Last season is over. A lesson that the Seahawks, Falcons, Eagles and Rams didn’t learn.

So the Seahawks, Falcons and now the Rams were all talking about the Super Bowls they lost to the Patriots 6 months later. And the Eagles were still talking about the one they won. The Patriots, meanwhile stop talking about the last SuperBowl right around the time the parade crew is done cleaning up the streetbarf. …

Aha!!! Eating too much!! Maybe that’s why Donovan McNabb was puking at the end of the Super Bowl.

However much of one’s soul one loses by being a guest, one loses even more by being a listener.

Fair enough. But I think that different situations can easily call for different rules even for the same “conduct” (being close to, but not quite, off the ice).

Its not too many men on the ice because he was within 5 feet of the bench when the line change was made. I dont WANT it to be written in any way. That’s the way it IS written. And for offsides, you have to be literally off the ice when the puck goes into the offensive zone if you’re leaving the ice from the offensive…

He was offside because to be “not offsides” you have to be completely off the ice when returning to the bench when you go through a door in the attacking zone. You do not have to be completely off the ice to avoid a too man men on the ice penalty. Only five feet from the bench, and not checking or intentionally…

That’s not what “out of the play means” for purposes of a “too many men on the ice” call. You are 100% wrong on this point. The offside call there was 100% correct under the applicable rule. A “too many men” call there would have been 100% wrong under the applicable rule.

No it could not have been, as long as he was within 5 feet of the bench when his replacement came on.

it was NOT a too many men penalty.

Different situations, different rules.

If Landeskog is “offside” then it also means it should have been a too many men on the ice penalty.

Why? Different rules for different situations.

Its different for offsides and too many men for a reason. The rules dont want players trying to beat a delayed offsides by simply being within 5 feet of the door like they can for a line change. 

Except that the rules say exactly the opposite for line changes. Other then that, yeah.

To put it another way: By the letter of the law, the Avalanche could have been penalized for too many men on the ice

Good thing it was only a javelin and not a javelina. The hole would have been bigger and it would have struggled when they tried to saw it in half.

If you can’t get the small parts of a lie straight, the big ones are really going to be trouble.

Doesnt that little tv graphic thingy show the ball touching the outside edge of the plate?

Yes.  I got those wrong.