Blackhawks 2010-2011 season

[UMFan83]

I understand, I'm just holding onto that goal. its escapism for me, a way of dealing with the sorrow that the Hawks are out.

 

I gotcha now. My escapism is blaming Sharp for not finding some open space in the goal when he had a clean look on that PP. That and blaming Campbell for trying to walk to the net and gently place it in the goal instead of shooting it when he had a clear path. Reminded me of the BS Versteeg used to pull.

[17 Seconds]

The second the refs lose sight of the puck, they are instructed to blow the whistle. Simple as that. It wasn't a goal.

 

I never blame the refs when that happens, I blame the moronic rule. It takes away goals on a regular basis.

[TruffleShuffle]

what should the rule be?

[17 Seconds]

it should be reviewable for instances when the puck is clearly uncovered and the whistle is only blown because the ref can't see it.

 

it's just stupid when the puck is clearly loose on replay but they can't change it "because the whistle blew". if they can review other goals they should be able to review that.

[TruffleShuffle]

how will that work though? the "goal" the hawks scored, luongo was doing a snow angel and it turned out that the puck was loose beneath his legs. if you start allowing goals after the whistle, then teams are just going to keep chopping away at goalies in case the puck is still floating around somewhere and you can jab it in.

[NewUserName]

the part of the rule that really bothers me is the intent to blow the whistle part. In the last couple of years I have seen several goals taken away that actually went in before the whistle blew, but since the ref intended to blow the whistle it was disallowed. I understand not allowing anything after the whistle, but it is ridiculous to take a goal away that was scored after the whistle was blown.

[minnesotacubsfan]

its a dumb rule, get rid of it and insert the Blackhawks into the Nashville series immediately.