Re: WCHA Final Five: Minnesota State Mavericks vs Wisconsin Badgers 2 PM @ The X

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.

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]

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]

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]

Re: WCHA Final Five: Minnesota State Mavericks vs Wisconsin Badgers 2 PM @ The X

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]

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]

Re: WCHA Final Five: Minnesota State Mavericks vs Wisconsin Badgers 2 PM @ The X

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?