Puffer 2013 Playoffs - Results after Round 2 on Feb 27, 2013

Feb-27	Round 2
Thoms	2	vs	Hobart	2
Aveda	6	vs	Stobbe	3
Northpoint	9	vs	Rintoul	4

Position	TEAMS	W	L	T	PTS	GF	GA	Diff
1	THOMS	1	-	1	3	11	3	8
2	Hobart	1	-	1	3	7	4	3
3	Stobbe	1	1	-	2	8	8	0
3	Aveda	1	1	-	2	8	8	0
4	Northpoint	1	1	-	2	10	13	-3
5	Rintoul	0	1	-	0	6	14	-8

Puffer 2013 Playoffs - Results after Round 1 on Feb 20

Puffer 2013 Playoffs - Results after Round 1  on Feb 20
Feb-20		Stobbe E homes	5	Rintoul	2
Feb-20		Northpoint	1	Thoms	9
Feb-20		Hobart	5	Aveda	2

Position	TEAMS	W	L	T	PTS	GF	GA	Diff
1	THOMS	1	-	0	2	9	1	8
2	Hobart	1	0	0	2	5	2	3
2	Stobbe	1	0	0	2	5	2	3
3	Rintoul	0	1	0	0	2	5	-3
3	Aveda	0	1	0	0	2	5	-3
4	Northpoint	0	1	-	0	1	9	-8

Heard recently after Leafs Habs Game

Gary says its A-OK!

"....I am ashamed of the performance of the Habs last night.

Leafs played a heck of a game, and the Habs looked like a pee wee team.

But, biting, really?  its dangerous and didn't have its place anywhere, especially not in a pro hockey league, what was Grabovsky was thinking.

On a video review of a goal, the puck has to conclusively cross the line. We can't assume it crossed and it can't be half-way.

On a "did he bite him" review, we have to visibly see him biting the guy. If it's covered by an arm then that's the same as the puck being covered by a goalie's butt. Therefore, no goal, I mean bite.

What if there are bite marks? What if there's DNA evidence? Get CSI on the case!"