NHL Playoff Discussion Thread

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't bother, Ben. You're back on the ignore list for at least another week due to the immense stupidity and intentional dishonesty of your posts in such a short period of time. It tripped my breaker.

I notice you didn't accuse me of 'intentional dishonesty' when I pointed out that Datsyuk has only been an even player so far in the playoffs. You simply avoided addressing that point at all.

I guess that's because it destroys your argument.

[Asher]

"Don't bother" doesn't mean keep posting consecutively.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not allowed to laugh at you for turning your tail and hiding? I don't blame you. It's a great way to avoid losing arguments.

[-Jrabbit]

Wow. Great game. Thanks, Khabi.

Just once, the Hawks need to score first.

[Asher]

Wow. Great game. Thanks, Khabi.

Just once, the Hawks need to score first.

They're lucky they got out of that game alive. The Canucks outshot them roughly 83 to 1 and the Canucks lineup was stacked with potential Hart, Selke, and Norris trophy winners. It was a slaughter but the Hawks won only with luck.

[-Jrabbit]

Must have caught some hometown officiating, I guess. How many Canuck scores were disallowed tonight, 5 or 6?

BTW, I'd be interested in hearing a qualified opinion on whether Bolland should have gotten a penalty shot in the final 12 seconds of regulation. No penalty was called.

[Asher]

I didn't see it, so you'll have to settle with Ben's opinion for now.

A general rule is it seems to be random when it's a penalty vs penalty shot.

[-Jrabbit]

It was neither, so I expect it's the right call. Vid posted.

[Asher]

IMO, no penalty should've been called at either end of the ice in that video.

[Guynemer]

Agreed; his stick was on the puck. The Hawk in question waited to long to shoot.



Christ, if the Wings blow this game, I'm opening up my wrists.

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW, I'd be interested in hearing a qualified opinion on whether Bolland should have gotten a penalty shot in the final 12 seconds of regulation. No penalty was called.

Nope. Edler did the right thing and poke checked the stick preventing the shot. Didn't interfere with the shooter or trip him.

Gave me a heart attack for sure, but no penalty shot on the play.

Oh, and JRabbit, where did I complain about the officiating? It was nice that they finally let everybody play, and I thought the one call against Chicago was weak.

[Guynemer]

[-Jrabbit]

Nope. Edler did the right thing and poke checked the stick preventing the shot. Didn't interfere with the shooter or trip him.

Gave me a heart attack for sure, but no penalty shot on the play.

Oh, and JRabbit, where did I complain about the officiating? It was nice that they finally let everybody play, and I thought the one call against Chicago was weak.

Where did I say you complained?

I was just searching for a reasonable explanation for how the Hawks could've won when being so thoroughly outplayed.

[KrazyHorse]

[action=Asher]gag[/action]

28 is "just over 20"?

You're a pathological dishonest liar. Sorry, -Jrabbit. It's true, though. Christ. He has no shame.

Hawks shots: 28
Canucks shots: 15

Now consider those numbers when reading this comment:


You are delusional.

This is ****ing hilarious.

[KrazyHorse]

The no penalty call was right. But a Canucks player did take a dive in the Haws' zone