West Round 2

The Napkin

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,615
right here
COLORADO AVALANCHE v. ST. LOUIS BLUES
Game 1 – May 17: Blues at Avalanche, 9:30 p.m. ET (TNT, Sportsnet, CBC, TVA Sports)
Game 2 – May 19: Blues at Avalanche, 9:30 p.m. ET (TNT, Sportsnet, CBC, TVA Sports)
Game 3 – May 21: Avalanche at Blues, 8 p.m. ET (TNT, Sportsnet, CBC, TVA Sports)
Game 4 – May 23: Avalanche at Blues, 9:30 p.m. ET (TNT, Sportsnet, CBC, TVA Sports)
*Game 5 – May 25: Blues at Avalanche, TBD
*Game 6 – May 27: Avalanche at Blues, TBD
*Game 7 – May 29: Blues at Avalanche, TBD

CALGARY FLAMES v. EDMONTON OILERS
Game 1 – May 18: Oilers at Flames, 9:30 p.m. ET (Sportsnet, CBC, TVA Sports, ESPN)
Game 2 – May 20: Oilers at Flames, 10:30 p.m. ET (Sportsnet, CBC, TVA Sports, ESPN)
Game 3 – May 22: Flames at Oilers, 8 p.m. ET (Sportsnet, CBC, TVA Sports, ESPN2)
Game 4 – May 24: Flames at Oilers, 9:30 p.m. ET (Sportsnet, CBC, TVA Sports, ESPN)
*Game 5 – May 26: Oilers at Flames, TBD
*Game 6 – May 28: Flames at Oilers, TBD
*Game 7 – May 30: Oilers at Flames, TBD
 
jsinger121

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,680
First meeting for Calgary and Edmonton in the playoffs since the 90-91 season.
 
NYCSox

NYCSox

chris hansen of goats
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 19, 2004
10,473
Some fancy town in CT
Last time there was a Battle of Alberta two of the other six remaining teams didn't exist and two others were located elsewhere.
 
MiracleOfO2704

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,543
The Island
NYCSox said:
Last time there was a Battle of Alberta two of the other six remaining teams didn't exist and two others were located elsewhere.
Click to expand...
If we end up with Avs-Hurricanes in the final, can they wear full retros one game, complete with a scoreboard reading Quebec-Hartford? I’d have a giggle.
 
DeadlySplitter

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,501
Smith ousted after a 3rd goal at 6:06. The final eight is not the time to remember your goaltending sucks.
 
Ed Hillel

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,898
Here
The hit was clean, but it was 3 seconds after the whistle. I assume that was the call.
 
Fred in Lynn

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,905
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
I think that’s stretching it. They whistled it down for offsides no more than a second earlier and the play looked like an honest continuation, even for a known troublemaker like Lucic. But still, that could be the explanation because it was after the whistle, as you mentioned and which I didn’t notice at the time.
 
DeadlySplitter

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,501
The Oilers have no chance if this is the Mike Smith they get. I dont' think the CAL goalie is that much better, but wow.
 
54thMA

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,166
Westwood MA
IMO that was a goal that they waved off; I thought there was a rule where if the puck is moving as the whistle is blown and carryover results in a goal, it's a good goal............the puck was moving while the whistle blew.

But what do I know.
 
MiracleOfO2704

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,543
The Island
54thMA said:
IMO that was a goal that they waved off; I thought there was a rule where if the puck is moving as the whistle is blown and carryover results in a goal, it's a good goal............the puck was moving while the whistle blew.

But what do I know.
Click to expand...
If anything, the rule is the opposite of that. A ref can claim that he was in the process of stopping play if the whistle blows close to when the puck crosses the goal line. So even if there was clear evidence that the puck was across before the whistle, if the ref was in the process, it’s no goal.
 
54thMA

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,166
Westwood MA
MiracleOfO2704 said:
If anything, the rule is the opposite of that. A ref can claim that he was in the process of stopping play if the whistle blows close to when the puck crosses the goal line. So even if there was clear evidence that the puck was across before the whistle, if the ref was in the process, it’s no goal.
Click to expand...
Hence the word "thought"..........................in between periods one of the commentators said the puck was still moving, but the referee lost sight of it and blew the whistle, the puck continued to move after the fact and crossed the goal line, so no goal.

Edmonton is probably going to lose by a touchdown anyway, so it's a moot point.
 
LogansDad

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
29,687
Alamogordo
This series is everything I hoped it would be so far. Except defense, but I can live without that when my team isn't involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom