Re: GDT: Devils @ Canucks. 11/01/17. 7:00PM. SN.VAN
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 10:39 am
Agree. It will not go unnoticed either. He has to address it if he can.
Talking Canucks Hockey Since 1996
http://canuckscorner.com/forums/
Strangelove wrote:... may... have been
You mean "interfere" with a player that doesn't have the puck?micky107 wrote: Watching highlights from games these days and "now", if you take the initiative to skate down a rushing player, get in front of him and get in his face, it's a penalty. BS.
No wonder there are so many high-light reel goals. But is it better hockey?
LOL, oh Fred. Alzheimer's is the acid flashbacks of the octogenarians.Aaronp18 wrote:You mean "interfere" with a player that doesn't have the puck?micky107 wrote: Watching highlights from games these days and "now", if you take the initiative to skate down a rushing player, get in front of him and get in his face, it's a penalty. BS.
No wonder there are so many high-light reel goals. But is it better hockey?
That's always been a penalty, they're just calling it properly these days.
Leads to a faster more entertaining game. Definitely better brand of hockey IMO. Give the more talented players the room to showcase their skills.
Aaronp18 wrote:You mean "interfere" with a player that doesn't have the puck?micky107 wrote: Watching highlights from games these days and "now", if you take the initiative to skate down a rushing player, get in front of him and get in his face, it's a penalty. BS.
No wonder there are so many high-light reel goals. But is it better hockey?
That's always been a penalty, they're just calling it properly these days.
Leads to a faster more entertaining game. Definitely better brand of hockey IMO. Give the more talented players the room to showcase their skills.
Wanna arm wrestle.Topper wrote:LOL, oh Fred. Alzheimer's is the acid flashbacks of the octogenarians.Aaronp18 wrote:You mean "interfere" with a player that doesn't have the puck?micky107 wrote: Watching highlights from games these days and "now", if you take the initiative to skate down a rushing player, get in front of him and get in his face, it's a penalty. BS.
No wonder there are so many high-light reel goals. But is it better hockey?
That's always been a penalty, they're just calling it properly these days.
Leads to a faster more entertaining game. Definitely better brand of hockey IMO. Give the more talented players the room to showcase their skills.
I'm sure it made sense in your head.micky107 wrote:For crying out loud, I meant the rushing player as BEING the puck carrier. What I suggest, is no penalty.Aaronp18 wrote:You mean "interfere" with a player that doesn't have the puck?micky107 wrote: Watching highlights from games these days and "now", if you take the initiative to skate down a rushing player, get in front of him and get in his face, it's a penalty. BS.
No wonder there are so many high-light reel goals. But is it better hockey?
That's always been a penalty, they're just calling it properly these days.
Leads to a faster more entertaining game. Definitely better brand of hockey IMO. Give the more talented players the room to showcase their skills.
I think the "get in his face" line is whats confusing.micky107 wrote:Once I clarified it for you, it should have in yours too.
The first paragraph. It is within the rules, although I wouldn't bet that calls wouldn't be made anyways.Aaronp18 wrote:I think the "get in his face" line is whats confusing.micky107 wrote:Once I clarified it for you, it should have in yours too.
Do you mean he bumps him off the puck or gets his shoulders in front of the puck carrier and get body position? Cause I haven't seen a penalty called for that yet becasue it's within the rules.
Or do you mean he puts his hands in his face, or maybe his stick, or just 'gets up in his face' and yells at him to give him the puck? I dunno? Not very clear. Those should be penalties, the last one simply for being a moron.