StephenWLee

That's 11:30 for me in NL!

Had the US not pulled out of the earlier Iran Nuclear deal, this wouldn't have been necessary.

Bingo!

Hard to steal a game when you can't see the puck. Saves under those circumstances are a fluke. The Habs need to be better at cleaning the front of the net, but they don't have many D who can do that. So we need to outscore opponents.

He was good though. He made a bunch of great saves and the goals that went in were very difficult stops. But people seem to think NHL goalies are superhuman and should stop everything.

Thanks Denis! My younger brother is the real goalie in the family, but I credit a lot of his success to the drilling I did with him when he was a kid. I only played briefly when young, then went to the wing and eventually D, but am a goalie again now the past five or so years.

I think so. Those who are good at it make it seem easy. Still works in beer league. :)

Ha! Us too, but it was a cockatiel.

I've never liked 3v3. I never liked 4v4. And they never tried 5v5 for the extra point, which I'd love to see.

Agree. Danault has had some okay moments, but he's mostly been disappointing, even defensively. Perhaps Veleno should be back in.

He has to pass through them now. He passed the threshold just prior to the Olympic break.

Search YouTube for goalie coaching videos. Most people are shocked how many of the old beliefs don't adhere to modern goaltending techniques. Goalies are coached to go down. They are coached to play deep (in certain situations). They are told not to poke check (in most situations). It's different.

He's deep when it makes sense to be. Today's goalies are taught to be square to the shooter from their knees. It's easier to stay square while moving laterally if you're deeper. One reason Dobes looks so out of control is he's a little too high in the crease (what a modern goalie coach would say).

Most goalie coaches have abandoned the poke check. It still works in the right circumstance, but more often than not these days the poke check is missed and results in a goalie out of position.

Been seeing the same thing all night. He hasn't been bad, but he's had a lot of turnovers.

Yep. He could have cleared it when the Islanders had the net empty too, but he tries to make a play and turned it over again. Olympic fatigue perhaps.

If Slaf stops turning over pucks, Xhekaj will be fine.

For those about to jump on Montembault for the huge rebound that sent the Habs on the 2v1, that's exactly the kind of rebound his pads are designed to give. It's meant to get the puck away from the crease and allow the goalie to regain position. Was the perfect time to use it too.

Looking forward to many years of him patrolling the blue line for the national teams.

When he sees it and realizes he did it to himself, will he then pick a fight with himself to settle the score?

Just another point on the deflection definition. It's used here to say the goal won't count if a player kicks it and it subsequently deflects off a player, so in that context it certainly doesn't imply a deflection can only come off a shot. It implies the exact opposite.

One thing I do agree on is he didn't try to kick it into the net. But I don't think that matters according to how the rule is written.

The referees disagree, even after video review. And while I'm not one to agree with Bettman about the quality of NHL officiating, but I don't disagree with this call.

There are reasons he's deep. It's a PP and he's a butterfly goalie. He can be square to shooters more quickly being deep (for passes across the crease, etc.). If you look into modern goalie trends, this is being taught. There's a time to be high in the crease and a time to be deep.

It's Dobson vs Schaefer. Fun hockey story. Real life. Real drama. Real TV.

I disagree with that conclusion. There's nothing in the rule to differentiate.

Former Islander defenseman scores two for the Habs. His replacement D man gets two from for the Islanders. We have a story brewing.

I don't think deflection means it has to be in any specific direction either. A deflected puck is a deflected puck, regardless of direction.

I think it would be. But this wasn't exactly the case here anyway. The goalie isn't trying to play it. It hits him in the legs as he's trying to slide back into position.

"Even by means of a subsequent deflection off another player."

I think I that bit in parentheses was applied on that goal.