Stoner

He played the puck not once but twice, then kicked the puck onto his stick before entering the crease. Now lock it.

How can the food in a state be either good or bad? Stereotype much?

Yes, they have followed the same path. And, no, they haven't changed. The path has been marked by not hiring a POHO (at least not one with any power) and not hiring experienced GMs, and not getting out of the way of the people they do hire. Firing people when the setup inevitably fails isn't evidence they're changing anything but the business cards.

It's actually Busch League, I am shocked to learn. The beer company sponsored a rival baseball league in the 1930s, and the level of play was such an abject failure, the term Busch League entered the lexicon as a pejorative for a second-rate collection of so-called athletes.

It's one that will make him untold millions. Do you think that fight/those fights happened by accident?

Wait just a second... Nah. What makes her smart?

Oh, no, not the dastardly Bruins with that monster Marchand. No thanks.

It was an awesome rant. Trophy wife is more of a comment on Terry, I think. And I'm not sure who's doing the grasping. Ultimately, when you come in and near-destroy a cherished community treasure because you're trying to prove something to yourself or society/you have an ego as deep as the Marcellus Shale, all bets are off. Making mistakes is one thing. Continuing to do so is unforgivable. No benefit of the doubt is granted, no respect is due.

What is wrong with you?

Hot take: Hall's posture at the end of the season was a more principled one than Reinhart's. Hall thinks of himself as a team-first guy and there was absolutely nothing to play for, his disappointment so profound he couldn't function; he wasn't about to go out and put on a display of passion in the name of nothing, scoring a bunch of meaningless goals. I'll listen and hang up.

No offense, this is a loser's mentality. We'll trade Jack to try and get better, but he'll destroy us if he's in our conference. Do we never make the final in this scenario?

Define wealthy. East Resources was 10 years old in 1993. She was orphaned in Korea and was working as a waitress in Olean.

I bate with waited breath.

What an accomplished woman. It's funny that a bunch of guys are opining on this. I wonder what real women of accomplishment think of Kim.

Where was the outrage when Terry, and Terry alone, was introduced as the owner of the Sabres?

I really think you've exhausted my interest in this topic. Thank you. The bit about my wishing it was legit and other distortions are the end for me. It's telling you resort to that. Go watch the goal and at least get the description of it right next time.

For the record, Hull deflected the puck on goal, the puck stayed in the crease, Hull entered the crease, Hull fished at the puck, the puck rebounded off Hasek and left the crease, Hull left the crease, Hull kicked the puck while the puck was outside the crease, Hull's skate entered the crease as the puck went through and left the crease, Hull shot the puck with his skate inside the crease and his stick outside the crease, and scored. Clarification 10 talks about a player entering the crease and staying there while the puck rebounds outside the crease. It doesn't matter. It was a good hockey goal that shouldn't have counted because of the ridiculous crease rule and because there was no way to write a clarification that covered the bizarre scenario above. The best the league could do was to say that a player who was maintaining control of the puck could have a skate in the crease ahead of the puck, akin to the offside rule of skating backwards into the zone. That scenario would be straightforward: think of a player on a breakaway deking the goalie and cutting across the top of the crease before scoring. Taro and I agree on that, and I don't appreciate the lecturing and insults, which are unnecessary. Even nfreeman saw that, and I am not a MFP. The question I think is interesting is whether it's fair to rob the Stars of recognition for winning a Cup after a bitterly fought series ended by a classically good hockey goal. Awarded, not won? I can't agree with it. It's disrespectful. I also can't get on board the expediency theory ("just give it to 'em") or, worse, the idea of a conspiracy to ensure Dallas won the Cup (or to ensure Buffalo didn't). Taro can pretend to know every officiating procedure in place in 1999, because of course he does, but he has no idea what the procedure in place was for when those clarifications kicked in. You couldn't just have the video judge call down and tell the ref Hull's skate was in the crease and have the goal waived off. What about the breakaway scenario above? Would you call down and say his skate was in the crease? Of course it had to go to the director officiating. Under pressure, he blew the call. Can you blame him? He thought possession was the key. It was control. Had he made the call 100 times before? Of course not. Some big lying coverup? They changed the rule after the season. Good for the NHL. Maybe they changed the definition of control to include kicking. So what? As an aside, according to Vogl at The Athletic, Lewis maintained as of 2019 that he made the right call. Bettman did the same in Dallas on some anniversary of it. I'd still love to see that memo. I've asked the NHL for it. I didn't get a reply. These posts will self-destruct in four hours, only to reappear the next time Taro brings up the subject.

Wrong verb.

My stomach churns every time I have to REALLY like a post and am forced to click on one of Terry's STANleycups.

He brought it up. I'm the carp.

Clarification number 10 states, "An attacking player takes a shot on net and after doing so, skates into the crease. The initial shot deflects outside the crease. The original attacking player, still in the crease, recovers the puck, which is now outside the crease, and scores. Result: Goal is disallowed." It's not a perfect fit.

Delayed reaction: "If we come back down here, we're getting TPD." TPD is Tampa Police Department, I'm pretty sure. That's incredible.

If I looked at you, I could tell you were angry?