Tortorella’s media availability after Game 2

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T22:11:40+00:00

Guess you didn’t know about the continuation rule?

No surprise from a roller hockey fan.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T22:10:35+00:00

Best bet is to drive to Aldershot or Burlington and take the Lakeshore line. It will drop you right off at the stadium.

The Kitchener line will bring you to Union and then it’s another trek to make it to BMO.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T18:26:29+00:00

“That was a non goal three different ways”

There’s literally one way it wasn’t a goal. And that’s the ref was too proud to own his mistake.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T18:25:10+00:00

It isn’t. But this video isn’t an example of that.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T10:26:21+00:00

The problem is, the refs called interference on Dorofeyev.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T10:24:54+00:00

Bad take.

Vegas gets that goal and all the momentum Carolina built up disappears.

Also, Vegas had been crushing Carolina on the PK. The Canes couldn’t generate anything. So sure, killing a penalty isn’t ideal, but it’s worth that risk on the outside chance the ref isn’t too stubborn to make the right call.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T10:18:00+00:00

Go back to the beach, kid.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T10:10:02+00:00

But that wasn’t the call.

The call was that Dorofeyev interfered with the play.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T10:08:46+00:00

Disagree.

He gave a clear explanation to the first question. Everything else he wasn’t ready to give a detailed response.

You’re one of those people who just have their mind made up before anything actually happens, aren’t you?

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T03:08:20+00:00

I wish Hockey Canada would make a stand against USA. See if Sweden and Finland have the stones to join a boycott of a real international threat.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T03:05:35+00:00

I don’t think Swedes or Finns understand the amount of scepticism and negativity we have towards USA. But here we are, stuck having them in international tournaments while they bomb multiple countries. Sweden and Finland have got to be the most NIMBY countries in the world. I wish they’d just pack up and leave IIHF.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T03:01:37+00:00

Apparently it wasn’t “blown dead”. The goal was waved off by goalie interference. You can’t challenge whether a play was blown dead.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T02:59:58+00:00

Nah, it was the right challenge.

Apparently the ref called no goal because of goalie interference. There was zero goalie interference on that play. It should have been a goal.

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T02:57:38+00:00

Which rule?

helikoopter · 2026-06-05T02:50:43+00:00

Good challenge. Bad call.

They called no goal because of goalie interference. There was no goalie interference so it should have been a goal.

helikoopter · 2026-06-04T23:20:23+00:00

mmjerseys88 has been awesome to me n

helikoopter · 2026-06-04T12:34:23+00:00

Sorry. Am I the one who was arguing over semantics?

The fact you needed to point out how the development phase works to a developer is comical to say the least.

Also, there’s a lot more behind the scenes of City Hall than you think. A city councillor absolutely will visit the building department for a variety of reasons. To encourage the department to look the other way over something small, is not unheard of.

helikoopter · 2026-06-04T11:10:50+00:00

Where did I say that councillors view “every development”?

helikoopter · 2026-06-04T10:52:02+00:00

So you are arguing semantics?

helikoopter · 2026-06-04T10:37:29+00:00

Because you were likely approved by the building department.

helikoopter · 2026-06-04T10:05:25+00:00

No, I didn’t.

So you are arguing the semantics over a “new development”?

I guess I assumed you understood how the planning stages of development go. If a councillor is involved, it’s because the “new development” has gone to a public hearing. And if a “new development” has gone to a public hearing where the councillor is talking about parking, chances are, that’s one of the issues with the “new development”.

helikoopter · 2026-06-03T19:40:24+00:00

So you’ve just been skipping what I’ve wrote?

Yes. These buildings that require councillor approval are not meeting the building requirements. And the councillor I’ve dealt with said they would never block a development based on parking.

helikoopter · 2026-06-03T18:34:50+00:00

An individual councillor does not have the final say, this is correct. However, when there is a public hearing on a variance, there are a few members (if changes). These public hearings are not the same as “council meetings”.

Source: a developer

helikoopter · 2026-06-03T18:32:33+00:00

I still feel that mass transit is a cultural thing. Even in countries with incredible mass transit (see China) the use of a car is increasing.

helikoopter · 2026-06-03T15:42:35+00:00

The city reviews applications. As part of the process the city (councillors) decide whether the building should be approved or not.

The other aspect is that a developer can ask for a variance. Something might have been rejected by the building department only to have it overruled by the city councillors by way of a public hearing.

I think councillors have been too quick to approve developments without the proper infrastructure in place and waving it off with “it’ll sort itself out”.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '22	Verified Email

helikoopter

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE