HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Nashville Predators
Notices

GDT Preds @ Wings - 1pm CST (Eventual Road win Edition)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-13-2008, 08:04 AM
  #76
RollingPredFan
Registered User
 
RollingPredFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 632
vCash: 500
Ok, someone please explain me this. We are playing the Sharks in the regular season. The officials have a questionable waived off goal for the Sharks. They spend something like 20 minutes reviewing it. They award them the goal....

And here the Preds are, in the PLAYOFFS and we can't take one minute to look at a questionable waived off goal?

Don't tell me certain teams get calls because I have seen it too much.

And I'm used to Holmstrom being able to interfere with the goalie, there is nothing new there lol

Its hard for me to be down on the players and coaching staff when they are playing our guts out only to have fluky bounces and bad calls go against them. Yes Arnott and Dumont are disappointing but they are going against good defenders. BUT they took AWFUL penalties and should be called out for that in the 3rd. As leaders they have to lead better. I think a lot of this is out of frustration though.

Well we are in trouble. We pretty much have to sweep them at home and the way its going I doubt it happens.

RollingPredFan is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 08:31 AM
  #77
gmalicoat
Registered User
 
gmalicoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
These complaints about the officiating are wild, and it is getting out of hand. The rule states that if the ref intended to blow the whistle the play is dead. Bam, simple, end of story.

I was at the game Thurs. The Preds are NOT skating with the Wings, at least not yet anyway. That game the Wings dictated the play. The score was MUCH, MUCH closer than the game was.

Additionally, the refs let a ton of stuff go that the Preds were pulling--hooking, interference etc.

You have 2 playoff games in Nashville, you should be happy with that.

gmalicoat is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 08:38 AM
  #78
gmalicoat
Registered User
 
gmalicoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by spank303 View Post
This is the playoffs, take the time and fully review everything -net off is reviewable! I'm so sick of this crap.
The ref said he intended to blow the whistle, that is NOT reviewable

gmalicoat is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 08:40 AM
  #79
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,933
vCash: 500
Why would he have intended to blow the whistle before the net was off?

It's real easy to be high and mighty when the calls are going your way isn't it?

triggrman is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 08:41 AM
  #80
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chattanooga TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,487
vCash: 500
He said he intended to blow the whistle afterwards. On the replay, he tells the players he waived it off because the net was off. I ask you this - would an official have intent to blow the whistle while a shot was still in the air? Essentially that is what this official is claiming....that as the shot is taking place he is intending to blow the play dead, which is complete BS. That shot bounced off Hasek and in. The official waived it off because he thought the net was off the moorings.

__________________
- Enoch -
Enoch is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 08:57 AM
  #81
RollingPredFan
Registered User
 
RollingPredFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 632
vCash: 500
LOL Who appointed you hockey god? Be thankful? Kiss my @ss.

Go away little troll, every hockey analyst I have seen said the officials blew the call.

RollingPredFan is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 10:09 AM
  #82
gmalicoat
Registered User
 
gmalicoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
I never said the ref made the right call. I was simply saying that the ref said he blew or intended to blow the play dead, which is NOT reviewable.

gmalicoat is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 10:45 AM
  #83
Higgy4
Registered User
 
Higgy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 7,548
vCash: 500
Here is a good pic of the Lidstrom goal. Homer is not in the crease. This is a perfect screen.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=504993

Higgy4 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 10:55 AM
  #84
DManPreds11
Registered User
 
DManPreds11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmalicoat View Post
The ref said he intended to blow the whistle, that is NOT reviewable/
Thank for the clarification Einstein!

DManPreds11 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 10:57 AM
  #85
DManPreds11
Registered User
 
DManPreds11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmalicoat View Post
Additionally, the refs let a ton of stuff go that the Preds were pulling--hooking, interference etc.
Take off the homer glasses dipchit.

DManPreds11 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 11:02 AM
  #86
darth5
Rowsdower!
 
darth5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Smashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 2,401
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmalicoat View Post
These complaints about the officiating are wild, and it is getting out of hand. The rule states that if the ref intended to blow the whistle the play is dead. Bam, simple, end of story.

I was at the game Thurs. The Preds are NOT skating with the Wings, at least not yet anyway. That game the Wings dictated the play. The score was MUCH, MUCH closer than the game was.

Additionally, the refs let a ton of stuff go that the Preds were pulling--hooking, interference etc.

You have 2 playoff games in Nashville, you should be happy with that.
Oh, pardon me, we are not worthy of your condescending post
Go back to the Detroit forum, and take your attidtude with you. We didn't go trolling into your thread with these comments. Respect our forum, at least.

darth5 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 11:08 AM
  #87
predfan24
Registered User
 
predfan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmalicoat View Post
These complaints about the officiating are wild, and it is getting out of hand. The rule states that if the ref intended to blow the whistle the play is dead. Bam, simple, end of story.

I was at the game Thurs. The Preds are NOT skating with the Wings, at least not yet anyway. That game the Wings dictated the play. The score was MUCH, MUCH closer than the game was.

Additionally, the refs let a ton of stuff go that the Preds were pulling--hooking, interference etc.

You have 2 playoff games in Nashville, you should be happy with that.
Get out of here with all your high and mighty BS. That's twice in two important CLOSE playoff games where a ref has absoultely REFUSED to admit thier mistake. Oh I didnt know the puck hit me. BS! He clearly was mouthing the net was off when he called that play dead yesterday. These refs are more interested in protecting their own ass then calling a fair game of hockey. BUSH LEAGUE!!


Last edited by predfan24: 04-13-2008 at 11:15 AM.
predfan24 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 11:53 AM
  #88
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chattanooga TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4 View Post
Here is a good pic of the Lidstrom goal. Homer is not in the crease. This is a perfect screen.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=504993
It is the perfect screen, but his feet were in the crease which makes it illegal.....

This picture only shows part of the play. A fraction of a second earlier and both of his feet are in the crease. I guess its all about where you decide to freeze frame it...

Enoch is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 11:56 AM
  #89
DManPreds11
Registered User
 
DManPreds11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4 View Post
Here is a good pic of the Lidstrom goal. Homer is not in the crease. This is a perfect screen.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=504993
Here is some video I made of Mr. Marouelli clearly stating that the "net was off" I guess in the rule book if the ref thinks the net is going to be dislodged then he can "intend" to blow the whistle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d09dtGdXGpo

DManPreds11 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 12:06 PM
  #90
Higgy4
Registered User
 
Higgy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 7,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch View Post
It is the perfect screen, but his feet were in the crease which makes it illegal.....
This isnt 1999 anymore. The in the crease rule no longer exists.

Higgy4 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 12:07 PM
  #91
Higgy4
Registered User
 
Higgy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 7,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DManPreds11 View Post
Here is some video I made of Mr. Marouelli clearly stating that the "net was off" I guess in the rule book if the ref thinks the net is going to be dislodged then he can "intend" to blow the whistle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d09dtGdXGpo
Ok..cool. But that isnt the play I am talking about.

Higgy4 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 12:15 PM
  #92
DManPreds11
Registered User
 
DManPreds11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4 View Post
Ok..cool. But that isnt the play I am talking about.

NO but it's the play we're talkin about on our boards, you submitted you picture of Holmstrom's screen, great good-bye. Teams scoring the first goal has only lost once, teams scoring the first goal and the ref disallowing it is 0-1. It was huge for the Preds to score first but to do so and the ref disallowing it knowing it was good had to be a morale killer for our club. Especailly after the missed call in game one.

DManPreds11 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 12:29 PM
  #93
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4 View Post
This isnt 1999 anymore. The in the crease rule no longer exists.
Yes it does, if the player is making contact with the goalie, which looks to be the case even on your perfect little picture.

triggrman is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 12:55 PM
  #94
Higgy4
Registered User
 
Higgy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 7,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by triggrman View Post
Yes it does, if the player is making contact with the goalie, which looks to be the case even on your perfect little picture.

Well, first of all...its not my picture. I just sent a link from another separate thread.

Secondly, Homer gets called on interference all the time. Wings fans are so used to seeing him get called on it. He was in great position on that goal. Borderline? You bet it was, but thats what makes it the perfect screen. I understand the argument against the play, but I also can see an argument for why it is a good goal too.

Listen, I am not trolling. I am just talking to you guys, and I think I am being fairly respectful also. So please dont label me a troll. I hate trolls too. Lets just have some good hockey talk.

Higgy4 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 01:02 PM
  #95
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chattanooga TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4 View Post
Well, first of all...its not my picture. I just sent a link from another separate thread.

Secondly, Homer gets called on interference all the time. Wings fans are so used to seeing him get called on it. He was in great position on that goal. Borderline? You bet it was, but thats what makes it the perfect screen. I understand the argument against the play, but I also can see an argument for why it is a good goal too.

Listen, I am not trolling. I am just talking to you guys, and I think I am being fairly respectful also. So please dont label me a troll. I hate trolls too. Lets just have some good hockey talk.
Agreed. Higgy isn't trolling here.

I do agree it was a borderline screen. I also think that along with his foot in the crease, he is clearly impeding Ellis's ability to get position, hence the penalty rather than a goal. I'm not surprised it wasn't called, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been called.

Enoch is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 01:13 PM
  #96
gmalicoat
Registered User
 
gmalicoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 199
vCash: 500
That call is in the referee's discretion. Clearly, Holmstrom didnt interfere at all. He didn't block the goaltender's ability to get into position either Good non-call by the referee.

gmalicoat is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 01:23 PM
  #97
DManPreds11
Registered User
 
DManPreds11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4 View Post
Well, first of all...its not my picture. I just sent a link from another separate thread.

Secondly, Homer gets called on interference all the time. Wings fans are so used to seeing him get called on it. He was in great position on that goal. Borderline? You bet it was, but thats what makes it the perfect screen. I understand the argument against the play, but I also can see an argument for why it is a good goal too.

Listen, I am not trolling. I am just talking to you guys, and I think I am being fairly respectful also. So please dont label me a troll. I hate trolls too. Lets just have some good hockey talk.
I'll only disagree with ya on the quote in red, he might against other teams you play but not ours. Just to make it known I didn't think he interfered with Ellis our D is who I blame on that play. I'm discussed with the goal disallowed by good ole Dan. Sorry I'm just really pissed because I know how important that goal could've been for us.

DManPreds11 is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 01:45 PM
  #98
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,671
vCash: 500
I think we can now officially end the debate over the Lidstrom goal and whether or not it should have been waved off because Holmstrom might have been in the crease:

Rule 78 Protection of Goalkeeper
Quote:
The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.
Click the link for the entire rule straight from NHL.com. No contact was made, Ellis had a free range of motion on the shot. There was no reason for the officials to even consider waving off the goal.

FissionFire is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 01:52 PM
  #99
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Higgy4 View Post
Well, first of all...its not my picture. I just sent a link from another separate thread.

Secondly, Homer gets called on interference all the time. Wings fans are so used to seeing him get called on it. He was in great position on that goal. Borderline? You bet it was, but thats what makes it the perfect screen. I understand the argument against the play, but I also can see an argument for why it is a good goal too.

Listen, I am not trolling. I am just talking to you guys, and I think I am being fairly respectful also. So please dont label me a troll. I hate trolls too. Lets just have some good hockey talk.
I don't think you're trolling, you never have and have always been respectful.

triggrman is offline  
Old
04-13-2008, 01:53 PM
  #100
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 16,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
I think we can now officially end the debate over the Lidstrom goal and whether or not it should have been waved off because Holmstrom might have been in the crease:

Rule 78 Protection of Goalkeeper

Quote:
The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.
Click the link for the entire rule straight from NHL.com. No contact was made, Ellis had a free range of motion on the shot. There was no reason for the officials to even consider waving off the goal.
Bolded is what we're talking about.

triggrman is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.