Kukla's Korner Hockey
Next entry: It’s Just Not NHL Fans That Have Complaints With Versus/Directv
Previous entry: Afternoon Line
Explaining The Brad May Non-Goal
by Paul on 11/19/09 at 01:53 PM ET
Comments (42)
from Dan Rosen of NHL.com,
NHL Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy explained Thursday on NHL Live! why the controversial no-goal call by referee Dennis LaRue in the Detroit-Dallas game Wednesday night was not reviewable.
Brad May had an apparent game-tying goal 6:24 into the third period waved off because LaRue had intent to blow the whistle, which is different from actually blowing the whistle, Murphy said. The Red Wings went on to lose, 3-1.
“In this particular case what happened is we (in the League’s video replay room in Toronto) see the puck in the net and call the video goal judge and say, ‘Blow the horn and get the referee over here. We see a puck in the net that hasn’t been ruled a goal,’ ” Murphy said. “At that point the referee comes over and we have a discussion. They came to us and said, ‘My intent to blow the whistle was there, I have this play dead before the puck crosses the goal line,’ No more needs to be said. Once we hear that, video review is out of the process. It’s a call made on the ice and it’s a non-reviewable call. It’s a whistle blown by the referee and it was blown or the intent to blow it was before the puck crossed the goal line.”
Murphy agreed that the puck did go into the net, but having not spoken to LaRue yet he could only assume that the referee lost sight of the puck when it hit goalie Alex Auld’s pad and that’s where the intent to blow the whistle comes into play.
Filed in: NHL Teams, Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings | KK Hockey | Permalink
Tags: Brad+May,
Comments
“At that point the referee comes over and we have a discussion. They came to us and said, ‘My intent to blow the whistle was there, I have this play dead before the puck crosses the goal line,’ No more needs to be said.
So the ref had to intent to blow the play dead when the puck was still on May’s stick? Because this wasn’t a trickle in goal. This wasn’t pushed in from under the goalies pads, this puck was off his stick and in in about a half of a second.
Maybe the league really does have it in for the Wings…
Posted by Kstewy16 on 11/19/09 at 02:15 PM ET
Having read this explanation again, it’s pretty amazing what the NHL is actually admitting here: That basically the “intent to blow” rule supercedes everything, including reality.
“The way we have always handled it is the referees call on the ice stands. He sees the shot and he sees the save and doesn’t see the puck in the net and he blows the whistle”
There was no save. That’s the whole f*cking point.
Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 11/19/09 at 02:16 PM ET
They told us everything we already knew, they didn’t explain a single thing.
Posted by Digger from Rochester on 11/19/09 at 02:18 PM ET
It all comes down to bad positioning on the ref’s part. When I watch the replay I think I see him deep in the corner on the side where the puck goes in. No way he should be there, his place is behind the net on that play. Of course he couldn’t see it from the corner ‘cuz the bottom of the net is blocking it. Is there no longer a goal judge behind the net in Detroit?
Posted by dwgs on 11/19/09 at 02:22 PM ET
Even the Dallas broadcast guys were laughing at how bad that call was. The one announcer said, “He might have started that ‘intent’ in the second intermission.”
There should be a better rule about the “intention to blow the whistle.” Either have the play actually count until the whistle actually blows, or have a time limit of how far back the delay between intent and whistle can be, or let the “war room” guys be honest enough with the ref and tell him there’s no way he intended to blow the whistle before it crossed the line.
Murphy should have at least had the balls to say it was a bad call and some kind of rule change would be looked at, or the ref fined, or something. There’s no way a rational human being could watch that and come to the conclusion that was a good hockey call.
Posted by Muero on 11/19/09 at 02:25 PM ET
No goal judge, sadly most places have gotten rid of goal judges as they take up prime seating locations behind the net. I think at some arenas the have positioned goals judges higher in the arena.
Posted by Digger from Rochester on 11/19/09 at 02:29 PM ET
So there were 3 seconds of intent? Shit, Dennis LaRue is Rain Man.
And not only he is retarded in his reflexes, he’s also dumb. LaRue himself said the whistle blown the play dead, damnit!. Then another guy comes and expresses what LaRue thought in those milisseconds, and remarks they haven’t spoken? Genius!
Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 11/19/09 at 02:31 PM ET
Re. Tard. Ed.
“I have this play dead before the puck crosses the goal line…”
Uh. No you don’t.
Posted by ninja on 11/19/09 at 02:31 PM ET
The puck was in the net before he had the intent to blow the whistle. Watch the normal game angle, and pause it when May scores - the ref hasn’t even skated over to look at the net. He skates over, then he raises the whistle to his mouth.
LaRue THINKS that the puck was in the goalie’s pads, so he thinks he intended to blow the whistle before the puck slid in. He doesn’t realize the puck was never stopped by the goalie, it went straight in. Unfortunately the league thinks these refs on the ice know better than people with video replay.
“In all cases we want to get the right call. In this case it is clear we didn’t,” Murphy said. “In some cases when you have video review people expect perfection and that’s never the case. There are times when we don’t want video review to intercede. We don’t want video review refereeing a game.”
“We don’t want video review refereeing a game” Are you kidding me? So you’d rather have constant bad calls because, for some reason, you’d rather rely on referees who didn’t even see the play properly to make the judgment call.
Morons.
Posted by BuzzFledderjohn on 11/19/09 at 02:37 PM ET
or let the “war room” guys be honest enough with the ref and tell him there’s no way he intended to blow the whistle before it crossed the line.
Oh, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they did tell him that. In fact, I’d be willing to put money on it. But we’ll never know of course.
Again, I think what probably happened here is an example of an official deciding he was going to be “bigger than the game” because he felt insulted that people were questioning his judgement.
And if that truly is the case, LaRue should be immediately fired.
But like they say, never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. And considering this is the NHL we’re talking about, maybe that holds true here as well.
Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 11/19/09 at 02:38 PM ET
...he could only assume that the referee lost sight of the puck when it hit goalie Alex Auld’s pad and that’s where the intent to blow the whistle comes into play.
So now a referee can instantly blow a play dead anytime a puck simply hits a goalie’s pad. Once the puck touches the pad, and the ref can’t see it, the play is dead. There goes 50% of all scoring in hockey…if the refs choose to play it that way. That’s waaaaay too much power to control the outcome of games being placed in the hands of the refs.
Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 11/19/09 at 02:41 PM ET
this was a horseshit call, and pathetic explanation for the horseshit call. i don’t like the wings, and i think they were outplayed in the game and likely still wouldn’t have won, but if it happened to my team i’d be pissed.
Posted by bitterguy from san francisco, ca on 11/19/09 at 02:42 PM ET
OTC
Look on the bright side: Howard’s rebound problems are solved!
bitterguy
I don’t know about everyone else, but I don’t give a damn about the game. The problem is lousy officiating. If the Wings were winning 8-0 and they prohibited the 9th goal like that, I’s be pissed off too.
Posted by Guilherme from Brazsil on 11/19/09 at 02:45 PM ET
The fact is the intent to blow the whistle occured when the ref lost sight of the puck, which was when the puck was already in the net, therefore the goal supercedes the intent to blow the whistle. How that isn’t reviewable is beyond me, the puck was in BEFORE the intent was there. This whole intent to blow crap has got to be thrown out of the rule book.
I agree with OlderThanChelios’ comment. So the split second the goalie touches a puck, and due to positioning the ref can’t see the puck, that’s it, the plays over? That means when the puck is shot between the arm and the body of a goalie and squeezes through and into the net, or is shot 5-hole and trickles between the pads, there is no goal because the puck wasn’t in clear view the entire time? Pretty good, in the NFL a receiver has to have complete control while rolling on the ground after a catch, but in the NHL, all a goalie has to do it touch a puck and that is deemed as having control of the puck? Shooters better start practicing, from now on if they don’t pick the corners clean, they don’t score.
Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 11/19/09 at 02:50 PM ET
Where is the “Intent to score” rule? When a player hits the post, he yells “I intended that puck to go in!” so it counts as a good goal.
nothing else needs to be said…
Um, yeah I think a valid explanation is in order. Not this p*ss poor excuse. “Intent to blow the whistle” is very dangerous for the game of hockey. We already witnessed this BS in the SCPO with Hossa’s GOAL against the sucks.
I litterally stopped watching the game after that. Yeah, the Wings lost, but how much of their momentum was zapped by some pee wee hockey ref.
NHL, start holding these morons accountable. They fine the players for saying “sloppy seconds.” How about you fine the freakin’ refs when they make a huge mistake like last night.?!?!?!?
Posted by James from NY on 11/19/09 at 02:57 PM ET
They fine the players for saying “sloppy seconds.” How about you fine the freakin’ refs when they make a huge mistake like last night.?!?!?!?
Actually they suspend players indefinately for saying “sloppy seconds” because it’s bad for the image of the game. However, disallowing legit goals, and then not holding anyone accountable for it is great PR…
Posted by John W. from a bubble wrap cocoon on 11/19/09 at 03:01 PM ET
It’s a whistle blown by the referee and it was blown or the intent to blow it was before the puck crossed the goal line.
Bull crackers. These guys are clutching at straws trying to explain the unexplainable.
As Mandingo said, there was no save. Watch the replay… The puck is already in the net when LaRue moves the whistle to his mouth and skates from the corner toward the net. LaRue takes another two seconds before he blows the whistle.
So we’re supposed to believe that, with the whistle already at his mouth, he intended to blow air into it two-plus seconds before actually being able to do so? He can say “I have this play dead before the puck crosses the goal line,” when it’s obvious that he didn’t know it had crossed the goal line?
It’s indefensible. Arrogant and indefensible.
Posted by BobTheZee on 11/19/09 at 03:02 PM ET
Actually they suspend players indefinately for saying “sloppy seconds” because it’s bad for the image of the game. However, disallowing legit goals, and then not holding anyone accountable for it is great PR…
Yes, I know why Avery was suspended. Didn’t say I disagreed with him getting suspended.
My point was how about the NHL hold refs responsible for these horrible calls?
Fines, suspensions, whatever.
Posted by James from NY on 11/19/09 at 03:28 PM ET
Mike Murphy you are full of crap. I laughed my ass off reading that explanation. A day later, I still cannot believe what I saw unfold. I much prefer bench clearing brawls from the 70’s and 80’s than what little Gary has made the NHL into.
Posted by Jeff from Loveland, CO on 11/19/09 at 03:41 PM ET
The puck was in the net before he had the intent to blow the whistle.
Well, only LaRue knows that. We don’t know that. Maybe he did intend to blow the whistle while the puck was clearly in the view of both refs in the middle of the slot in front of Auld.
The point is that even if the intent to blow the whistle was there, there was absolutely no reason said intent could’ve existed in that situation.
Epic fail by the NHL, yet again. Obviously, they can’t change the result, and I understand that, but the NHL could make a lot of us happy if they’d just ADMIT there was a mistake, that the goal should’ve stood, and that LaRue would be suspended. Seriously, just sit LaRue down for one game for making such a boneheaded decision… no shit you lost sight of it, LaRue, because it was in the net. Duh.
Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 11/19/09 at 03:41 PM ET
So the ref had to intent to blow the play dead when the puck was still on May’s stick? Because this wasn’t a trickle in goal. This wasn’t pushed in from under the goalies pads, this puck was off his stick and in in about a half of a second.
Maybe the league really does have it in for the Wings…
Posted by Kstewy16 on 11/19/09 at 02:15 PM ET
+1
So there were 3 seconds of intent? Shit, Dennis LaRue is Rain Man.
Posted by Guilherme from Brasil on 11/19/09 at 02:31 PM ET
+2
“I have this play dead before the puck crosses the goal line…”
Uh. No you don’t.
Posted by ninja on 11/19/09 at 02:31 PM ET
+3
Where is the “Intent to score” rule? When a player hits the post, he yells “I intended that puck to go in!” so it counts as a good goal.
Posted by James from NY on 11/19/09 at 02:57 PM ET
+4
Isn’t it wonderful how we can all be in agreement that it was yet another whatthedogf**ksh*twasthat? call by NHL referees. How could this not have been fixed by now after the whole Brad Watson fiasco? Seriously. I think we as (Red Wings) fans got so caught up in losing game 7 of the Finals to keep making a stink about the horrible “intent to blow” rule. The needs to go away, right f***ing now.
Posted by Animal Drew from A Nightmare on Helm Street on 11/19/09 at 03:43 PM ET
For the hell of it, let me say I could at least understand (not agree, but understand) this if the puck had hit Auld, got caught up in his jersey or between his arm and torso, and then trickled out after LaRue “intended” to blow the whistle. It would still be a real tough break, but it would be understandable, and I wouldn’t be upset with the NHL and LaRue for the outcome.
But the thing here is that the puck didn’t get caught up. If you watch it in real-time, the puck continued its path straight into the goal. It’s velocity toward the back of the goal was never upset enough to cause a situation where it might have hung up in his sweater and then fallen out and dribbled in.
The bottom line is that it was a save that should’ve been a routine save. LaRue assumed as much, so when he didn’t see the onion bag bulge, he blew (or “intended to blow”) the whistle, even though the puck went straight in the goal. LaRue got hasty. It’s his fault. He had an opportunity to correct his own mistake, but decided to be stubborn and try to justify his own mistake by piling another, worse mistake on top of it.
Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 11/19/09 at 03:46 PM ET
so this is exactly as what i posted the league would say last night…
both the ref and toronto followed “procedure” and the wrong call was made.
you can blame LaRue all you want, but the fact that he didn’t see it go in is simple physics and the rules that are in place DO NOT let him review it. if his ORIGINAL determination is that he blew the whistle before HE SAW the puck in the net, it is UNREVIEWABLE by rule.
this is a problem with the rules and procedures. as i said in my post last night, would it really be an absurd notion to let the on-ice officials watch replays at ice level while they are talking to toronto. i know everyone has issues with the “intent” rule, but even if you do keep that completely subjective element in the game, it’s all the more reason why that person should be involved in the replay review. only they know when the “intent” was. i know this is moot, but if LaRue was able to watch the replay at the time, i think he would have called it a goal.
Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 11/19/09 at 03:56 PM ET
In my opinion, I blame all of the owners that needed to remove the goal judges from behind the net so that the would have four more lower bowl seats to cash in on. If the goal judge was behind the net, then we’re not having this conversation. The goal judge would have immediately turned on the light and the referee indicated that the puck is in the net. Even when the goalie tries to sweep the puck out of the net, instances have occurred where the trapper obstructs the camera and the call is inconclusive. With a goal judge behind the net, he can see if the puck had crossed the line. I think that the league made a mistake be allowing teams the option of removing the goal judge.
Posted by Gumby from the city with more ruins than Rome on 11/19/09 at 04:03 PM ET
I like how the Toronto War Room just basically admitted “Yep, we’re useless even if we know an incorrect call has been made on the ice”.
I really wonder if it’s maybe not time to retire the war room concept altogether. Because in too many instances where they could possibly get the call right, they either don’t have jurisdiction to force a review (such a s a puck goign off netting and then coming back into play) or don’t have jurisdiction to overrule an on-ice call no matter what (in these cases of “intent to blow” which is somethign the on-ice official can’t ever prove anyways).
So shut down Toronto then, and let’s throw out reviews altogether because they’re not getting the job done and it’s a waste of everyone’s time.
Posted by Primis on 11/19/09 at 04:06 PM ET
To me, the blame has to lie with the NHL/Toronto. Obviously they just said “Uh, hey, there was a goal, you know” to which LaRue replied “Yeah, I was going to blow the whistle, so…”
What the NHL should’ve done was say “No, you don’t get it. May’s SHOT went RIGHT in. It wasn’t under the goalie, it wasn’t covered. It went in several seconds before you even considered blowing the whistle. It’s a goal. CALL IT A GOAL.”
THAT is what the NHL should’ve done, instead of just saying “oh, ok.”
Maybe they should have a monitor just off the ice for the refs to see, the way the NFL does, so the ref can look at it while Toronto says “See, it’s a goal. You made a mistake, no big deal. Call it a goal. It’s a tie game. Drop the puck.”
OR they should have it so that the war room calls the arena and tells the verdict to the announcer who makes the announcement himself, taking the ridiculous excuses of the refs out of the equation.
Posted by Garth on 11/19/09 at 04:08 PM ET
The goal judge would have immediately turned on the light and the referee indicated that the puck is in the net.
I disagree. I think the only view where it was clear was the overhead camera view, because of the way the puck was behind the white strip that binds the net to the base of the goal frame.
How about the goal judge is in the video booth watching the overhead camera all the time?
Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 11/19/09 at 04:11 PM ET
What kind of a league has rules set in place to PREVENT mistakes from being corrected? Answer: Gary’s League.
Posted by Animal Drew from A Nightmare on Helm Street on 11/19/09 at 04:20 PM ET
I don’t get why LaRue just didn’t see the puck in the back of the net and signal goal like the referee did on almost the exact same play 7 years ago against Colorado. Yzerman put the puck in the net, Patrick Roy got it with his skate exactly like Auld did last night. Referee blows his whistle and skates to the net while Yzerman is screaming at him “IT’S IN THE NET! IT’S IN THE NET!” and the referee sees it and says “Yes. Yes.” and rules it a goal.
Posted by PRS from Philadelphia, PA on 11/19/09 at 04:24 PM ET
Garth - while your logic is sound and that should have been the obvious conclusion, the point is, the rules do not allow toronto to do what you say. and some replay official in the war room would cause a much much greater fiasco and probably lose his job if he went against clearly spelled out NHL rules… even if it did result in the right call.
the point is, you can’t really “blame” toronto or the ref. you have to blame the league/rules/procedures that are in place. this play really shed a light on a glaring flaw in these procedures and the most disturbing part to me is Murphy’s reaction above. obviously he has to admit the wrong call was made or he would come off as delusional and insane. and i have no problem with him defending the official and the replay officials because they were just “doing their jobs”. but his next comment should have something to do with how this is inexcusable and the league needs to examine this closely to be sure this never happens again… i mean what if this very incident happened in a game 7 or something?
but his actual next comment was this: “There are situations where video review can’t intercede and we don’t want it to intercede. I don’t think you ever want video review refereeing a game.”
“I like the way video review is. I think it works and you have to be careful how much you tinker with it.”
that reaction is by far the most disturbing part of this situation.
Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 11/19/09 at 04:26 PM ET
I disagree. I think the only view where it was clear was the overhead camera view, because of the way the puck was behind the white strip that binds the net to the base of the goal frame.
Abdelkader is behind the net pointing at the puck. The puck is plainly visible, there is nothing obstructing the view. There is no way the goal judge would miss that call.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdnX4eEQxs
Here’s the youtube address/link. It has a pretty good view of the puck behind the net.
Posted by Gumby from the city with more ruins than Rome on 11/19/09 at 04:29 PM ET
Do away with “Intended to Blow the Whistle”. Either the whistle blows, or it doesn’t. If the ref is too slow with his whistle, so be it. Whether its good or bad for your team on any given play, at least you can view the replay and say “well, the whistle blew.” The announcers on that video are actually ready to give LaRue the benefit of the doubt with regard until they realize just how much time has passed between the puck entering the net and the whistle.
Posted by dip on 11/19/09 at 04:32 PM ET
There is no way that LaRue deserves the benefit of the doubt. The puck entered the net off of the shot. There is no chance that anyone could ‘intend’ to blow the whistle in the time that the puck hit Auld and then enter the net. LaRue’s biggest mistake was to make an announcement that the goal was disallowed before giving Toronto a chance to reverse the call.
Posted by Gumby from the city with more ruins than Rome on 11/19/09 at 04:39 PM ET
See the 1:17 mark for an example of how this play is supposed to be officiated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch0-ezBu7ns&feature=player_embedded
Posted by PRS from Philadelphia, PA on 11/19/09 at 05:07 PM ET
There is no way that LaRue deserves the benefit of the doubt. The puck entered the net off of the shot. There is no chance that anyone could ‘intend’ to blow the whistle in the time that the puck hit Auld and then enter the net. LaRue’s biggest mistake was to make an announcement that the goal was disallowed before giving Toronto a chance to reverse the call.
Posted by Gumby from the city with more ruins than rome on 11/19/09 at 04:39 PM ET
LaRue does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, but like I said in another post:
“The bottom line is that it was a save that should’ve been a routine save. LaRue assumed as much, so when he didn’t see the onion bag bulge, he blew (or “intended to blow”) the whistle, even though the puck went straight in the goal. LaRue got hasty. It’s his fault. He had an opportunity to correct his own mistake, but decided to be stubborn and try to justify his own mistake by piling another, worse mistake on top of it.”
There is a chance he could’ve intended to blow the whistle. The point is that it was mistake to intend to do such a thing. LaRue was taking for granted that it looked like Auld made a routine save in a situation that 99% of the time results in a routine save. Instead, he should held off on blowing the whistle, skated up to the goal, and saw the puck in the cage. Then signaled goal.
The truly asinine part of this is that the NHL is so caught up in its own technicalities that they can’t just look at the play for what it was (a goal) and say, “Shit, even if the ref intended to blow the whistle, the puck went straight in the net, so let’s use common sense and award the goal.”
Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 11/19/09 at 05:08 PM ET
OR they should have it so that the war room calls the arena and tells the verdict to the announcer who makes the announcement himself, taking the ridiculous excuses of the refs out of the equation.
Posted by Garth
That would be too awesome. Bud Lynch getting on the PA and saying that would get a standing ovation.
Posted by Osrt on 11/19/09 at 05:13 PM ET
Players are expected to play until they hear the whistle, not until the official intends to blow it.
Throw the intent rule out - it’s just plain stupid.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 11/19/09 at 06:53 PM ET
Players are expected to play until they hear the whistle, not until the official intends to blow it.
Throw the intent rule out - it’s just plain stupid.
The sound of logic in an otherwise illogical situation.
The best, most concise, resolution.
Well done Miss B.
Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 11/19/09 at 08:52 PM ET
Where was the other ref in all this? Could he not have overruled LaRue? What it really comes down to is the whole intent thing is a load of crap. The whistle blew long after the puck was in the net. It’s not like it take 5 minutes to bring the whistle up to your lips and blow.
Posted by Snatcher from Windsor, ON on 11/19/09 at 10:49 PM ET
OTC
Look on the bright side: Howard’s rebound problems are solved!
I almost extended my original post to include the concept that this “new approach” to officiating will lead to the lowest goals against average ever. Just imagine this. Every time a puck hits Brodeur’s pad…or foot..or glove…or blocker, the play is instantly blown dead. That was the “standard” that was established last night. Puck gets shot. Puck hits goalie. Puck is instantly dead.
All goalie’s SVG% will jump by at least .5% almost overnight. Miller’s .931 will be .981 in a few weeks. Anderson’s .927? Well, that’ll be .977 in a few weeks. Goalies must be creaming in their over-inflated pants right now. I can almost hear them chanting in unison, “Go ahead. Shoot it. If it even grazes me, it’s a dead play. Wheeee. This is fun.”
Lil’ Gary’s league took a dump in public last night…and the whole world is getting a whiff of the stink today.
Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 11/19/09 at 11:29 PM ET
so now refs intend the blow the whistle the instant the puck hits the goalie? wow. because that puck never stopped. it glanced off the pad and instantly into the net. this is exactly the BS explanation we all expected.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 11/20/09 at 09:01 AM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Video-Shane Lehman, Always A Hockey Player
Making Peace At The Winter Classic
You Have A 2 1/2 Hour Window To Do What You Do
About KK Hockey
Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.
From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.
Email Paul anytime at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker
Make extra cash while playing online poker. Rakeback is free and comes with rake races.
Kukla’s Korner is always a free service for readers, but it costs some money to maintain. If you’re ever in a position to donate a few dollars to help out, we’d be very appreciative.
Of course it’s not a good thing…it makes the officiating look as bad as it is, and they don’t like that..
Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 11/19/09 at 02:04 PM ET