HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Prongers disallowed goal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2010, 05:39 PM
  #26
Appleyard
Registered User
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 5,459
vCash: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevUpThoseFlyers View Post
"It is what it is"
Im pretty sure that between prongs and holmgren they have used the worlds quota of that phrase up for the year.

Appleyard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2010, 10:50 PM
  #27
BernieParent
Registered User
 
BernieParent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,079
vCash: 500
I do have to point out that Crosby was called for a crap tripping penalty in the same game when Avery went down like the Titanic.

Crosby vs. Avery. There's an impenetrable conundrum of dislike. The impugnable force versus the unlikable object.

BernieParent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2010, 11:15 PM
  #28
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JagerPuck View Post
Case and point:

This play really shows how much the NHL Officiating body is out to glorify players rather than protect the sanctity of the game, and for that matter, their safety.
What is Callahan had gotten a concussion from his head getting slammed on the ice?
If the NHL wanted to make an example of dirty hits to the head and slewfooting it should be Crosby sucker punching Boris Valabik a few years ago, for which he was not disciplined at all.
And hes still at it, as we can see.
What a ****ing load of ****.
I was watching these and thought I'd share:




Flyerfan808 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2010, 11:19 PM
  #29
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,997
vCash: 500
Just so we're clear.

Avery faced the goaltender doing jumping jacks or whatever for a total of 21 seconds.

Pronger's arm raise took less than a second before it was back on his stick. It was one motion up then down.

Worst call I've seen in a LONG time.

If Pronger did something for an extended amount of time, I could see a penalty. If Pronger did something while not focusing on the play and instead facing the goaltender, I could see a penalty. If the goal was scored when Pronger was screening Kipper, MAYBE I could see a penalty, but the goal was in no way related to Pronger.

That said, for that to be a penalty and the sheer fact that it was only called as a reactionary call because we scored the goal blows my mind.

Kipper should not worry about slashing people if he wants to win the game for his team in OT. That's all this boils down to.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 09:01 AM
  #30
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appleyard View Post
Im pretty sure that between prongs and holmgren they have used the worlds quota of that phrase up for the year.
What can you do?

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 09:27 AM
  #31
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Just so we're clear.

Avery faced the goaltender doing jumping jacks or whatever for a total of 21 seconds.

Pronger's arm raise took less than a second before it was back on his stick. It was one motion up then down.

Worst call I've seen in a LONG time.

If Pronger did something for an extended amount of time, I could see a penalty. If Pronger did something while not focusing on the play and instead facing the goaltender, I could see a penalty. If the goal was scored when Pronger was screening Kipper, MAYBE I could see a penalty, but the goal was in no way related to Pronger.

That said, for that to be a penalty and the sheer fact that it was only called as a reactionary call because we scored the goal blows my mind.

Kipper should not worry about slashing people if he wants to win the game for his team in OT. That's all this boils down to.
The fact the ref missed the slash is a problem.

As far as the call goes, it's even more pitiful when you see all the goals allowed nightly in which the goalies are interfered with, or for which there is a call on a guy being pushed into the goalie by a Dman, as happened to the Leafs last night.

The league really needs to change the rules on replays to include a review of goalie interference calls as part of goal reviews only.

If it's apparent that the goalie was just diving, a penalty can be called. If the guy got pushed in, the goal counts.

I really don't care that much about the call on Pronger, as long as they call every single similar incident - I'm not holding my breath. Either it's a new standard or the ref f'd up.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 10:22 AM
  #32
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
"The spirit and intent of the USC rule is to keep an acceptable hockey decorum in the game, in this case when a player is screening," Terry Gregson, the NHL's director of officiating, told me Saturday. "This type of act is outside the normal boundaries and needs to be controlled for the good of the game."


This is the crux of the discussion. How does Prongers action actually violate the "acceptable decorum in the game". What this would mean is they knew exactly what Prongers intent was, which means they need to be inside his head at the time of the action. The Avery "rule" is to deter players from those types of actions where he is physically interacting with the goalie and acting in an unsportsmanlike manner. Pronger got slashed on the achilles several times, maybe Pronger was just pointing to the ref to get his attention? Basically a mickey mouse administration running this league, it is bordering on corrupt.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 11:09 AM
  #33
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
"The spirit and intent of the USC rule is to keep an acceptable hockey decorum in the game, in this case when a player is screening," Terry Gregson, the NHL's director of officiating, told me Saturday. "This type of act is outside the normal boundaries and needs to be controlled for the good of the game."


This is the crux of the discussion. How does Prongers action actually violate the "acceptable decorum in the game". What this would mean is they knew exactly what Prongers intent was, which means they need to be inside his head at the time of the action. The Avery "rule" is to deter players from those types of actions where he is physically interacting with the goalie and acting in an unsportsmanlike manner. Pronger got slashed on the achilles several times, maybe Pronger was just pointing to the ref to get his attention? Basically a mickey mouse administration running this league, it is bordering on corrupt.
Pronger was ABSOLUTELY sticking his hand there to block Kipper's vision... He looked back to see where Kipper was, and then stuck his hand up at eye level.

If that's how they want the rule enforced, then that's how they want the rule enforced. They claimed that there was some information passed out that suggested that this was how they intended the officials to call it... now, if you want to complain that the ref was late on the call, that's fine. It's also fair to hold the league to continuing to call that play the same way.

However, lets not act like Pronger wasn't trying to block Kipper's vision, because he absolutely was.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 11:32 AM
  #34
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Pronger was ABSOLUTELY sticking his hand there to block Kipper's vision... He looked back to see where Kipper was, and then stuck his hand up at eye level.

If that's how they want the rule enforced, then that's how they want the rule enforced. They claimed that there was some information passed out that suggested that this was how they intended the officials to call it... now, if you want to complain that the ref was late on the call, that's fine. It's also fair to hold the league to continuing to call that play the same way.

However, lets not act like Pronger wasn't trying to block Kipper's vision, because he absolutely was.
He can use his entire body to block Kippers vision, but a hand is USC? That makes very little sense.... Gotta play within the rules, though...... Even the stupid ones.

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 11:43 AM
  #35
ihatebraydenschenn
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SunnyvaleTrailerPark
Country: Canada
Posts: 984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
However, lets not act like Pronger wasn't trying to block Kipper's vision, because he absolutely was.
That's the idea of screening a goalie.

ihatebraydenschenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 11:44 AM
  #36
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
He can use his entire body to block Kippers vision, but a hand is USC? That makes very little sense.... Gotta play within the rules, though...... Even the stupid ones.
I agree that this application of the "Avery rule" is dumb. If a guy wants to take his hand off his stick to make himself bigger in front of the goalie, who cares? If he's doing that, he's not going to be all that good at deflecting a puck that's coming in.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 11:46 AM
  #37
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by galvo View Post
That's the idea of screening a goalie.
No ****. But if the league says you're not allowed to do X, then you're not allowed to do X. So, the ruling is fine as long as they're consistent in this application of it.

Do I think it's dumb? Yes... but Pronger was clearly holding up his hand to block Kipper's vision, I don't really think that's debatable. He definitely looked over his shoulder, and THEN put his hand up.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 11:55 AM
  #38
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,030
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Yep.

The writer of this article...I assume it's Lebrun if it's ESPN?...completely missed the point of the Pronger incident.
Lebrun is also a Habs fan, so you know where his alegiance lies. I read that article. He claims it was the correct call. Pronger "violated the spirit of the rule" was i beleive how he worded it. Another words it was a judgement call.
His responce to the first "rant" :

First of all, it was indeed the right call last Friday afternoon; kudos to young referee Ghislain Hebert for getting it right. Pronger clearly waived his glove in front of Miikka Kiprusoff's face. That's an unsportsmanlike conduct (USC) penalty. It does not matter that Pronger wasn't facing Kiprusoff. The spirit of the rule is the glove being in the face--Pierre Lebrun

I mean really? LOL. Waived his arm? in his face? I wanted to email the guy right after reading that line.

But then he wasnt done.

"The spirit and intent of the USC rule is to keep an acceptable hockey decorum in the game, in this case when a player is screening," Terry Gregson, the NHL's director of officiating, told me Saturday. "This type of act is outside the normal boundaries and needs to be controlled for the good of the game."

As for the league somehow calling the game tighter when the Flyers are involved? I've always said fans see the game with tainted glasses, in this case black and orange.--Pierre Lebrun

Sorry Lebrun we are just hockey fans who see this as a made up rule called wrongly. Maybe if you take off your blue and red glasses you would see that.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 12:13 PM
  #39
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
There is no problem with the Pronger call... as long as they call it that way from here on out. Was it goofy, and (if there wasn't an informational note sent to the teams as claimed) odd that it suddenly got called that way? Yep.

But the league does get to dictate the rules.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 12:15 PM
  #40
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Pronger was ABSOLUTELY sticking his hand there to block Kipper's vision... He looked back to see where Kipper was, and then stuck his hand up at eye level.

If that's how they want the rule enforced, then that's how they want the rule enforced. They claimed that there was some information passed out that suggested that this was how they intended the officials to call it... now, if you want to complain that the ref was late on the call, that's fine. It's also fair to hold the league to continuing to call that play the same way.

However, lets not act like Pronger wasn't trying to block Kipper's vision, because he absolutely was.
But the intent of the rule is not to determine whether the players intent was to obstruct or distract the goalie legally. The intent was to keep guys like Avery from acting like a friggin' fool.

It was blown on many different levels, most noticeably by the way the call was made and a goalie interference called prior to the goal. The first sign of any infraction was when the ref blew off the goal call after the puck went in the net. What does this say to me? That the ref had no intent to enforce any intrepretation of the "rule" and that he only addressed this once the puck went in the net. What is next, no player can screen the net?

And what about the slash to the back of Prongers leg which prompted him to put his arm out because he was losing his balance....?? If they are going to enforce this stupid interpretation then they should start looking at how the goalies use their sticks....! Have you even been hit at where the achilles and calf muscle meet with a goalie stick? It hurts like a b*tch.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 12:21 PM
  #41
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartsiephan View Post
But the intent of the rule is not to determine whether the players intent was to obstruct or distract the goalie legally. The intent was to keep guys like Avery from acting like a friggin' fool.

It was blown on many different levels, most noticeably by the way the call was made and a goalie interference called prior to the goal. The first sign of any infraction was when the ref blew off the goal call after the puck went in the net. What does this say to me? That the ref had no intent to enforce any intrepretation of the "rule" and that he only addressed this once the puck went in the net. What is next, no player can screen the net?

And what about the slash to the back of Prongers leg which prompted him to put his arm out because he was losing his balance....?? If they are going to enforce this stupid interpretation then they should start looking at how the goalies use their sticks....! Have you even been hit at where the achilles and calf muscle meet with a goalie stick? It hurts like a b*tch.
The first problem is that the "Avery rule" isn't actually a "rule" -- as folks have noted, it isn't in the rulebook. It was a clarification attached to the USC rule, which the refs have a great deal of discretion with. Pronger was not called for "goalie interference," he was called for "unsportsmanlike conduct".

And, sure, the call was late... but that happens a lot. If a goal hadn't been scored right then and there, he doesn't call it. However, **** happened and he called it. Guys call trips, hooks, interference all the time only when they see a scoring chance developing off of the play.

Did he miss a slash... sure, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the Pronger call was reasonable/right. They also let goalies get away with that **** all the time.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 12:39 PM
  #42
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
I think we can all agree that Pronger knew what he was doing, and was decidedly NOT directing traffic.

Here's the problem, though. From now on, if a referee misinterprets "directing traffic" as "screening with a glove," we're going to see a penalty. Precedents* are a b-word.


*I think I had a thing or two to say about precedents after Downie's 25 game suspension. And now, if you assault a fan, it'll only get you 6 games, so take those precedents for what they're worth.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 12:46 PM
  #43
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
The first problem is that the "Avery rule" isn't actually a "rule" -- as folks have noted, it isn't in the rulebook. It was a clarification attached to the USC rule, which the refs have a great deal of discretion with. Pronger was not called for "goalie interference," he was called for "unsportsmanlike conduct".

And, sure, the call was late... but that happens a lot. If a goal hadn't been scored right then and there, he doesn't call it. However, **** happened and he called it. Guys call trips, hooks, interference all the time only when they see a scoring chance developing off of the play.

Did he miss a slash... sure, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the Pronger call was reasonable/right. They also let goalies get away with that **** all the time.
I used the quotes to signify the disrepency of the interpretation. When I see a penalty called the ref sees the infraction, raises his arm and blows the whistle if the team who is responsible still has possession of the puck. This is the ticky-tacky type stuff that makes the NHL irrelevant as each season goes by. Crosby slew-foot, no comment, Pronger puts his arm out and a ref makes a call that has been made twice in how many years..? It was one of those calls which the ref never should have made, especially as you point out that it should be called from here on out, which is BS because you and I both know this will never get called again.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 12:49 PM
  #44
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,030
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
I think we can all agree that Pronger knew what he was doing, and was decidedly NOT directing traffic.

Here's the problem, though. From now on, if a referee misinterprets "directing traffic" as "screening with a glove," we're going to see a penalty. Precedents* are a b-word.
I can almost guarantee that certian players and certian teams will be able to get away with it. I still have a problem with it because the puck going in had nothing to do with whatever Pronger was doing with his arm/hand.
Put Pronger in a Penguins sweater and its 2 points for the Pens. Guaranteed.
of course like with any blown call, our wonderfull hockey journalists at TSN, ESPN ect ect will never, ever disagree with any officials call

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 01:01 PM
  #45
ihatebraydenschenn
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SunnyvaleTrailerPark
Country: Canada
Posts: 984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No ****. But if the league says you're not allowed to do X, then you're not allowed to do X. So, the ruling is fine as long as they're consistent in this application of it.

Do I think it's dumb? Yes... but Pronger was clearly holding up his hand to block Kipper's vision, I don't really think that's debatable. He definitely looked over his shoulder, and THEN put his hand up.
But he didn't do X...

And yes, it is debatable. So Pronger looking over his shoulder is concrete evidence? What if he was looking over his shoulder to see who was coming back-door? He could have been looking for a number of things, so yes, it's debatable. Are you not allowed to raise your hands and arms while in front of the goalie? Or do you only get penalized for this if you take a quick glance around?

He put his hand up for all of .7 seconds. Cry about it.

ihatebraydenschenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 01:06 PM
  #46
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by galvo View Post
But he didn't do X...
He did... and it was obvious.

Quote:
And yes, it is debatable. So Pronger looking over his shoulder is concrete evidence? What if he was looking over his shoulder to see who was coming back-door? He could have been looking for a number of things, so yes, it's debatable. Are you not allowed to raise your hands and arms while in front of the goalie? Or do you only get penalized for this if you take a quick glance around?
Not if you're doing so to intentionally block the goalies vision apparently.

Quote:
He put his hand up for all of .7 seconds. Cry about it.
Ah, you're the one crying about it. Not me.

The ref made the call, they said it's the right call... so be it. They just need to consistently call it that way.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 01:08 PM
  #47
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
In all seriousness... the Pronger call is far from the most irritating officiating decision we have seen go against us this year. That honor goes to the HORRENDOUS boarding call against O'Donnell at the end of the first game against the Caps.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 01:14 PM
  #48
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
In all seriousness... the Pronger call is far from the most irritating officiating decision we have seen go against us this year. That honor goes to the HORRENDOUS boarding call against O'Donnell at the end of the first game against the Caps.
Did that call give the Caps a 2-man advantage?

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 01:19 PM
  #49
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Yeah and they tied the game to force OT and win in the shootout

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2010, 01:39 PM
  #50
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
Yeah and they tied the game to force OT and win in the shootout
I thought they scored shortly into OT. IIRC Carter got a double minor for a high stick (with blood) then moments later they flagged OD for one of the weakest boarding calls I have seen in a while.

I agree with Jester, if they're going to interpret the Sean Avery penalty that way, then I expect it to be called against all teams.

Flyerfan808 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 02:18 PM.

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.