HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Game 4, part 2

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-22-2009, 03:29 PM
  #351
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
seems to me a model franchise would not be on the cusp of leaving its city. Not ever, but certainly not less than two years ago.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 03:39 PM
  #352
DrHamburg
Registered User
 
DrHamburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,161
vCash: 500
Game 4 Info

I am not sure if anyone noticed, but I was part of the group with the man wearing the blue Malkin dress and the Scuba Sidney Crosby outfit. I should have pictures up in the near future as a few people there said they visited the fan boards here!

DrHamburg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 03:42 PM
  #353
Claude Reigns
What offseason?
 
Claude Reigns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Delawhere?
Country: Ireland
Posts: 676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennysflyers16 View Post
If we do not come back to win, I am still a believer,,

Lets just hope the Caps and Devs win, then the Pens will get the Bruins and get their ***** ****ing handed to them
If that happens, I will be a bigger Bruins fan for that series than 99.4% of the city of Boston.

Claude Reigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 04:42 PM
  #354
BerubeBox*
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireStevensDotCom View Post
the problem is Biron is out of position and the puck is clearly on Crosby.
Had the puck been in front of Biron and Crosby knocked it free and into the net its a differant story.
In fact I dont even think Biron knows where the puck is at that point another reason the call on the ice was correct.
Not saying you're wrong about the overall point - I think it's a toss up - but all of that is either wrong, irrelevant, or both. Marty was between the pipes and extending his left pad to stop the puck after it got rifled across him. That is being in position. You might be thinking of basketball where the player who arrives in a spot first gets dibs on it.

BerubeBox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 04:49 PM
  #355
BerubeBox*
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny View Post
And then we get Bettman calling them a model franchise. When I saw that I wanted to vomit. Aside from me thinking their team right now plays the game all the wrong ways (and still gets endorsed positively) they're still the furthest thing from how I'd model my team if I was the new owner/GM during an expansion.
Didn't know he said that. Jesus. I can't figure out which is worse - his incompetence or his disingenuousness.

It's amazing to think that there are millions of megafans out there who would give their right nut just to be involved in the NHL, spend thousands of hours a year following and supporting their teams, and we end up with this sleazy idiot to make all the important decisions. How in the **** does that happen.

BerubeBox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 04:49 PM
  #356
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,231
vCash: 5775
Quote:
Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion View Post
seems to me a model franchise would not be on the cusp of leaving its city. Not ever, but certainly not less than two years ago.
The Colorado Avalanche disagree.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 05:04 PM
  #357
JXC
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
JXC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 13,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Cooper View Post
If that happens, I will be a bigger Bruins fan for that series than 99.4% of the city of Boston.
I never liked Chara all that much, but the though of him catching Staal or Malkin with their heads down sure is tantalizing.

JXC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 05:17 PM
  #358
bobbyacro
 
bobbyacro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXC View Post
I never liked Chara all that much, but the though of him catching Staal or Malkin with their heads down sure is tantalizing.
Id pay to see that, WHAM! (not the band)

bobbyacro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 05:25 PM
  #359
LEIFey
Context Matters!
 
LEIFey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 7,279
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LEIFey
well, i sarcastically said that we win games where i don't comment in the GDT. needless to say, you guys won't see me in the next one

LEIFey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 05:29 PM
  #360
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
The Colorado Avalanche disagree.
One could argue that having the opportunity to trade for a goalie like Roy in the middle of his prime makes that a special case.

My argument is that less that two years ago the Pens were in the midst of rampant rumors about relocation and a streak of 4 consecutive years in the bottom five, or worse, of the league. I think it may be a bit soon to anoint them "the model franchise."

Especially in a league where the Detroit Red Wings exist.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 05:31 PM
  #361
dawkins121
Registered User
 
dawkins121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,408
vCash: 500
still waiting for the rebirth of the steel industry?

dawkins121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 05:51 PM
  #362
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,231
vCash: 5775
I don't recall them being dubbed THE model franchise. They've been dubbed A model franchise. Two years ago Buffalo was also a model franchise.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 05:54 PM
  #363
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerubeBox View Post
Not saying you're wrong about the overall point - I think it's a toss up - but all of that is either wrong, irrelevant, or both. Marty was between the pipes and extending his left pad to stop the puck after it got rifled across him. That is being in position. You might be thinking of basketball where the player who arrives in a spot first gets dibs on it.
It's not a toss up. If they had overturned that goal it would have been a bad call. Again, the specific rule in question (in its entirety):

Quote:
69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game).
It's a loose puck. Not only that, it was a PASS to Crosby. It hits Crosby in the stick and then the body/glove and bounces into the net...well away from Biron's leg. Crosby has every right to play the puck and if he bumps Biron in the process of playing the puck that is "incidental contact." Biron was NOT pushed into the net along with the puck--it goes in well to his left just inside the post--and no one is ever on top of the puck.

Look, there is ton to complain about when it comes to officiating in the NHL. It's inconsistent, some of the officials are jackasses, the mandate from the league down is unclear and ill-conceived at times, so on and so forth. However, there is also a LOT of complaining about the officiating that has absolutely no basis whatsoever. There is no conspiracy against the Flyers...there's bad officiating and we create a lot of our own problems through how we play the game.

Questioning whether we would have gotten the same call if it was Hartnell coming in is a waste of time...either they would have called it correctly or they would have called it incorrectly. If they called it incorrectly, then criticism and complaint should follow...in this case, they made the absolutely right call.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 05:57 PM
  #364
FDBluth
Registered User
 
FDBluth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 9,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonny View Post
And then we get Bettman calling them a model franchise. When I saw that I wanted to vomit. Aside from me thinking their team right now plays the game all the wrong ways (and still gets endorsed positively) they're still the furthest thing from how I'd model my team if I was the new owner/GM during an expansion.
Hi folks, I come in peace. I'd like to say clarify that Bettman never himself said that the Pens were the league's "model franchise". That was what the NHL.com article was titled. Bettman was asked about survivability of current struggling teams, to which he pointed out that the Pens have turned their franchise around from being mired in bankruptcy to being one of the top teams in the league. So the whole "Penguins are a model franchise" thing was never really on Bettman...it's what some writer at NHL.com decided to title their article. Kind of a dumb move by that writer, no doubt.

I still think that your point probably stands in that the team might not be around had we not drafted Crosby, and Pens fans are very grateful for that. But that surely means that he doesn't suck, right?

But it's also not like the Pens purposely tanked to get him...there wasn't even a season the year before they drafted him. The team had serious financial difficulties and were pretty much slapped in the face by their largest asset in Jagr and received next to nothing for getting rid of him. Plus, I'm sure you guys would rather love to hate a Penguins team that's on par with the Flyers than one that is so pathetic that it could barely beat an AHL team. I for one enjoy the rivalry immensely, and I'm not even a native of either city.

FDBluth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 05:57 PM
  #365
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
I don't recall them being dubbed THE model franchise. They've been dubbed A model franchise. Two years ago Buffalo was also a model franchise.
Maybe you're right.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 06:49 PM
  #366
Jules801
Just Some Broad
 
Jules801's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Good Ol' Glassboro
Country: Israel
Posts: 6,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDBluth View Post
Hi folks, I come in peace. I'd like to say clarify that Bettman never himself said that the Pens were the league's "model franchise". That was what the NHL.com article was titled. Bettman was asked about survivability of current struggling teams, to which he pointed out that the Pens have turned their franchise around from being mired in bankruptcy to being one of the top teams in the league. So the whole "Penguins are a model franchise" thing was never really on Bettman...it's what some writer at NHL.com decided to title their article. Kind of a dumb move by that writer, no doubt.

I still think that your point probably stands in that the team might not be around had we not drafted Crosby, and Pens fans are very grateful for that. But that surely means that he doesn't suck, right?

But it's also not like the Pens purposely tanked to get him...there wasn't even a season the year before they drafted him. The team had serious financial difficulties and were pretty much slapped in the face by their largest asset in Jagr and received next to nothing for getting rid of him. Plus, I'm sure you guys would rather love to hate a Penguins team that's on par with the Flyers than one that is so pathetic that it could barely beat an AHL team. I for one enjoy the rivalry immensely, and I'm not even a native of either city.
Nah... I'd love it if you guys were AHL caliber...LOL

I don't really go along with the whole tanking thing. Did we "tank" 2 years ago to get JVR? I can't imagine professional athletes purposely sucking to "help" a franchise they may not even be a part of if and when it turns around.

Jules801 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 07:19 PM
  #367
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules801 View Post
Nah... I'd love it if you guys were AHL caliber...LOL

I don't really go along with the whole tanking thing. Did we "tank" 2 years ago to get JVR? I can't imagine professional athletes purposely sucking to "help" a franchise they may not even be a part of if and when it turns around.
Yep...too much on the line and careers are too short for coaches/players to be out there "tanking." Organizations, on the other hand, are more than capable of "tanking." However, I think people confuse re-tooling and sucking for "tanking" with too much casualness. It's perfectly understandable to go to ground for a couple of years as a team as you develop young talent, purge old contracts, and rebuild for a new team. That's not "tanking."

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 07:21 PM
  #368
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Yep...too much on the line and careers are too short for coaches/players to be out there "tanking." Organizations, on the other hand, are more than capable of "tanking." However, I think people confuse re-tooling and sucking for "tanking" with too much casualness. It's perfectly understandable to go to ground for a couple of years as a team as you develop young talent, purge old contracts, and rebuild for a new team. That's not "tanking."
I agree, but it really makes you think when Brendan Witt comes out for the shootout.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 07:42 PM
  #369
BerubeBox*
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Again, the specific rule in question (in its entirety)

It's a loose puck. Not only that, it was a PASS to Crosby. It hits Crosby in the stick and then the body/glove and bounces into the net...well away from Biron's leg. Crosby has every right to play the puck and if he bumps Biron in the process of playing the puck that is "incidental contact." Biron was NOT pushed into the net along with the puck--it goes in well to his left just inside the post--and no one is ever on top of the puck.
Check it out, I can cherry pick from the rulebook too!
Quote:
69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates
contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the
goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his
goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the
goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish
position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately
vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the
goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all
such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will
receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It's not a toss up. If they had overturned that goal it would have been a bad call.
You said yourself the rules are written to be interpreted subjectively, and that 95% of the calls that are made, including this one, are made subjectively. Now you're speaking in absolutes?

I'm guessing your last 2 paragraphs were directed toward someone else.

BerubeBox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 07:47 PM
  #370
BerubeBox*
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules801 View Post
I don't really go along with the whole tanking thing. Did we "tank" 2 years ago to get JVR? I can't imagine professional athletes purposely sucking to "help" a franchise they may not even be a part of if and when it turns around.
I always laughed when people brought it up with a straight face as well, but is it possible for a GM to 'tank' by signing lousy players? The athletes wouldn't have to be involved. I'm not saying I buy that one either, but at least it's more plausible. Hey, they did it in slapshot and major league.

BerubeBox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 08:07 PM
  #371
Terence Peterman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,296
vCash: 500
I never meant to say or convey the Pens tanked to get Crosby. I said they sucked to get him, and were extremely fortunate in their timing.

That is irrefutable.

Terence Peterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 08:11 PM
  #372
AaronTrieu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,882
vCash: 500
I don't even mind crosby. Malkin is the cheap ******* on the ice.

AaronTrieu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 10:01 PM
  #373
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerubeBox View Post
Check it out, I can cherry pick from the rulebook too!
Except that rule isn't applicable in this case. That rule is for when an attacking player is bumping the goalie while not playing the puck. The rule I cited is specifically addressing the situation at play when Crosby went to the net...he was playing a loose puck in the crease.

Unless you're saying Biron had that puck under control at some point?

Quote:
You said yourself the rules are written to be interpreted subjectively, and that 95% of the calls that are made, including this one, are made subjectively. Now you're speaking in absolutes?
The rule you're citing is absolutely NOT the correct rule to be citing with regard to Crosby's goal. It's addressing an entirely different situation (the one Jules vids were displaying).

And officiating is absolutely subjective, and it's certainly my opinion that I'm expressing...but the NHL officials in the war room who got to watch that play in slow motion agree with me. If they had made the call the other way it would have been the incorrect call. You are certainly entitled to view that differently, but the evidence contradicts that position and the decision that was made contradicts that position.

In order to prove me wrong in applying the rule I cited you would have to make a few claims:

1) The puck was not loose.
2) Crosby was not playing the puck.
3) Crosby was purposefully bumping into Biron...the fact that he hit the puck was incidental to his effort to bump Biron.

Quote:
I'm guessing your last 2 paragraphs were directed toward someone else.
Part of the complaint that has been voiced is that if that had been a Flyer they would have called it the other way. Which would have been the incorrect call and then they would rightfully deserve criticism.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2009, 10:39 PM
  #374
RLD12
Registered User
 
RLD12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West Mifflin, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerubeBox View Post
69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates
contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the
goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his
goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the
goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.
If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish
position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately
vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the
goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all
such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will
receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

I'm thinking the rule is more towards a player coming into the crease while the pucks not around hinders the goalie while someone else is shooting, but if the player is going for the puck it's anyone's puck..I honestly thought the goal was a little shotty at first too..I do think that rule should be looked at, because most rules anymore are subjective..

RLD12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:14 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.