Go Bolts

[Nifty]

No bandwagon riding here.  I've been a fan since their inception and I got my Lightning jersey in the 1993-1994 season. It's a little worn out though, so I think I'll be getting me a nice St Louis or Fedotenko jersey.  

By the way, there is one very important American on the Tampa team.  John Tortorella.  He turned this team around in the last 3 years and got them in position for the stars to shine and win the Cup.

Torts should be coaching the US World Cup of Hockey team, or at least on the staff.

edit: they didn't "let them play" when the Calgary player ran into Pratt and they called interference on Pratt (who did not initiate the contact.)  That was a completely lame call.  Especially given they didn't call a possible interference on the other end of the ice when St Louis was hit near the net without the puck.

Technically, the Calgary player committed charging when he hit St Louis.  True, they should have "let them play" but they called the iffy penalty against the Lightning earlier in the period.  Regardless, Iginla was lucky not to get a misconduct for going off the handle.  However, he is the captain and was defending his teammate, so I respect that.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by snapperhead
Gimme an f'in break game 7 1:30 or so left on the clock, let them play.  It's hockey afterall

This particular statement always comes up, "Let them play."

It's a load of crap. The rules define the game. If they're not playing by the rules, they're not playing the game. If the penalty would/should have been called in regular season, it should be called in the playoffs as well.

[airbumba]

Shut up.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Sandman
A stick to the face that draws blood will get a call almost every time.

Iginla should have been given a game misconduct. That was out of line.

Iginla was right to argue the call in my mind.  The blood came from the second man in that fell on St. Louis - his stick broke the fall and St. Louis happened to be under it.  

The boarding call was bogus... thats just hockey, IMO.  If he wants to play ballarina on ice, then he needs to keep his head up or wear a thicker helmet.  Our good ol' Sami is the same size and got rocked by Tucker in game 6 against Toranto... much bigger hit... he fell three time getting back to the bench and the hit was deliberately designed to injure - yet no call.  Im fine with that.

Game 7 of the Finals with 1:30 to go is no place for any call... as previously mentioned.

Besides... Calgary had the Cup won in game 6... they just didnt give them the goal.

[TheDudeDVant]

It was a good call.. Certainly no worse than TBs interference call that led to a Calgary goal...

Had it been any other game Iginla would have had a game misconduct and ejected..

Was a great cup run!  wtg TB!

[newguy]

That last call was total BS, it wasn't charging high sticking or anything excpept an awsome hit. You cant make that call with 1:30 left.
The call on Pratt, may have been questionable, but they sure could have called others. Calgary had only 1 PP to that point, which was a joke, considering all the other interference going on.

Im not a Calgary fan (my Philly boys came damn close to taking TB out), but they shoulda been awarded the cup in game 6. Damn shame.

[jaxxo]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Go Tampa! As a native of TB I must say...Tampa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Bay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tampa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whos my favourite player!? Mr. Derrick Brooks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   err....

[TheDudeDVant]

It doesnt matter what time of year it is..  If a player gets hit in the face with a stick that draws blood, they are going to call it.. That is if they see it..

[gofaster]

Originally posted by jaxxo
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Go Tampa! As a native of TB I must say...Tampa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Bay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tampa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whos my favourite player!? Mr. Derrick Brooks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   err....

Ok, every body sing now: Who's your favorite play-uh?!
Everybody: Mistuh Derrick Brooks.

That one brings a smile to my face every time.

[newguy]

It was called charging, not highsticking. Blood has nothign to do with charging, and he didnt charge either. TB may have won last night anyway, but I sure hate to see calls affect the game so much. I wonder what would have happened if it was TB that had not had that games 6 goal allowed. More of a stink would have been made for sure.

As for Derrick Brooks and the rest of the sucs, they can eat a        %$@#. Lets see if Gruden can win with his own team. Good luck making the playoffs

[Eagler]

 

[Nifty]

Guess not a single one of you watched ABC's coverage of Game 7.  They did as much analysis on the ONE camera angle that possibly showed the puck over the line in game 6.  They had their computer techies do what they could to extrapolate an unobstructed view from directly over the goal line.  Their extrapolation was about 33% of the puck was over the goaline.  Not 75% and not 100%.

The true overhead camera view showed nothing.  The only view that actually showed the puck was an angled oblique view of a puck in the air before hitting Habby's pad.  There is absolutely no way to tell conclusively how deep the puck is because it is off of the ice.  That's why the ABC guy's extrapolated the position of the puck.

As the rules go, if it is called a no-goal on the ice, then there must be conclusive evidence that the puck was a goal.  One angle showed the puck MIGHT have been over.  That's not conclusive evidence.

Regardless...  If Calgary HAD scored on it, then who's to say Tampa doesn't tie it up after pulling Habby for the 6th attacker?  Regardless...  Calgary didn't get it done in OT and Tampa did.  Regardless...  Calgary didn't get it done in Game 7, and the only goal they got was on an iffy call.

As for the hit on St Louis...

from the NHL rulebook (I left out part C because it deals with charging the goalie)
Rule 47. Charging
Charging shall mean the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A "Charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

(a) A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

(b) When a major penalty is imposed under this Rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed, and an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100).

Key words up there are "as a result of distance traveled."  If a player comes from distance with no intent to play the puck, that's gonna be called charging.  As to whether or not it should be called with under 2 minutes to go in Game 7 of the Finals, that's subjective, because frankly, charging happens quite often.

[doobs]

Does the Defense rest, if so then let the Calgary DA present its case.


Go Devils 2005:aok
hopefully there will be a 2005:cool:


Oh here's something the T.B Bucs put on there website.
http://www.tampabaybuccaneers.com

[Nash]

ABC is an Imperialist Amreekan company and therefore we ask the Judge to dismiss this so-called expert testimony and instruct the jurors to do likewise.

As for part B of the defence's case, Kerry Fraser is a tool. That goes without saying.

A wise brother once said, "If the gloves don't fit, you must aquit". In Stanley Cup playoff hockey with two minutes until the end of the fricken game, if the gloves don't come off, you must string the bastards up! Or something like that. Besides, , flamesgirls.com. (keep mum - don't bust me... you're welcome.)

The prosecution surfs on.

[doobs]

Ok prosecution, has presented, does the defense want a rebutle?