Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
surfzone365

GDT: Carolina Hurricanes Vs Nashville Predators - March 9, 2019 - 8:00 PM EDT

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, spyglass88 said:

 

NHL Rule 78.7 permits a coach's challenge in two scenarios: (1) an offside play leading to a goal or (2) a scoring play involving potential interference with the goalkeeper. In the latter scenario, a coach's challenge is permitted in two instances:

 

Rule 78.7(ii)(a) permits a coach's challenge when a play results in a "GOAL" call on the ice and the defending team asserts that the goal should be disallowed for goaltender interference. Rule 78.7(ii)(b) permits a coach's challenge when a play results in a "NO GOAL" call on the ice, despite the puck having entered the net, because the on-ice officials have determined that there was goaltender interference and the defending team asserts that there was no actual contact with the goalkeeper, a defending player caused the attacking player to have contact with the goalkeeper, or the attacking player's positioning in the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal. 

 

Looks like Nashville was permitted to challenge the "NO GOAL" call under 78.7(ii)(b).

Cool...thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, spyglass88 said:

 

NHL Rule 78.7 permits a coach's challenge in two scenarios: (1) an offside play leading to a goal or (2) a scoring play involving potential interference with the goalkeeper. In the latter scenario, a coach's challenge is permitted in two instances:

 

Rule 78.7(ii)(a) permits a coach's challenge when a play results in a "GOAL" call on the ice and the defending team asserts that the goal should be disallowed for goaltender interference. Rule 78.7(ii)(b) permits a coach's challenge when a play results in a "NO GOAL" call on the ice, despite the puck having entered the net, because the on-ice officials have determined that there was goaltender interference and the defending team asserts that there was no actual contact with the goalkeeper, a defending player caused the attacking player to have contact with the goalkeeper, or the attacking player's positioning in the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal. 

 

Looks like Nashville was permitted to challenge the "NO GOAL" call under 78.7(ii)(b).

That'll teach my *** to be too lazy to look **** up. Thanks spy!

 

Edited by top-shelf-1
I credited sleek instead of spyglass. What a maroon!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

Look Top, look **** up. 😁  Thanks.  Didn't know the details of that either - thanks Spy. 🥑

 

A213CDCC-BF3E-4985-A311-DF6D5BBFAF19.gif

C0B151D3-14AB-4226-BBAC-AE6876923BBD.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 9:46 PM, top-shelf-1 said:

Just ridin' on the escalator of life... or roller coaster, maybe.

 

Late to the game here, Top, but you just completely demonstrated your Philly-ness, didn't you? 😉😀

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 8:21 PM, JonKerfoot said:

 

Late to the game here, Top, but you just completely demonstrated your Philly-ness, didn't you? 😉😀

 

 

The late great Robert Hazard. I wondered if anybody would get it!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...