Flyers Vs Pens

[hateclowns]

Of course the physics say it's in, but they're saying nothing conclusive. Meanwhile, you could see the goal line and the puck through the webbing of Biron's catcher.

[ShortAssassin]

Yeah, I'm a Flyers fan and I'd say that was in, no question.

[NHLAlum Target]

Originally Posted by hateclowns

Pens got screwed on that no goal.

Yeah, but it was the ref's fault.

If they called goal on the ice, that call would have stood. As it was, no goal was the call, so it stood.

Inconclusive=suckage, but that's life I guess. I think that they need some wide-angle post-cams that are mounted inside the net, on the backside of the posts, pointing across the goal-line to the other side of the net. It would really cut down on the "inconclusive" replay results.

[evildink]

Originally Posted by hateclowns

Pens got screwed on that no goal.

Definitely a goal but it couldn't be proved conclusively and as NHLAlum said had it been called a goal originally it would have stood as a goal. Either way the Refs gave the Pens the goal back with that sh*tty hooking call against Hatcher.

[Quart of Beer]

Dreadful call on Hatcher....should have hit Malkin with his purse.

[spidergoalie]

Originally Posted by evildink

Definitely a goal but it couldn't be proved conclusively and as NHLAlum said had it been called a goal originally it would have stood as a goal. Either way the Refs gave the Pens the goal back with that sh*tty hooking call against Hatcher.

a hooking penalty, deserved or otherwise does not = a non counted goal.

If I"m a new fan, not counting that goal makes me think the NHL is bush league...certainly far more than being turned off because the goalies pads are not proportional to their height

[soulpatch]

that was a goal and hatcher was not hooking so it all evened out in the end......

Timomen out and now Coburn.....Just finish it off and take out Biron already. We have no D anymore. I am having flashbacks of last season.....

[WillyGrips13]

All of the power play goals have resulted from weak calls. Add in a no goal and I'd say we're even. Or the Pen's deserve another gimmie power play. I thought Hatcher played Malkin pretty well and legal. But, I don't cry any tears for Darien "The Elbow" Hatcher. Just ask Dean Lombardi how that elbow felt in the '04 playoffs.

[Quart of Beer]

Where was Modry on that 3rd goal for Philly....looking for a waitress at Denny's. Flyers really miss Timmonen and Briere isn't digging in at all. Maybe the home crowd can will a win out of the black and orange.

[GoalieMike99]

It was a bad break for the Penguins on that No Goal. But you have to consider the perspective of the ref at the time the puck allegedly crossed the line. The official had a bad position and didn't see the puck cross the line, what is he supposed to do, just call it a goal w/out seeing it cross? IMO, it was probably a goal, but the video was inconclusive, and you can't make a call based on assumption. I do find it funny that Hatcher gets a weak call on that Hook, and then there's no call on the head shot on Briere.

[evildink]

Originally Posted by spidergoalie

a hooking penalty, deserved or otherwise does not = a non counted goal.

If I"m a new fan, not counting that goal makes me think the NHL is bush league...certainly far more than being turned off because the goalies pads are not proportional to their height

When a PP is awarded to a team as a result of a bad call by the refs and turns into a goal 9 seconds later it's about as close to a gimme as you can get. If you can't accept that as a make-up for a goal that was disallowed I don't know what to tell you.

As for the accusation of the no goal being bush league, the NHL finally is consistent for once with it's calls and your mad about it? Every person on this board called that a goal and it was due to the assumption of physics, however the way things have been called is that the Replay MUST be conclusive to overturn the call on the ice. There was no conclusive evidence of it going in and just assumptions due to physics so they didn't overturn the call. As Flyers fans we were amazed by the call. We thought for sure it was going to be called a goal, but the league was consistent with the way they've made the call.

[leaferguy]

Any update on the extent of Coburn's injury?


N/m found it. No eye damage, thankfully.

The game was only 1:51 old and the Flyers were handed a serious setback when Coburn left a trail of blood behind him after taking the puck in the face from Hal Gil's point shot. Coburn did not return, reportedly needing more than 40 stitches. Timomen went down before the series with a blood clot in his leg.

"My left eye is swollen shut right now. I will keep the ice on it and get the swelling down and see what happens tomorrow," said Coburn in quotes distributed by the Flyers, adding he may be available for Game 3.

Crosby leads Penguins to 2-0 series lead over Flyers

[c0nquistad0rian]

Originally Posted by leaferguy

Any update on the extent of Coburn's injury?


N/m found it. No eye damage, thankfully.

Crosby leads Penguins to 2-0 series lead over Flyers

That shot to the face looked pretty harsh. Here's hoping that he's okay.

[junior1cats]

Originally Posted by leaferguy

Any update on the extent of Coburn's injury?


N/m found it. No eye damage, thankfully.

Crosby leads Penguins to 2-0 series lead over Flyers

His eye is gonna be shut for awhile.
I got hit in eye and got 27 stitches and my eye was shut for at least a week.
Not to mention all the swelling and cool colors that go with it.

[Weirdo]

Originally Posted by evildink

W
As for the accusation of the no goal being bush league, the NHL finally is consistent for once with it's calls and your mad about it? Every person on this board called that a goal and it was due to the assumption of physics, however the way things have been called is that the Replay MUST be conclusive to overturn the call on the ice. There was no conclusive evidence of it going in and just assumptions due to physics so they didn't overturn the call. As Flyers fans we were amazed by the call. We thought for sure it was going to be called a goal, but the league was consistent with the way they've made the call.

Well, do we start waving goals off because the puck is in the goalie's trapper when it's clear as day that it was in behind the goal line? Goals have been allowed while the puck is covered and pulled out. Aren't we assuming on those ones too? That thing was COMPLETELY BEHIND the goal line, IT WAS A GOAL!