Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
Date: |
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:39:21 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Betcha can’t catch me (79).
> On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:31 PM, Tom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks. It looked to me as if the whole skate was in the area, and the stick on the ice, too, so I figured the rule was not what I remembered. Getting old.
>
> TR
> ------------------------------
> I hate it when people use big words just to make themselves sound perspicacious.
> ------------------------------
> On 3/26/2017 6:17 PM, Robert Woodbury wrote:
>> If it’s the goal I think you’re talking about, the officials ruled he didn’t interfere with the goalie. He was on the edge of the blue. I believe they changed the rule a couple of years ago where they used to call interference if the toe of a boot was in the blue and the man wearing the boot was in the men’s room.
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2017, at 4:17 PM, Tom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why wasn't the goal disallowed for a man in the crease? I obviously don't understand the rule correctly.
>>>
>>> Tom Rowe
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------
>>> I hate it when people use big words just to make themselves sound perspicacious.
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>
|
|
|