All Forums | NHL Betting

HIGH STICK?!?

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 1093
Posts: 22
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2019
Posts: 39
Posted: #1

Lol this one got me fucked up right now !!

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2011
Posts: 2595
Posted: #2

The whole officiating of that game was a big screw-job against the Sharks.

Unbelievable.

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2012
Posts: 450
Posted: #3

Was the last Leg of my 5 team parlay... I wanna puke new_moj_angry... What a joke those refs are

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2019
Posts: 39
Posted: #4

Had a Chance to double the bankroll 3 huge missed calls what are the fucking chances an_brick

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2018
Posts: 4911
Posted: #5
Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzrod:

The whole officiating of that game was a big screw-job against the Sharks.

Unbelievable.

bullshit the sharks had alot of good break in their favor and they had their chance.  Give it to Boston they earned it
I have spoken ….
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2012
Posts: 4266
Posted: #6
Quote Originally Posted by kings_duce:

bullshit the sharks had alot of good break in their favor and they had their chance.  Give it to Boston they earned it



You cant possibly be this stupid, even if you are a Bruins fan or had action on them....thats as close as it gets to a rig job in this day in age. Aside from all the bull**** noncalls on the Bruins who were a step behind this entire game, holding & clutching as if its old school hockey....they score a completely illegal goal and robbed the Sharks of another in OT on the Kane breakaway. Get a grip FFS
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2011
Posts: 2595
Posted: #7

All of the big time favorites covered today. Vegas and books would've been murdered with the parlay plays if Sharks win.


Pretty sketchy.

 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2016
Posts: 572
Posted: #8
Quote Originally Posted by kings_duce:

bullshit the sharks had alot of good break in their favor and they had their chance.  Give it to Boston they earned it


Yeah kudos to those refs & Boston, hard to say who earned that one more. 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2012
Posts: 450
Posted: #9

Can anyone explain why that high sticking goal was non reviewable? .... I get that it cant be challanged like the offsides, but I could of swore they have reviewed goals such as last night before and over turned them

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 174
Posted: #10
It's called R I G G E D , referees are not hired for fairness. Other agendas in play.

Very obvious call and why wasnt it reviewed anyway?  Stick was at least 20 inches above the goal post
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2012
Posts: 450
Posted: #11

Quote Originally Posted by TodayIsOurDay:

It's called R I G G E D , referees are not hired for fairness. Other agendas in play.Very obvious call and why wasnt it reviewed anyway?  Stick was at least 20 inches above the goal post

 

 I mean it is what it is .. I have been on the other end of calls that gave me a win that i should never have had...... I am just so mind blown why it was not even reviewed ... They could have at least made it look less fishy and reviewed it then called it a good goal..... The whole thing was insane...

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2015
Posts: 1039
Posted: #12

Evander Kane perfectly exemplified why he's a losing player on that final change right before the game winner 

 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 94154
Posted: #13
I personally don't care if the reffing was bad or which team deserved to win the game. Bottom line is this kind of call NEEDS to be reviewable. I mean, why can't they have a "common sense review"? It was a clear high stick and shouldn't have counted. And, FWIW, I had no horse in this race. Just a bad call altogether, IMO.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2014
Posts: 2063
Posted: #14
I didn't watch the game but all this talk had me going to check the highlights...

The reason why it wasn't reviewable is because he didn't high-stick the puck into the net, he hit the puck down to the ice but then touched it again to "shoot" it into the net.  Because it was only a high-stick during the course of play and not a high-stick goal, the benchmark for a high-stick is the player's shoulder and not the crossbar.  Also, high-stick during the course of play is referee discretion and not reviewable...because they deemed on the ice in that moment it wasn't a high-stick, the shot into the net afterwards had to be allowed to stand.

That's the rule book anyway.  That said I actually think the ref still blew the call and it probably should have been blown dead on the high-stick during play because the puck was about shoulder height (I'm sure we've all seen lower hit pucks been blown dead on the high-stick just nobody usually cares because it's usually on a clear out or dump in, in the middle of the ice).  

Tough break to tie then lose a game on though.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 4749
Posted: #15
I had the Sharks and I agree with dvp1985, I believe that's why it wasn't reviewed. But, that just goes to show that the league needs to take a hard look at what's reviewable and what isn't. Why not change the rule book to read any action taken that leads to a goal is reviewable? Like Weeble said, use some common sense. That cost me a dime and the Sharks a huge point... and it was easily avoidable
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 4749
Posted: #16
I would also like to add that Martin Jones is a below avg netminder and he's really to blame for last night's L. I don't see how the Sharks can contend for the cup with him in net.
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2016
Posts: 572
Posted: #17
Quote Originally Posted by dcp1985:

I didn't watch the game but all this talk had me going to check the highlights...

The reason why it wasn't reviewable is because he didn't high-stick the puck into the net, he hit the puck down to the ice but then touched it again to "shoot" it into the net.  Because it was only a high-stick during the course of play and not a high-stick goal, the benchmark for a high-stick is the player's shoulder and not the crossbar.  Also, high-stick during the course of play is referee discretion and not reviewable...because they deemed on the ice in that moment it wasn't a high-stick, the shot into the net afterwards had to be allowed to stand.

That's the rule book anyway.  That said I actually think the ref still blew the call and it probably should have been blown dead on the high-stick during play because the puck was about shoulder height (I'm sure we've all seen lower hit pucks been blown dead on the high-stick just nobody usually cares because it's usually on a clear out or dump in, in the middle of the ice).  

Tough break to tie then lose a game on though.


No offense but thats a lot of typing for something most of us already knew, he nearly jumped to reach for that puck....clearly above his shoulders and the play should have been stopped. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2017
Posts: 3686
Posted: #18
Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzrod:

The whole officiating of that game was a big screw-job against the Sharks.

Unbelievable.


Lol yeah and that obvious no goal call in the 1st period that went against Boston?
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2011
Posts: 2595
Posted: #19

Quote Originally Posted by weeble5672:

I personally don't care if the reffing was bad or which team deserved to win the game. Bottom line is this kind of call NEEDS to be reviewable. I mean, why can't they have a "common sense review"? It was a clear high stick and shouldn't have counted. And, FWIW, I had no horse in this race. Just a bad call altogether, IMO.


Amen, it just makes a mockery of the legitimacy of the sport to let a game be decided on a call like that.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2011
Posts: 2595
Posted: #20

I think the net being knocked off thing was BS too. A goalie should have to signal as soon as he notices, and if he doesn't, play continues. Rask earlier in the game was flying into the net and knocking it off when the Sharks were putting on pressure.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2014
Posts: 2063
Posted: #21
Quote Originally Posted by PusterBosey:



No offense but thats a lot of typing for something most of us already knew, he nearly jumped to reach for that puck....clearly above his shoulders and the play should have been stopped. 

Well congrats to you...but judging from the comments above (and you know, people flat out asking why it wasn't reviewed) it didn't seem like most knew.
 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 25715
Posted: #22
Quote Originally Posted by dcp1985:


Well congrats to you...but judging from the comments above (and you know, people flat out asking why it wasn't reviewed) it didn't seem like most knew.
BC not everyone saw that high stick, then tip to his stick, then in.  Regardless is wasn't a good goal and should've been called back.  How can 3 donuts, a goal judge lol, 44 ipads and a review system get it wrong? Its the nhl.  Im never surprised
All Forums | NHL Betting
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.