Forum Discussion

16 Replies

  • KidShowtime1867's avatar
    KidShowtime1867
    Hero
    2 years ago

    @Treatmentworke66 wrote:
    @KidShowtime1867Again I didn't do anything he stick lifed me

    I'm 90% sure you're just trolling at this point. 

    Here's you initiating the tie-up:

    Your player model morphs here, likely due to the boards being so close, but the outcome is the same, a tie up:

  • thebrazenhead75's avatar
    thebrazenhead75
    Rising Hotshot
    2 years ago

    The first clip shouldn’t be a penalty.  It was just as the player was losing (or attempting to pass) the puck.  It was clearly within the allowed time frame to hit a player after losing possession.  

    The second clip shouldn’t be a penalty.  If anything it should be on #22 TML player for interference.  After the pass was clearly made #22 skated into him and lost balance probably due to lack of balance, strength, etc.  

    If the first clip is a penalty for making contact with a player without possession of the puck then in the second clip it should be a penalty on #22 for making contact with a player without possession of the puck. 

    The third clip should be a penalty.  It’s clearly obstruction by not allowing the player to move. 

Featured Places

Node avatar for NHL 24 General Discussion

NHL 24 General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and talk with us about your experiences in NHL 24.Latest Activity: 6 days ago
4,284 Posts