Caps WIn!!!!

[sonickteam2]

is it me or is Pittsburgh the only team in the NHL not to win a game.....
 
  looks like it.

[Guiny]

Originally posted by sonickteam, forum nice guy:
 too bad we all dont get to play more games against the Philadelphia Overrated Flyers... [/QB]

So what's your opinion on this? I know it's a year or two late. But do you like the fact that the losing team in an overtime loss gets a point? I still haven't gotten used to that. I think I like the old rule where a loss is a loss and zero points. Am I in the miniority here?

[Frank Gallagher]

I think that if the game is tied after regulation time.....both teams get a point a piece, then each team selects one player to represent them to have a dropped gloves, helmets off, good old 1970's style fight in the centre circle, the winner of which earns two extra points for his team.
 
 Would help attendance numbers if nothing else.    PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET !!! PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET !!! PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET !!!

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
   

Originally posted by sonickteam, forum nice guy:
 too bad we all dont get to play more games against the Philadelphia Overrated Flyers... [/b]

So what's your opinion on this? I know it's a year or two late. But do you like the fact that the losing team in an overtime loss gets a point? I still haven't gotten used to that. I think I like the old rule where a loss is a loss and zero points. Am I in the miniority here? [/QB]

I am with you (for once).  its stupid. I thought the NHL was going to get rid of the confusing scoring, but this OTL thing is lame.
 
   you LOST , no other sports gets points for losing.  perhaps one should get 1/2 point for being ahead or tied after the 2nd period?
   
   this new NHL thing doesnt look too different other than that instead of Pittsburgh losing 3-2 every night, now they lose 7-6.

[Frank Gallagher]

Stupid rules in sports...I'll give you stupid rules in sports...
 
 October 29, 2003
 OFFSIDE RULE - NEW FIFA GUIDELINES
 FIFA has circulated soccer's national associations with new recommendations on how referees should handle offside decisions.The proposals have already been tested this season on an informal basis in Italy's Serie A. Assistant referee's will now have to wait until the end of a move before signaling a passive player off-side. The new guidlines mean that offside will not be signalled for uninvolved players who do not directly block the vision or restrict the movement of an opponent and who do not touch the ball. This is not a rule change but an attempt to define more precisely what is meant by 'interfering with play.' The new guidline states "that offside for interfering with play means - playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team mate." And that offside for interfering with play means,"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball, for example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movements" or "making a gesture or movement while standing in the path of the ball to deceive or distract an opponent." A player will be deemed to have gained an advantage from an offside position if he "plays a ball that rebounds off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position" or "plays a ball that rebounds off an opponent having been in an offside position". FIFA hopes that these new guidelines will improve the game by allowing more attacking play.
 
 Okay, back to hockey, the other beautiful game.

[Guiny]

Offsides in Soccer has always confused the f@#k out of me.

[boweswana]

Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
  Offsides in Soccer has always confused the f@#k out of me.

Try explaining, while drunk, the intentional grounding/tuck rules to someone, also drunk,  who has never seen American football before.  That gets confusing.

[godsshoeshine]

Originally posted by sonickteam, forum nice guy:
  is it me or is Pittsburgh the only team in the NHL not to win a game.....
 
  looks like it.

yeah, too many overtime games
 really though, its the second week of the season. will take awhile for the new faces to gel

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by the Pharmacist:
   

Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
  Offsides in Soccer has always confused the f@#k out of me.

Try explaining, while drunk, the intentional grounding/tuck rules to someone, also drunk,  who has never seen American football before.  That gets confusing. [/b]

i still dont get it!

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by sonickteam, forum nice guy:
 i still dont get it!

i don't think anyone gets it, fucked up rule ...
 
 one of the things that i don't understand is why NFL coaches insist on challenging plays that simply CANNOT BE CHALLENGED ... everyone knows that you can't challenge a fumble if the play has been ruled dead, yet it happens every week ... are the coaches just playing to the crowd, do they not understand??

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
   

Originally posted by sonickteam, forum nice guy:
 i still dont get it!

i don't think anyone gets it, fucked up rule ...
  [/b]

another stupid rule was in the pittsburgh/san diego game on monday.  the punt returner called for a fair catch, bounced off his face mask and into the arms of the stillerz player who fell into the punt returner.  stillerz penalized 15 yards for interfering with a fair catch.

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  another stupid rule was in the pittsburgh/san diego game on monday.  the punt returner called for a fair catch, bounced off his face mask and into the arms of the stillerz player who fell into the punt returner.  stillerz penalized 15 yards for interfering with a fair catch.

yep, stupid rule ...
 
 i think the way it goes is that you have to give the PR (who called for a fair catch) any chance to catch the ball -- even if he muffs it -- until the ball hits the ground
 
 so if the ball had hit the ground the steelers would be able to recover, but the PR -- because he called for a fair catch -- could bat the ball around in the air as long as he wants to
 
 i kind of see the intent of the rule, but if you play it out to its logical conclusion (batting the ball in the air for a while), it seems pretty stupid
 
 then again, it's the steelers player's responsibility to have seen that the PR called for a fair catch, and to basically avoid him, the guy was really breathing down his neck

[Guiny]

You musta seen a different play then me cause the Steelers player really was not breathing down his neck, the ball hit the Charger and actually bounced far enough away that the charger player had no chance of catching it, that's how the Steeler player caught it. Even the announcers said that. Of course thinking it was a loose ball, the Steeler player caught the ball and didnt bother to stop his momentum, then running into the Charger player. Or could we say, since the Steeler player had the ball, the Charger player ran into him.
 
 Of course that play upset me quite a bit. In the end the better team ended up winning so we'll let the ref's live another day. They messed up worse when they called Ward down by contact and brought back his 47 yard touchdown. That was a horrible call. There was no evidence on the replay that suggested he was touched.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
   

Originally posted by sonickteam, forum nice guy:
 i still dont get it!

i don't think anyone gets it, fucked up rule ...
  [/b]

another stupid rule was in the pittsburgh/san diego game on monday.  the punt returner called for a fair catch, bounced off his face mask and into the arms of the stillerz player who fell into the punt returner.  stillerz penalized 15 yards for interfering with a fair catch. [/b]

that was really about the only play i DID see of that game, and i thought it was completely fair.
   
  its a fair catch.  he had not dropped it yet. I was shocked to see them give the ball to the Steelers at first and I completely understand why they reversed the call.

[godsshoeshine]

that game was one of the most poorly officiated games i've ever seen. so many penalties
 
 according to the rules, the officials had the call right. however, the rule sucks