"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <NoOne184@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:xI5Zj.25408$sX5.18502@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Jefferson N. Glapski" <jeffersonWEARE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> message news:4x5Zj.157758$Cj7.24945@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <NoOne184@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:vJ0Zj.3639$dh.3583@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>You may remember him saying the call was fair but you are full of ****.
>>Your memory of what the rules is similarly ****ed in the head.
>
> You need anger management. With that said, it does not matter. The goal
> counted according to the officials and reviews after the goal scored.
Hull
> had control and thus was allowed to have his toe nail in the crease.
Build
> a bridge and get over it.
But not according to the rules. Do you have trouble following rules, son?
>>> Director of Officiating Bryan Lewis looked at the replays within
seconds
>>> of Hull's goal, as did two other replay officials, and ruled that the
>>> goal counted because of a March 25 directive issued by NHL senior vice
>>> president Colin Campbell regarding the crease rule. The clarification
to
>>> the rule states that an attacking player can stay in the crease even
if
>>> the puck leaves the blue-painted area as long as he maintains control
of
>>> the puck.
>>
>> No they didn't.
>
> Busted!
>
http://vault.s****tsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1016256/index.htm
> I caught you... Now, everyone is lying but you. Good to know!
Hardly. You are simply a gullible fool swallowing the bull**** the NHL fed
the sheep trying to cover their ass. But thanks for finding that article.
It
quite clearly points out it was tainted. You didn't win ****.
For example, if the NHL "reviews everything," as they also proclaimed,
then
how did John Leclair manage to score through the side of the net the
following year? A simple review showed the opposite. Why did the protocol
of
reviews change (something only those of us in attendance could know).
>> Brett Hull was in the crease, and given the rules as they were then, it
>> was not a goal. Thus, the goal was not legal.
>
> Wrong, the rule did not specifically state you could not be in the
crease
> as noted above. Colin Campbell said as long as the player had posession
of
> the puck, it was fair game. What part of "any player can stay in the
> crease even if the puck leaves the blue-painted area" did you not
> understand?
The ass-covering part. Wait, I do understand that. You are still looking
for
WMD.
>> Yes, it sounds like the St*rs would have definitely lost game 7.
>
> Yet, being wounded, having broken limbs, they stayed in it for 3
quarters
> and scored.
3 quarters? Silly, stupid, ignorant ****stick Texan. Hockey has periods,
not
quarters. Perhaps you should learn the time period in which hockey games
are
divided before lecturing on the rules. Do you know what a hockey puck is?
> No one cares about your passionate plea that it did not count 9 years
> later.
Apparently you do. Guilt lasts a long time, even if you are sup****ting the
guilty party.
>> Murder was legal despite the rule being ridiculous! I'm not going to
>> jail!
>
> Do you not see how nuts you are acting? You need help dude. Usually,
when
> I read the boards, I see people just passionate and enjoying good
> discussion, but you have lost the plot. You need anger management.
You just admitted the goal was not legitimate. Read what you typed.
> Best wishes to you. I have no desire to continue conversating with
someone
> as unstable as you.
You invent words as well as you invent rules. Both are meaningless.
|
