Kudos to the Falcons coaching staff

[15timechamps]

it is cutting of the sleeves

[15timechamps]

it is cutting the sleeves

[Port hockey1]

Did I say you? I said Falcon fans...Did I say all of their fans? No. Maybe read more carefully...

Are you serious? Your first rant was an answer to my thread, not sure how anyone could see that as anything but directed at me.

Nope, it was directed at anyone it applies to. Do you feel it applies to you? I don't mean Falcon fans as a whole...Just to clarify.

[OHAHockeyFan]

redacted

[Hockey Mom]

Goalie34.... You must be referring to the stickers on the goalie facemask......haven't heard of that since TYKE!

[goalie34]

With regards to the uniforms for all 3 goaltenders on the Welland Jr. Canadians, I believe that "goalie34" is mistaken in his assessment. Upon closer inspection, all of their jerseys are true "Goalie Cut" shirts, which are manufactured to have shorter arms and larger arm holes. Below is an example of such from the Reebok Practice jersey line.



There are, at times when the goaltender(s) pads will become exposed in the act of moving/making a save which could potentially be interpreted as a violation of Hockey Canada Rule 3.6(a) Protective Equipment:

"All protective equipment except gloves, head gear or goaltenders' leg pads, must be worn entirely under the uniform. Leather patches on the outside of the sweater and palmless gloves are prohibited. After one warning by the Referee, a Minor penalty for Illegal Equipment shall be imposed on the offending player for any subsequent violation of this rule"

There are several images which clearly depict that, while in the resting pose/standard set up/butterfly, the goaltenders' uniforms are in fact NOT a violation of this rule which can be found here

https://plus.google.com/photos/11659292 ... 1096319681

I want you to look at all of the photos very closely.

I will have to now make a few assumptions/deductions based on what I believe to be an intimate knowledge of the game, rules and psyche of a hockey coach on whether or not the Falcons staff would decide to pursue this violation in the event it ACTUALLY was (which it isn't)

1) Would it be worth risking the subsequent minor penalty AGAINST for asking for an equipment check that isn't a violation?
2) Would it be worth risking the potential momentum/"bulletin board" material you provide Welland for such a petty thing?
3) Would it be worth risking Welland looking for any small violation on your side (be it intentional or unintentional)?
4) Would it be worth the minor penalty advantage when you are clearly in the driver's seat without it?
5) Does it show weakness that you don't believe your team is strong enough to win without a technicality? What message is it sending your team? Good OR bad?

I'd have to assume that in the event the Falcons staff was made aware of this potential vioaltion, these are all questions they would have asked themselves (on top of many others). Additionally, further investigation would suggest that this "Phantom Violation" our friend "goalie34" is in fact just natural movement from what is clearly NOT an altered uniform.

So please, spare us all your nonsense and move forward

The pictures you show are in fact legal jerseys. Notice they actually come to a smaller opening, actually have a cuff?

There is a legal measurement at that point, Welland goalies far exceed that.

[OHAHockeyFan]

Really? Did you measure the jerseys yourself?

There are in fact NO "legal measurements" for the armhole (at least that I am aware of).

If you want to make a CLAIM, back it up with evidence - not hearsay & opinion.

Did you look at the photos of the goalies? Over 90% of the game the uniform fully covers the pads which falls within reason.

Even AT that, why pursue that avenue when you're winning by scores of 6-0, 8-1? It makes no sense at all. Still - irrelevant because the jerseys don't violate any rules unless you can provide EVIDENCE - not OPINION.

Also - you do realize that the goalie cut jersey in question is the one in red, not blue in the Reebok picture above? The sleeves are substantially shorter and wider at the opening of the armhole.

Examples:

[goalie34]

Really? Did you measure the jerseys yourself?

There are in fact NO "legal measurements" for the armhole (at least that I am aware of).

If you want to make a CLAIM, back it up with evidence - not hearsay & opinion.

Did you look at the photos of the goalies? Over 90% of the game the uniform fully covers the pads which falls within reason.

Even AT that, why pursue that avenue when you're winning by scores of 6-0, 8-1? It makes no sense at all. Still - irrelevant because the jerseys don't violate any rules unless you can provide EVIDENCE - not OPINION.

Also - you do realize that the goalie cut jersey in question is the one in red, not blue in the Reebok picture above? The sleeves are substantially shorter and wider at the opening of the armhole.

Examples:

You're posting pictures of practise jerseys as proof?

Since you are bring OHL into this....

OHL rule 9.4 Goalie jersey cuff is limited to 8 3/4 inch opening with a tolerance of +/- a 1/2 inch.



Pretty safe to say this straight line, the cuff as wide as the stripe, is not factory.

Also Hockey Canada rule.....

Rule 3.7 (b) No player is permitted to wear a sweater or pants modified or altered to gain an advantage or compromise safety.

[OHAHockeyFan]

deleted

[goalie34]

Why thank you for realizing my intellectual hockey superiority. Much appreciated.

[goalie34]

Okay, goalie34. You're right. In fact, I think you probably should have been the decision maker on that decision for the Falcons organization. They clearly have no idea what they're doing. How dare they not call out another team on an obvious infraction that gave them such an upperhand. How could they have been so blind?! It was obviously killing them the entire series. It's so sad. I bet their fourth consecutive appearance in the GHC Final is no solace to the shame they must feel over allowing such an injustice.

KUDOS to YOU, the almighty hockey mind for picking up on such a blatant, wanton disregard for the rules and SHAME to the Welland Canadians for their deceitful cheating ways. Most of all, EMBARRASSMENT to the St. Catharines Falcons for their negligent behaviour in allowing it all to occur.

Well done!!!!!

....and actually my point was Kudos to the Falcons for overlooking this. They could have used this in game 2 when Janzen played amazing. Could have called him on it and at least made him have to get a new jersey, if they even carry a legal one since Johnson's was cut the same way.

They didn't go to this, they let the game be decided on the ice, where the game should be decided. Whether your jersey is illegal or your back up goalie that never sees the ice is from another town. Let the players play, let them decide who wins and loses.

[Port hockey1]

With regards to the uniforms for all 3 goaltenders on the Welland Jr. Canadians, I believe that "goalie34" is mistaken in his assessment. Upon closer inspection, all of their jerseys are true "Goalie Cut" shirts, which are manufactured to have shorter arms and larger arm holes. Below is an example of such from the Reebok Practice jersey line.



There are, at times when the goaltender(s) pads will become exposed in the act of moving/making a save which could potentially be interpreted as a violation of Hockey Canada Rule 3.6(a) Protective Equipment:

"All protective equipment except gloves, head gear or goaltenders' leg pads, must be worn entirely under the uniform. Leather patches on the outside of the sweater and palmless gloves are prohibited. After one warning by the Referee, a Minor penalty for Illegal Equipment shall be imposed on the offending player for any subsequent violation of this rule"

There are several images which clearly depict that, while in the resting pose/standard set up/butterfly, the goaltenders' uniforms are in fact NOT a violation of this rule which can be found here

https://plus.google.com/photos/11659292 ... 1096319681

I want you to look at all of the photos very closely.

I will have to now make a few assumptions/deductions based on what I believe to be an intimate knowledge of the game, rules and psyche of a hockey coach on whether or not the Falcons staff would decide to pursue this violation in the event it ACTUALLY was (which it isn't)

1) Would it be worth risking the subsequent minor penalty AGAINST for asking for an equipment check that isn't a violation?
2) Would it be worth risking the potential momentum/"bulletin board" material you provide Welland for such a petty thing?
3) Would it be worth risking Welland looking for any small violation on your side (be it intentional or unintentional)?
4) Would it be worth the minor penalty advantage when you are clearly in the driver's seat without it?
5) Does it show weakness that you don't believe your team is strong enough to win without a technicality? What message is it sending your team? Good OR bad?

I'd have to assume that in the event the Falcons staff was made aware of this potential vioaltion, these are all questions they would have asked themselves (on top of many others). Additionally, further investigation would suggest that this "Phantom Violation" our friend "goalie34" is in fact just natural movement from what is clearly NOT an altered uniform.

So please, spare us all your nonsense and move forward

The pictures you show are in fact legal jerseys. Notice they actually come to a smaller opening, actually have a cuff?

There is a legal measurement at that point, Welland goalies far exceed that.

No they don't. You're wrong and cant admit it. You've put so much into this...And as I suspected, you're wrong!

If the Falcons complained, and were wrong it would be embarrassing. And as was mentioned above...If the Falcons did complain, and were right...They'd have to be very careful not to break any rules of their own.

Btw: A higher up says the jerseys are fine.

[goalie34]

Who are these higher ups?

[goalie34]

Who are these higher ups?

[Port hockey1]

Sorry, I don't name my sources. But Welland players all took notice of this thread. So they probably all got a good laugh.

[goalie34]

Sorry, I don't name my sources.

LOL you call me out for not backing up my statements and then you pull this. All I know is your source is on pointstreak somewhere.

[goalie34]

Sorry, I don't name my sources. But Welland players all took notice of this thread. So they probably all got a good laugh.

So they took notice of this instead of actually playing hockey. Damn, I'm even better than I thought.

[Port hockey1]

[goalie34]

Sorry, I don't name my sources.

LOL you call me out for not backing up my statements and then you pull this. All I know is your source is on pointstreak somewhere.

Well, source please?

Or I'll just have to assume you are wrong, again.

Like usual.

[Port hockey1]

Sorry, I don't name my sources.

LOL you call me out for not backing up my statements and then you pull this. All I know is your source is on pointstreak somewhere.

Well, source please?

Or I'll just have to assume you are wrong, again.

Like usual.

Reversing what I said, how clever. I believe I post a lot of facts on this forum, unlike some who just come on here thinking they're right about rules.

But I'm done with this topic. It has already been established that no rule was broken IMO.

[goalie34]

It's already been established in your opinion? Now that is funny.

Source please?