CanucksCorner.com Forums

Yeah, I've noticed behind the Dallas bench

Buck Owens - Buckaroo https://youtu.be/GNcB92MAwNg?si=BBNSoQTumnyRmmFz

Cats win 2 zip

Now tied at 2

rats19 wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 7:17 pm Cats win 2 zip

Now tied at 2

Despite as much help as team Zebra could give them.

Give who Mëds?

donlever wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 8:57 pm Give who Mëds?

Assuming the laffs…

Yeah, I dunno about that.

4 squat PPs for FLA in the first and 6-3 overall.

Tough to suggest the Leaves won that one.

Heads up game 5 though.

Leaves should get the first 2 PP's at least is my guess.

Matthews has gone full Pettersson

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 9:47 pm Matthews has gone full Pettersson

Christ!! You never go FULL Pettersson!

JelloPuddingPop wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 10:31 pm

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 9:47 pm Matthews has gone full Pettersson

Christ!! You never go FULL Pettersson!

lol

Jets/Stars...Jets were getting outplayed and were fortunate to have the score tied in the third. The had little fight after the go ahead goal. My opinion -- the Stars third goal was a distinct kicking motion. But I think Hellebuyck was playing the puck as opposed to it deflecting off him into the goal. He was trying to knock the puck into the corner, and the fact that the "shot" was so off target made it less like directing the puck while making a save and more like Hellebuyck played the puck into his net. This means there is a good argument that the goal was not the "direct result" of the kicking motion.

What I don't get is that the color commentator apparently "talked to Toronto" and was told that they determined that it was neither a kicking motion and there was an independent cause, and the commentator said that's why the review took so long -- which makes no sense to me; if either conclusion (no kick, interrupted causation) means there's a goal, then you don't need to figure out if Hellebuyck's actions sufficiently interrupted the causal chain if it wasn't kicked to begin with. Its like they found "both" things to be true to insulate themselves from a difficult call, but it makes them look more keystone copsy. And a "40%" chance it was a kick and a "40%" chance there was an intervening causal factor doesn't make it a good goal even if there is greater than a 50% chance at least one of theses things is not true (and therefor was a good goal). Every "element" in the rule needs to be met with sufficient proof.

Sorry if the league clarified the call last night and I didn't see it. If so, take this post as UWS' real time reaction....

Florida/Toronto -- anyone else think Toronto isn't going to win another game? There's something quite deflating about being so close to going up 3-0 and failing. Oh, and being the inferior team. See Kings.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 8:35 am Florida/Toronto -- anyone else think Toronto isn't going to win another game?

Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 4:16 pm

UWSaint wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 8:35 am Florida/Toronto -- anyone else think Toronto isn't going to win another game?

I'm the guy front right.....really wanting to shoot my hand all the way up for this question, but really don't want to piss off the hockey gods.

Hate to admit it but I am only in the 'ABE' camp these playoffs, "Anybody but Edmonton." I don't care if Winnipeg wins it, don't really care if Toronto does either. I know, I know. Just can't stand the oil that much. Haven't watched any of the playoffs and the most I have watched on highlights is the 0.4 goal. Think I watched it about a hundred times now. Beautiful watching the oil fans reaction to it. Love that it was on 'home ice,' made it that much more epic.

Hague really thumped Frederic in that fight.

By the by, did anyone else notice Matthew Knies breaking the "The Avery Rule"

... and getting off with just a warning?

(supposed to be 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike)

The broadcasters were chuckling about how cute it was.

Cute when a member of the Leaves does it... it seems.

Speaking of cute and Leaves bias...

It's cute the way Bieksa now tries to hide his Leaves bias, after originally flaunting it openly.

Kevin, you're slowly turning into Ron MacLean bro, soon you'll be waxing poetically in a bad way.