Any hockey fans out there?
- Thread starter Wildabeest
- Start date
Wildabeest
Well-known member
We respect our Hartford roots. Whalers jerseys are top sellers with our fan base. All that said, it’s a different team and fan base now. Lots of whole hogs being cooked in that parking lot today.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
Fun fact Canes trivia… Why is our mascot a pig? Well… when we originally got a team, the arena was a joint venture between NC State, the Canes and the county. NC is the largest pork producing state in the country, and Wendell Murphy is the largest pig farmer in NC. And Wendell is an NC State alum and very active booster
. He wrote a sizable check to cover NC State’s portion. In the first years, the arena didn’t have a sponsor, so it was officially called the “Raleigh Entertainment and Sports Arena” (ESA). We locals just called it the “Pig Palace” because we knew who the sponsor really was. So to this day, bringing pig cookers that would make @noharleyyet blush into the parking lot on game days is a Hurricanes tradition that no other hockey market can beat.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
Their studio crew is awful. TNT crew is much more entertaining.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
And WTF with Suban’s outfit tonight
Wildabeest
Well-known member
Torts made a bad decision challenging that goal. Ref probably screwed up by saying goalie interference instead of he thought the puck was frozen and was blowing the whistle.
But Messier wouldn’t even shut up and listen to Jax’s explanation, which if you heard it made sense. Frozen puck dislodged by interfering with the goalie. No different from puck in the glove and then being knocked loose. No goal all day.
You can disagree with whether it was frozen, but the ref made that judgement call on the ice and that’s not challengeable. Puck was under the goalie and that’s going to be whistled dead 9+ times out of 10. Personally I think it was the right call. But I am biased. I thought there should have been a goaltender interference call on our goal in game 5 of the Montreal series, so I can be unbiased on occasion.
But Messier wouldn’t even shut up and listen to Jax’s explanation, which if you heard it made sense. Frozen puck dislodged by interfering with the goalie. No different from puck in the glove and then being knocked loose. No goal all day.
You can disagree with whether it was frozen, but the ref made that judgement call on the ice and that’s not challengeable. Puck was under the goalie and that’s going to be whistled dead 9+ times out of 10. Personally I think it was the right call. But I am biased. I thought there should have been a goaltender interference call on our goal in game 5 of the Montreal series, so I can be unbiased on occasion.
seeth07
Well-known member
The ref coming in and waving his arms and the sound of the whistle was for sure after the puck was in the net though. So it really did come down to goalie interference or not and I do think it was and correctly called not a goal.Torts made a bad decision challenging that goal. Ref probably screwed up by saying goalie interference instead of he thought the puck was frozen and was blowing the whistle.
But Messier wouldn’t even shut up and listen to Jax’s explanation, which if you heard it made sense. Frozen puck dislodged by interfering with the goalie. No different from puck in the glove and then being knocked loose. No goal all day.
You can disagree with whether it was frozen, but the ref made that judgement call on the ice and that’s not challengeable. Puck was under the goalie and that’s going to be whistled dead 9+ times out of 10. Personally I think it was the right call. But I am biased. I thought there should have been a goaltender interference call on our goal in game 5 of the Montreal series, so I can be unbiased on occasion.
Very interesting sequence though and adds some flavor to this final. Loving it.
Last edited:
Wow that was a tough loss. I agree with Messier that if the ref called no goal because of goalie interference there should have been a penalty called for goalie interference.
There was not which is why Tort chose to challenge. Also the bad puck handling behind the net by Rasmus Anderson lead to a goal.
There was not which is why Tort chose to challenge. Also the bad puck handling behind the net by Rasmus Anderson lead to a goal.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
And it is much improved since Tortorella left. So that says a lot.
That rule always confuses me. If the puck is frozen and someone takes a jab at it then the call would be described as Goalie interference but it doesn't get called a penalty. Happens all the time. I think there is an "intent to blow the whistle" which I assume is in play here. He intended to blow the whistle which would have made the play dead and hence no goalie interference when the puck is not live. But I'm not sure.
It is good to see Torts defend his call. It was a bad challenge but he would never admit it. The ref was clear and adamant about the call. It wasn't going to be changed with the video evidence shown on TV. And you're up 2-0. Why do it at the risk of giving the 'Canes any hope?
