Dion Dublin did this against some unfortunate keeper several years ago in the Premiership. Goalies have to be aware all the time.

Not offsides. Once the goalie has the ball like that, it's his bad. That only time offsides would be even in question is when the first shot was taken. And as it was taken by the player furthest towards the goal, it's impossible for that to have been offsides.

The scorer really just is a sneaky, sneaky bastard.

The goalie doesn't even know where to look - Brilliant!

Yah. This was in the last two minutes of extra time and the team taking the corner were trailing by 1 goal so, you know, I'd say they did the right thing in bringing their goalie forward.

Only possible because one team was in desperation mode and pulled their goalie forward, but still pretty special. I wonder if there are other instances of half-field header goals.

Looks like he caught the goalie flat-footed.

>> ^messenger:

Sure, our boys don't mind lending a hand. And as most of the team is Canadian, that means during the year, the Cup will spend most of its time in Canada, since every player has the privilege of bring it home. The exception, Bourque (a Canadian), was classy enough to bring it to Boston. >> ^bmacs27:
You don't seem to understand. We pay the Canadians, and thus they are OURS. All the semantics in the world won't take away our chalice :-).


I was happy he got a cup and all, but it sucks Roy had to get one too. I always hated that guy. Hasek always seemed like the better goalie to me. It wasn't his fault he spent all those years stuck in Buffalo.

Luongo did that all by himself.

@bmacs27 said:
Besides, it was Timmy from Flint that made that Canadian goalie look the fool.

[edit: I busted the quote machine]

@messenger Besides, it was Timmy from Flint that made that Canadian goalie look the fool.

He makes the goalies look inept.

Kinda makes me want to get more into watching the sport.

So this may be the goalie that the Canuks could be playing against in the finals, oh dear.

*fail for the goalie!

Awesome... back when goaltenders actually had to move their bodies to stop pucks. Today they just "position" their heaps of gargantuan, puck absorbing equipment and tada!!!! scoring is down and goalies are not one tenth as exciting as this guy was.

Jigga, calm down please. I never called you a troll and in fact find, besides your angry outbursts, you are rational. I disagree with you on numerous points--not that your views have less merit than mine or more.

If you wanted an intersting title, you should have been prepared for some question marks about the slick practice of headling catching...

Second, I am actually with you on one thing Jigga--I think money should never come before public safety in Law Enforcement. And that means I never contradicted myself. If people are willing to pay, then yes, waiting would have been vastly the better option. You seem to think I hold the opposite view... On a side note, we agree even further. The war on drugs is not a good thing...

And lastly, a hockey team does not play in a line, one behind the other. The comparision is not worthy of you. Single file means the first person is by himself for as long as he acts solo... And in a time counted in gunshots, that is less than seconds.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
First of all, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since February 16th, 2006" href="http://dag.videosift.com"><STRONG style="COLOR: #008800">dag quotefail right above me again^ Neglect..NEGLECT!! (jk)
Second, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw did I say it was a comedy? I said I, personally speaking, use humor to deal with things I find repulsive. Maybe the title isn't as serious as it should be as is, but my intent was never to have anyone rolling in the isles. I wanted something catchy so people might actually watch it before absent-mindedly dismissing it without a second glance. As I said in the previous post, I feel like there is plenty of warning before ANY footage is even shown, the word "murder" is in the tags, I said in the description "be warned, this video is very graphic," and it's labeled NSFW. Anyone who says they "accidentally" watched this is fucking lying.
You say "Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor?"
>>>>>In short, if it means not needlessly killing someone because no one is in any immediate danger, yes. And I think people who value tax dollars over human life have morals that are askew.
But, then you go on to admit that "they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option."
And you have the balls to tell me that I'm contradicting myself? Do me a favor the next time you want to know what I think, just ask me since (and you can ask anyone in the "just sayin" conversation cringe ) I'm clearly a troll with assloads to say. That way you might get a slightly closer to the mark than you would inventing some hearsay nonsense.
Lastly, you mention the numerals involved. I don't agree that just because one cop pulled the trigger it was one cop vs one guy. The officers, even if they were ill coordinated, acted as a unit. I titled this without wanting to watch it again so I estimated the number of police. A re-watching had me count 7 cops walking through the door, 1 holding a camera, and 1 taking pictures with a flash in the background. By my count that's 9 officers ( acting in concert ) in total.
You wouldn't say that about a hockey goalie whose teammates were in the penalty box. The entire other hockey team would have one objective, to put the puck in the goal. Even if one person scored in some crazy twist of fate where all of the opposing team's hockey sticks didn't slap the puck in simultaneously, the announcer would probably say "________ team scored!!!" regardless of the fact that one person probably shot the goal.

First of all, @dag quotefail right above me again^ Neglect..NEGLECT!! (jk)

Second, @Lawdeedaw did I say it was a comedy? I said I, personally speaking, use humor to deal with things I find repulsive. Maybe the title isn't as serious as it should be as is, but my intent was never to have anyone rolling in the isles. I wanted something catchy so people might actually watch it before absent-mindedly dismissing it without a second glance. As I said in the previous post, I feel like there is plenty of warning before ANY footage is even shown, the word "murder" is in the tags, I said in the description "be warned, this video is very graphic," and it's labeled NSFW. Anyone who says they "accidentally" watched this is fucking lying.

You say "Are you willing to pay for/ and justify that expense in a down economy to your video sift neighbor?"
>>>>>In short, if it means not needlessly killing someone because no one is in any immediate danger, yes. And I think people who value tax dollars over human life have morals that are askew.

But, then you go on to admit that "they relied on their weapons. That is just plain dumb. Waiting till the suspect leaves does seem the best option."

And you have the balls to tell me that I'm contradicting myself? Do me a favor the next time you want to know what I think, just ask me since (and you can ask anyone in the "just sayin" conversation *cringe*) I'm clearly a troll with assloads to say. That way you might get a slightly closer to the mark than you would inventing some hearsay nonsense.

Lastly, you mention the numerals involved. I don't agree that just because one cop pulled the trigger it was one cop vs one guy. The officers, even if they were ill coordinated, acted as a unit. I titled this without wanting to watch it again so I estimated the number of police. A re-watching had me count 7 cops walking through the door, 1 holding a camera, and 1 taking pictures with a flash in the background. By my count that's 9 officers ( acting in concert ) in total.

You wouldn't say that about a hockey goalie whose teammates were in the penalty box. The entire other hockey team would have one objective, to put the puck in the goal. Even if one person scored in some crazy twist of fate where all of the opposing team's hockey sticks didn't slap the puck in simultaneously, the announcer would probably say "________ team scored!!!" regardless of the fact that one person probably shot the goal.