WelcomeToTheMatrix yeah. Fox never made or makes any sense. It’s no surprise he never took over for Bob Legend Miller. Even as a sidekick he barely makes it. On a more serious note. Fuck the sharks. 😂😂😂 Go Kings!!!
Caleb Nightingale I watched the video again and watched the ref instead of the puck, and I think you are right. Sometimes the ref can't see the puck when it's in a goalie's glove, but he also doesn't blow the play dead. I think the ref knew, and it looks like he did wait to blow the play dead until Smith was over the line. I guess I can't blame him for immediately signaling for a goal, though.
This kind of situation will not happen anymore, because the replay room in Toronto now has the power to stop the game and inform the on-ice officials if they missed a clear goal.
The overhead shot always seems to be the best angle for seeing if the puck crosses the goal line, yet the American networks rarely use it until like 5 or so times showing it from other obstructed angles. The CBC tends to be best, immediately going to the overhead angle.
Why is everybody booing? They all saw the puck go over the line fair and square, and they still say it wasn't a goal. People in San Jose must be crazy.
+Chrnan6710 San Jose cheats a lot. Just look at the last game the Sharks did against the Lightning. TONS of penalties against the Bolts, but only 1 by the Sharks. 2 goals that got revoked by the Bolts, none by the sharks.
You gotta be kidding me, Jim Fox. He doesn't know whether or not the puck completely crosses the line and he is debating it while you can CLEARLY SEE THE PUCK COMING OUT OF THE NET WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IF THE PUCK NEVER COMPLETELY CROSSED THE LINE. Come ON, Foxy.
***** yeah it's weird how they won't admit certain things. For example the puck clearly crossed the line in a capitals vs rangers playoff game on lundqvist recently but nothing came of it =S
Interesting side note about that rules of a situation like this...the time is put back on, and anything that happens after the goal is scored is wiped out, except any penalties committed. They still are enforced, to prevent any players from running around roughing and slashing and crosschecking the skill players without the worry of being penalized...
What I find interesting is that no goalie had scored in the NHL until 1979, but since that first goal there have been so many they don't come easily to mind.
the players were blocking his view, and the puck was too close to the side of the net for him to see it from that angle. not sure if the red light went off
What are you saying? You said he has been with Oilers for almost two years. Did you know he started his NHL career with the Oilers? He played almost 12 years there. This is his second time there. If you're trying to say he has been with the Oilers for almost two years since being traded by the Kings....say it.
1994 was the first year of instant replay, and the Canuck goal (and nullified Ranger goal) was the first time where the call had an effect on the game. The fact that it was the right call in such a significant game and series (the freaking finals, FFS) proved IR's worth and silenced all doubters. Too bad there wasn't a two referee system back in 1994, an extra pair of eyes to catch the cheap shot Trevor Linden took in the last seconds of the game.
So, they let play resume, and then say, "Oopse, we missed a call, we're gonna go back and start over."? Can't say I agree with it, but I can't exactly come up with a better system that doesn't rely on chips and sensors.
TL : DR I don't agree with the system, but I do understand why it's in place. I get the rules, but in the case of a missed call, they go back and negate everything that happened after that call. That is the part I don't agree with. If Team A scored, but didn't get the call from the officials, Team B shouldn't lose the goal they made 3 minutes later. Instead, Team A should just be given their score and the time on the clock should not be added back on either. However, while I don't agree, I also can't come up with a better system. At no point in time should any sport be willing to go back and resume play from an earlier time. If you're goin' to take that approach, it'd be better to simply stop play every time they want to review something so people don't waste their time and effort. If I was on a team in a tie game, and had our goal, which gave us the lead, negated and the other team awarded a goal because of a missed call. I wouldn't accept losing that game, because the reality is, it should be tied at that point since both teams scored. No way I'd accept "Sorry, we made a mistake here, so we're going back to correct the mistake and resume play from where the game was at this point."
"Stop play every time there might be a goal" wow that's some stupid ass American football logic right there. Leave hockey alone it's perfect and fair the way it is.
Ty Pro "Let's not give credit to a team that they earned legitimately because we fucked up a little while ago." Stupidity at it's finest right there. Seriously, have you ever played something competitively? I guess not, seeing as how you're fine with anyone's efforts being negated and their accomplishments taken away for no reason. Honestly, how many times do they need to go back and start over? How many reviews does each game have? It can't be as often as a full review per game, hockey isn't that precise. And as for Hockey being perfect how it is... That's a lie. I agree the NFL is fucking up and making mistakes, but at least the sport is evolving as its talent evolves. Hockey is stagnant bland as it is right now. The game isn't nearly good enough to merit the "never touch it again" policy. Oh well, some dumb ass Hockey logic is to be expected, like any other sport.
Ty Pro Having a play called back in football because of a foul isn't the same thing. Fouling someone has a consequence and that's fine. However, why should a team be penalized for not making a mistake? Could you imagine the refs accidentally ruling "no touchdown" on 3rd down for "Team A", then after a FG, "Team B" scores a touchdown on the kick-off, only for the refs to stop the game after the score and saying "We made an error on a previous play. We still go back and reset the game clock and scores to the point when the error was made and resume play there." That is the definition of being cheated. Team B loses their touchdown, because the refs made a mistake earlier in the game. A mistake that had no relevance to the touchdown that is now being taken away. I get why Hockey does this, as there aren't many breaks in game play, unlike the NFL, however I would still like to see teams get their just credit. Also, the fact that this *rarely* happens, is all the more reason to pause the game for the review... It's not like they'll be making most games last a lot longer because of multiple stoppings for reviews. My only other suggestion would be to let play resume, then when the correction comes in from the review, make that correction and resume play where they left off, not where the correction takes place. That way you don't blatantly cheat a team or put false time back on the clock.
I guess we have to agree to disagree as I believe the method they are using now is fair in my eyes, I would feel even more cheated if I scored, then the other team scored and both counted.
Yes, it has been five years, but I have to: When a goal is scored, regardless of when it is called, ALL PLAY after that point is MOOT because play immediately stops after a goal is scored, period.
I think the dumbest thing in this videos is when the guy says its not conclusive when you clearly see him dig the puck out of the net and see the puck come out of the net
So in situations like these, if someone gets called for a penalty, and they find out the first goal counted and they put time back on the clock, does that player still get a penalty? Or do they pretend it never happened since they go back to the goal being scored?
Chase Cotton is completely incorrect, all penalties would remain even if the clock is reset. Otherwise there would be incentive to commit penalties during the "free" time you knew was likely to come off the clock. So it would work like this... Team A scores but play continues 60 seconds, Team B commits a tripping penalty and the play is stopped. Video review awards a goal to Team A, the clock is rewound 60 seconds, and Team A has a 2 minute power play.
they should have it when this happens if the person scores then they review the first shot/goal the goal scored by second person should be a pen shot if its time and goal is blanked.
Vesela Minkovska you guys are stupid ass hell. learn hockey instead of sitting on your ass and watching it. you'll learn why they fucking call the pens and shit.... -.-
one of the best situation, cancel a 2nd goal if a first one went in but ref didn't see.----- question to you guys. what happen if the puck went in and its good goal for LA, ref didn't see it and play continue, and there is a major or minor penality for san jose during the play after the goal that wasn't call at the moment, what do you do? you need to put time back to the clock and call good goal, for sure, but what about penality? do you still call good goal for LA (against san jose) and also give a 2 min or a 5 major penality (against san jose )? keep in mind here that normally a goal cancel a penality, but here the penality happened After the goal... and also all the play after the goal normally shouldn't have been played because there was a good goal called and the time got put back to the clock, time of the goal scored. what they did here is cancel the goal scored by san jose and called good goal for LA, and put the time back to the clock. can you just cancel penality because it shouldn't have happened because time got put back to clock? what if something violent happen after the goal and the guy should be suspended? so what do you do for that situation? what's YOUR call?
+Antoine Deslandes they will run the time back give the good goal to la and the san jose or la player would still get the penalty, that is how the rules are right now
Pfff.... the weirdest NHL goal was when Nelson Emerson threw the puck into the net in overtime, when the OLD Winnipeg Jets played the Chicago Blackhawks.
How do the Hawks have a FEW good players. They have Patrick Kane (all-star), patrick sharp, marion Hossa, Duncan keith, Jonathon Toews, brent Seabrook, Corey Crawford and Ray Emery (both are in top 10 in GAA, and Ray Emery has only lost ONE game. Redwings have pavel Daytsuck, Ryan Howard, henrick Zetterberg, and Todd Bertuzzi. And P.S, Kings are in the same Division as the Hawks. So if anyone agrees with this guys points you can't piggyback him cause if the diviosn sucks the kings are even WORSE
"that on got by bernier" if i had a penny everytime i heard that
This view is not conclusive. You cannot see the puck over the line. It's not conclusive. Oh, wait. There it is.
lol
WelcomeToTheMatrix yeah. Fox never made or makes any sense. It’s no surprise he never took over for Bob Legend Miller. Even as a sidekick he barely makes it.
On a more serious note. Fuck the sharks. 😂😂😂
Go Kings!!!
you dont need to be a ref to see that went in
Elisabeth Tørudstad most of the time only the scorer knows. It’s easy to judge from your seat.
It's so fucking obvious that Smyth's goal went in. The puck is coming out of the net.
it's dumb because you need to see the puck across the line
+Aaron Albrecht Which u can see here if u r not blind.
+Jakub Dušánek at 1:45 the puck is on the line fair and square
+Aaron Albrecht 2:00 U must watch entire video.
Check out my new Bauer SLTX shots!
I love how people are arguing that it DIDNT go in.
it shows multiple angles and one angle that it's over by "a foot" more like 6 inches
Who cares it was a goal even it's over by half and inch. Lmfaoo
The weirdest goal was when the puck went into mike smyths pants in the back and he skated backwards into the goal
that wasn't supposed to be a goal, because the ref should have blown the whistle because the puck went out of sight.
CanadaStrong eh ah yeah, that's a good point.
brian mellblom no no no no the ref knew where it was.
Caleb Nightingale I watched the video again and watched the ref instead of the puck, and I think you are right. Sometimes the ref can't see the puck when it's in a goalie's glove, but he also doesn't blow the play dead. I think the ref knew, and it looks like he did wait to blow the play dead until Smith was over the line. I guess I can't blame him for immediately signaling for a goal, though.
That wasn't that weird
Imagine if this scenario happened in a Game 7 Overtime
Well now when they get confirmation the puck went in they stop play
This kind of situation will not happen anymore, because the replay room in Toronto now has the power to stop the game and inform the on-ice officials if they missed a clear goal.
The overhead shot always seems to be the best angle for seeing if the puck crosses the goal line, yet the American networks rarely use it until like 5 or so times showing it from other obstructed angles. The CBC tends to be best, immediately going to the overhead angle.
@instntstr9 There wasn't a whistle until Mitchell's goal. Everything gets wiped and the clock is wound back to when Smyth scored.
Why is everybody booing? They all saw the puck go over the line fair and square, and they still say it wasn't a goal. People in San Jose must be crazy.
Chrnan6710 If you think that fans in a hockey arena aren't going to be upset about that you are a lame hockey fan.
Chrnan6710 I don't have the energy.
Chrnan6710 just bitter like caps fans
San Jose cheats a lot
+Chrnan6710 San Jose cheats a lot. Just look at the last game the Sharks did against the Lightning. TONS of penalties against the Bolts, but only 1 by the Sharks. 2 goals that got revoked by the Bolts, none by the sharks.
You gotta be kidding me, Jim Fox. He doesn't know whether or not the puck completely crosses the line and he is debating it while you can CLEARLY SEE THE PUCK COMING OUT OF THE NET WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IF THE PUCK NEVER COMPLETELY CROSSED THE LINE. Come ON, Foxy.
He's just saying you have to have conclusive evidence (visual)
I know it was clearly a goal, but that's not what the rule states. You need to have conclusive evidence, no freaking conjectures and shit
Will Stuart
it should be conclusive evidence if you can see the goal line at all times and the puck is nowhere to be seen. :P
But you couldn't see the goal line all the way, the post cut it off. You needed the upper angle which wasn't given to announcers at that time.
***** yeah it's weird how they won't admit certain things. For example the puck clearly crossed the line in a capitals vs rangers playoff game on lundqvist recently but nothing came of it =S
Gotta love that LA sportsmanship...
See my vids if intrigued of herbs as maca,kale,dill,dock,dandelion etC
what sports man ship sorry. lol
Lol, it's in San Jose. hope you've stopped skipping school in the last three years.
they couldn't stop the play then.....they had to wait for a stoppage of play
Now why didn't this happen game 6 of the Stanley cup finals in 04 flames vs lightning
"It's not conclusive! It's NOT conclusive!"
- is totally conclusive.
Interesting side note about that rules of a situation like this...the time is put back on, and anything that happens after the goal is scored is wiped out, except any penalties committed. They still are enforced, to prevent any players from running around roughing and slashing and crosschecking the skill players without the worry of being penalized...
What I find interesting is that no goalie had scored in the NHL until 1979, but since that first goal there have been so many they don't come easily to mind.
the replay you see is not what the refs are looking at. The refs have their own set of camera angles and replays.
Smyth was the best at greasy goals true heart and soul player
No, you can't SEE the puck over the line but KNOW that is definitely was in.
Mike Wright umm yes you can. I saw it clearly go in not sure what you're looking at
That was weird but I think the weirdest goal was Bret Hull's in Stanley Cup finals.
Can you do more reviews? I think that wasn't enough for me to determine if that was a goal.
are you blind ? :D
@@MarisZadinans Yes he is, therefore, he will never _see_ your reply.
How about the goal on quick by the red wings, it went of the netting
But then there's Roussel on Dubnyk in the playoffs
my only question is, what was the goal judge doing on Smyth's goal? the puck is seen clearly a foot over the line on the overhead and he missed it?
the players were blocking his view, and the puck was too close to the side of the net for him to see it from that angle. not sure if the red light went off
they do. idk why they didnt use them, maybe the angle was too hard to tell from the net cam? idk. you bring up a good point
Wow, what a crazy situation!
What are you saying? You said he has been with Oilers for almost two years. Did you know he started his NHL career with the Oilers? He played almost 12 years there. This is his second time there.
If you're trying to say he has been with the Oilers for almost two years since being traded by the Kings....say it.
No, what I'm saying is after the game stopped, how come it took them so long to use the conclusive view.
why didn't they do that camra angle before
1994 was the first year of instant replay, and the Canuck goal (and nullified Ranger goal) was the first time where the call had an effect on the game. The fact that it was the right call in such a significant game and series (the freaking finals, FFS) proved IR's worth and silenced all doubters.
Too bad there wasn't a two referee system back in 1994, an extra pair of eyes to catch the cheap shot Trevor Linden took in the last seconds of the game.
The 1994 Stanley Cup Finals...game 6. The next stoppage of play was when the other team put the puck in the net.
Weirdest goal is from 2008 WC Finland - USA, Ville Koistinen did a goal through the net and it counted
wasn't the guy who determined that it was a goal, fired from his job or something? :D
Leevi Kujanpää Joo ja oli viel ruotsalainen videotuomari : D
Joonas Virtanen lel ei jumalauta svedut osaa tehä mitään kunnolla :DD
Leevi Kujanpää No ei kyl : D mut kerranki hurrituomarin toiminnasta oli Suomelle jotain hyötyä :D
Leevi Kujanpää forgive my ignorance, but was he fired? I was reading your guys comments but got lost when you guys switched to your language. =)
So, they let play resume, and then say, "Oopse, we missed a call, we're gonna go back and start over."?
Can't say I agree with it, but I can't exactly come up with a better system that doesn't rely on chips and sensors.
TL : DR
I don't agree with the system, but I do understand why it's in place.
I get the rules, but in the case of a missed call, they go back and negate everything that happened after that call. That is the part I don't agree with. If Team A scored, but didn't get the call from the officials, Team B shouldn't lose the goal they made 3 minutes later. Instead, Team A should just be given their score and the time on the clock should not be added back on either.
However, while I don't agree, I also can't come up with a better system. At no point in time should any sport be willing to go back and resume play from an earlier time. If you're goin' to take that approach, it'd be better to simply stop play every time they want to review something so people don't waste their time and effort.
If I was on a team in a tie game, and had our goal, which gave us the lead, negated and the other team awarded a goal because of a missed call. I wouldn't accept losing that game, because the reality is, it should be tied at that point since both teams scored. No way I'd accept "Sorry, we made a mistake here, so we're going back to correct the mistake and resume play from where the game was at this point."
"Stop play every time there might be a goal" wow that's some stupid ass American football logic right there. Leave hockey alone it's perfect and fair the way it is.
Ty Pro "Let's not give credit to a team that they earned legitimately because we fucked up a little while ago." Stupidity at it's finest right there.
Seriously, have you ever played something competitively? I guess not, seeing as how you're fine with anyone's efforts being negated and their accomplishments taken away for no reason.
Honestly, how many times do they need to go back and start over? How many reviews does each game have? It can't be as often as a full review per game, hockey isn't that precise.
And as for Hockey being perfect how it is... That's a lie. I agree the NFL is fucking up and making mistakes, but at least the sport is evolving as its talent evolves. Hockey is stagnant bland as it is right now. The game isn't nearly good enough to merit the "never touch it again" policy.
Oh well, some dumb ass Hockey logic is to be expected, like any other sport.
Ty Pro Having a play called back in football because of a foul isn't the same thing. Fouling someone has a consequence and that's fine. However, why should a team be penalized for not making a mistake?
Could you imagine the refs accidentally ruling "no touchdown" on 3rd down for "Team A", then after a FG, "Team B" scores a touchdown on the kick-off, only for the refs to stop the game after the score and saying "We made an error on a previous play. We still go back and reset the game clock and scores to the point when the error was made and resume play there."
That is the definition of being cheated. Team B loses their touchdown, because the refs made a mistake earlier in the game. A mistake that had no relevance to the touchdown that is now being taken away.
I get why Hockey does this, as there aren't many breaks in game play, unlike the NFL, however I would still like to see teams get their just credit. Also, the fact that this *rarely* happens, is all the more reason to pause the game for the review... It's not like they'll be making most games last a lot longer because of multiple stoppings for reviews.
My only other suggestion would be to let play resume, then when the correction comes in from the review, make that correction and resume play where they left off, not where the correction takes place. That way you don't blatantly cheat a team or put false time back on the clock.
I guess we have to agree to disagree as I believe the method they are using now is fair in my eyes, I would feel even more cheated if I scored, then the other team scored and both counted.
smyth is awesome
both goals should count.
both teams scored during play.
they'll say when smyth scores, the aftermath never 'happened'.. but it did.
Yes, it has been five years, but I have to: When a goal is scored, regardless of when it is called, ALL PLAY after that point is MOOT because play immediately stops after a goal is scored, period.
I think the dumbest thing in this videos is when the guy says its not conclusive when you clearly see him dig the puck out of the net and see the puck come out of the net
So in situations like these, if someone gets called for a penalty, and they find out the first goal counted and they put time back on the clock, does that player still get a penalty? Or do they pretend it never happened since they go back to the goal being scored?
+Chase Cotton Ah thanks!
Chase Cotton is completely incorrect, all penalties would remain even if the clock is reset. Otherwise there would be incentive to commit penalties during the "free" time you knew was likely to come off the clock.
So it would work like this... Team A scores but play continues 60 seconds, Team B commits a tripping penalty and the play is stopped. Video review awards a goal to Team A, the clock is rewound 60 seconds, and Team A has a 2 minute power play.
no, only misconducts count. this has been seen before.
Please, provide a video example of where "this has been seen before". Because you are 100% wrong.
records26 its the goal ilya kovalchuk scored, the announcers said only misconducts count
do they not have cameras in the net?
Actually, no. that's not what I was saying. I was comparing what a good team was (Hawks) to an average team (kings)
this was uploaded 6 years ago today
no longer the weirdest time to update for game 3 of the Bruins rangers
I know. I was so sad when he didn't get a perfect record and lost his first game
Why the freak did La trade Simonds?
Riyaz Mohamed why the fuck did it take so long to get to stanly cups in so many years...? AND how did the kings miss the playoffs....?
BECAUSE OF THE JETS! GO JETS GO
lmao who eliminated the jets in 4 games!!! GO DUCKS GO!!!!
+Eliot Brown you have 1 cup 😑
+Eliot Brown GO CANDIENS!
Clear goal, it was in all the way, smith should jumped on the ref lol
So what freaking happened? how did you not include the delineation of the ref??
Don't ask me to read the description, i can't read.
vlasic just nocked the puck out of the net
"it's not conclusive... oh there it is!"
I was surprised the announcers did not add that San Jose #44 dug the puck out of the net.
Anybody else notice at the end of the video that they gave the point to the wrong team on the score tracker?
Did you have to put a stupid pro Romney ad before the video??
What happens with the penalties?
when you forget youre not playing pickup
they should have it when this happens if the person scores then they review the first shot/goal the goal scored by second person should be a pen shot if its time and goal is blanked.
Smyth is a total gentleman too. Edmonton misses him.
whats so weird about the goal???
They scored the regular 3-2
I don't understand this rule.
why they looking at the worst camera view and trying to draw a conclusion...??
Man that is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen in hockey the refs must have been asleep that is so funny LMFAO
you say that as if the refs aren't asleep half the time in every game
Vesela Minkovska you guys are stupid ass hell. learn hockey instead of sitting on your ass and watching it. you'll learn why they fucking call the pens and shit.... -.-
i actually did play hockey in high school and a bit in college so thank you very much for your input but my point still stands :)
Congrats?
but they won the cup last year and made it to the western conference finals so why would they give up?
just imagine if that decided a game 7
Ryan's last name is actually spelled Smyth. I always watch the kings games
*replay clearly shows the sharks player rescind a good foot into the net to fish the puck out*
Commentators: “it’s not conclusive!”
Okay, homer
Goooooooool Clear goal I saw it without the replay
How come it took them that long to get the overhead view that clearly showed it going way over the line? lol
So are u agreeing with me?
one of the best situation, cancel a 2nd goal if a first one went in but ref didn't see.----- question to you guys. what happen if the puck went in and its good goal for LA, ref didn't see it and play continue, and there is a major or minor penality for san jose during the play after the goal that wasn't call at the moment, what do you do? you need to put time back to the clock and call good goal, for sure, but what about penality? do you still call good goal for LA (against san jose) and also give a 2 min or a 5 major penality (against san jose )? keep in mind here that normally a goal cancel a penality, but here the penality happened After the goal... and also all the play after the goal normally shouldn't have been played because there was a good goal called and the time got put back to the clock, time of the goal scored. what they did here is cancel the goal scored by san jose and called good goal for LA, and put the time back to the clock. can you just cancel penality because it shouldn't have happened because time got put back to clock? what if something violent happen after the goal and the guy should be suspended? so what do you do for that situation? what's YOUR call?
+Antoine Deslandes they will run the time back give the good goal to la and the san jose or la player would still get the penalty, that is how the rules are right now
he played from like 1998 to 2006
they usualy check the side cameras first...idk y but they do
the st. louis blues use three goalies elliot, halak, and allen. also can u name those records please
they're 4th in the conference and secured a playoff spot...
Don't you mean almost 14 years?
Yeah, he's been with the Oilers for almost 2 years...
Pfff.... the weirdest NHL goal was when Nelson Emerson threw the puck into the net in overtime, when the OLD Winnipeg Jets played the Chicago Blackhawks.
there in the same conference as the Hawks. and the Hawks have beaten them almost every time they played the kings this season
they broke the most games in the start of the season without a regulation loss. And the fastest to clinch a playoff birth.
Ah, Bernier. Once a sieve, always a sieve.
Do I mean that he's been with the Oilers since being traded by the Kings for 14 years? No.
it didnt? the play just continues, and reviewing takes place at game stops.
i think they need some new camera angles in San Jose
is this 1933 or what!
like Con Smyth. Not sure if first name is spelled right
How did the refs solve this? Did they admit only the first one(smit's goal)?
Yes
How did the referee did not see puck in the net. @0:09
I gives 2 shuts about the hawks? You probably just started being a fan of the hawks this years
How did they miss it
the ref that hates LA should be fired and banned from going to NHL games for life
Weirdest was when bobby Ryan scored with mikko koivus stick
How do the Hawks have a FEW good players. They have Patrick Kane (all-star), patrick sharp, marion Hossa, Duncan keith, Jonathon Toews, brent Seabrook, Corey Crawford and Ray Emery (both are in top 10 in GAA, and Ray Emery has only lost ONE game. Redwings have pavel Daytsuck, Ryan Howard, henrick Zetterberg, and Todd Bertuzzi. And P.S, Kings are in the same Division as the Hawks. So if anyone agrees with this guys points you can't piggyback him cause if the diviosn sucks the kings are even WORSE
or perhaps because they could see it at the side camera...
how the hell did the ref miss that one?
Doesnt mean say they suck....i mean they are good if they are in the NHL
I'm not disagreeing with you, but we aren't listening to randy hahn and drew remenda
And just why is that?
That's okay, Kings won the Cup!
This happened in another game before
that's one of the most irrelevant comments I've ever seen...and they won the Stanley Cup last year, they're obviously pretty good.
now you're saying they're an average team, before you were saying they were shit, make up your mind
I beg to differ that the Hawks are the best team this year,
Hawks won the cup and thats all I have to say. And to top it off, they beat the Kings in the semis 4-1.