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
12-02-2010, 09:54 AM
  #76
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Oh, I'm sure he was calling for the shot... he had Kipper all sorts of messed up.

And, as said, I agree that application of unsportsmanlike conduct is retarded... but if that's what they're telling their officials, then that's what they're telling their officials.
I think we both know that if they are telling the officials anything, it's in the last week and not actually when it would have been useful to have a league-wide standard.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 10:07 AM
  #77
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
I think we both know that if they are telling the officials anything, it's in the last week and not actually when it would have been useful to have a league-wide standard.
Probably, which is why I would love to see this supposed information that went out to the teams (at some point) which indicated that this was the correct call. I saw it mentioned in one of their releases, but haven't seen anything about that since then.

I just don't get why you'd care about a guy holding up his hand like that... makes for a more effective screen, but the player is pretty much out of the play as far as using his stick.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 10:12 AM
  #78
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Probably, which is why I would love to see this supposed information that went out to the teams (at some point) which indicated that this was the correct call. I saw it mentioned in one of their releases, but haven't seen anything about that since then.

I just don't get why you'd care about a guy holding up his hand like that... makes for a more effective screen, but the player is pretty much out of the play as far as using his stick.
That's the worst part of this. What Avery did isn't particularly effective. He can't deflect a shot and he isn't in a good position to do anything else. And he won't be able to get out of the way of a shot that may go in since he can't see anything.

He did score on that 5 on 3 but it was when he returned to actually playing real ice hockey.

Of course, Brodeur should have just slashed the **** out of him, broke his foot/leg and then taken the 3 game suspension that a HoFer would get for injuring Avery.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 10:17 AM
  #79
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,020
vCash: 500
Richards seemed genuinely shocked and pissed off when he was arguing with the ref but I don't think he saw what Pronger did. I think he also covered for Pronger after the game. I don't doubt they work at a play like that in practice but in this case Pronger looked at where Kipper's face was and then put his hand in front of it.

You rarely see Richards flip out at a ref, he seems pretty low key when he talks to them after a play but he also didn't see what we did till afterward.

MsWoof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 10:23 AM
  #80
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
Richards seemed genuinely shocked and pissed off when he was arguing with the ref but I don't think he saw what Pronger did. I think he also covered for Pronger after the game. I don't doubt they work at a play like that in practice but in this case Pronger looked at where Kipper's face was and then put his hand in front of it.
Once again, it's very likely that Pronger knew what he was doing. But in order to know for sure, you'd have to be a mindreader. And the refs are incompetent enough without also tasking them with reading minds. They should just call what they see and what you can see Pronger doing is pretty damn innocuous and, in any event, had no bearing on the goal.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 10:33 AM
  #81
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Once again, it's very likely that Pronger knew what he was doing. But in order to know for sure, you'd have to be a mindreader. And the refs are incompetent enough without also tasking them with reading minds. They should just call what they see and what you can see Pronger doing is pretty damn innocuous and, in any event, had no bearing on the goal.
Well, it had bearing as it upset Kipper and then the puck went past him. Now, you can blame that on Kipper... but if there's a problem with Pronger's act, then that problem led to the goal in the end.

If you want to place the onus on "mindreading" then a LOT of the calls refs make involve mindreading.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 10:34 AM
  #82
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Well, it had bearing as it upset Kipper and then the puck went past him. Now, you can blame that on Kipper... but if there's a problem with Pronger's act, then that problem led to the goal in the end.

If you want to place the onus on "mindreading" then a LOT of the calls refs make involve mindreading.
What upset Kipper was that he remembered that he plays for Calgary.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:19 PM
  #83
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
Yup, he definitely looked at him and put his hand right in front of Kipper's face. You could also tell in his post game comments that he knew he was guilty.
Guilty of what, playing hockey? Seriously folks, has everyone gone batty and joined the Bettman Pride Brigade? It is hockey, nothing he did is anything less than what goes on in hockey all the time.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:22 PM
  #84
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
Guilty of what, playing hockey? Seriously folks, has everyone gone batty and joined the Bettman Pride Brigade? It is hockey, nothing he did is anything less than what goes on in hockey all the time.
Players do not normally take their hand off their stick and put it in the face of the goalie.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:26 PM
  #85
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Richards said that he was calling for the puck and that's what they do in practice. Total ********? Maybe. Plausible enough? Sure.

It's just such a minor infraction, if indeed it was on purpose, that it makes the league look silly. You can screen a goalie with every part of your body except your hand. Unless, of course, your hand is holding a stick. But you'd better be facing away from the goalie because it would be unfair if you were able to see what you were supposed to be standing in front of...

It reminds me of the silly kicking motion rule. Just allow goals to be kicked it. It happens so rarely and the league wants to boost goal scoring anyway. It would instantly remove all the ******** that happens with disallowed goals in the playoffs.
Bottom line if they are going to call such ticky-tacky penalties then they should also focus on the goalies slashing the screening fwd. This has gone on forever, but it is clear that the crease area is defined so why should a goalie feel the need to protect his space? And if it is good for the keeper to have this type of gamesmanship what is wrong with Prongers actions?


It blows my mind that people do not see this. My only explanation is that people who are supporting the call have not been involved in any level of sports where this type of gamesmanship happens all the time, so long as it does not cross the line of what Avery did it is much ado about nothing, the fact it happened on a game winning goal is ludicrous.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:30 PM
  #86
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Players do not normally take their hand off their stick and put it in the face of the goalie.
Players move to screen the goalie, encroach on their crease area. Players also use their sticks to point to the side where they want the puck shot....should these not also be considered penalties? A player screening the goalie, is this not some form of an illegal play. His hand could have been out for any number of reasons, but by making this call you are assuming the players intent. Now, if he had done this over a period of 5-10 seconds it could be considered an infraction, but not for what he did.

Cartsiephan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:32 PM
  #87
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
Players move to screen the goalie, encroach on their crease area. Players also use their sticks to point to the side where they want the puck shot....should these not also be considered penalties? A player screening the goalie, is this not some form of an illegal play. His hand could have been out for any number of reasons, but by making this call you are assuming the players intent. Now, if he had done this over a period of 5-10 seconds it could be considered an infraction, but not for what he did.
It was pretty clear what he was doing, and if the league doesn't want players doing that (which apparently they do not) then the correct call was made. That's the way it is.

The issue is not Pronger setting a screen... it's Pronger taking his hand off his stick and purposefully using his open hand to block the goalie's vision... no, you do not see that all that often. In fact, I cannot think of another example of a player doing what Pronger was doing off the top of my head (though, I'm sure video could be found).

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:34 PM
  #88
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Players do not normally take their hand off their stick and put it in the face of the goalie.
You make it sound like he put his hand 2 inches from Kippers face. Goalies routinely look around huge forwards and between their legs but not around a hand and arm?

And the point of the rule clarification because of Avery was because he was making a joke of the game. That play was shown on highlights all night and made the NHL look like a joke of a league. If no call was made on Pronger the Flyers win the game and nobody would have mentioned it outside of Calgary.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:37 PM
  #89
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
You make it sound like he put his hand 2 inches from Kippers face. Goalies routinely look around huge forwards and between their legs but not around a hand and arm?
Pronger is 6'6", did he not think that was enough of a screen for Kipper? The point is, anything that makes a mockery of the game is what the league doesn't want, and I don't either. If someone had done that to Bob or Boosh we would have had a **** fit if he had gotten away with it.

MsWoof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:39 PM
  #90
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
You make it sound like he put his hand 2 inches from Kippers face. Goalies routinely look around huge forwards and between their legs but not around a hand and arm?
Ah, yeah, this kind has nothing to do with what I'm saying... and I'm on record saying that I think the decision to legislate against what Pronger did is dumb. However, Cartsiephan's argument that we see players doing that with regularity is pure fantasy.

It doesn't matter if a goalie can or cannot look around a player's hand held in front of his eye level (obviously he can). What matters is that the NHL is saying that such a play is an unsportsmanlike conduct, and they don't want to see it in the NHL. Whether you agree with that statement or not is a matter to take up at a level above the call specific to Pronger. If that's the way they're going to call it going forward, then that's the rule.

Quote:
And the point of the rule clarification because of Avery was because he was making a joke of the game. That play was shown on highlights all night and made the NHL look like a joke of a league. If no call was made on Pronger the Flyers win the game and nobody would have mentioned it outside of Calgary.
Who cares? They're saying this is how they want the rule implemented... everyone citing the Avery incident is ignoring the fact that the NHL is stating that this is how they interpret the rule, and, therefore, the call on the ice was correct. You really can't argue with that.

Which is why I noted earlier in the thread that the O'Donnell boarding call against the Caps earlier in the year is 100x more infuriating, because it was obviously NOT boarding.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:41 PM
  #91
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof View Post
Pronger is 6'6", did he not think that was enough of a screen for Kipper? The point is, anything that makes a mockery of the game is what the league doesn't want, and I don't either. If someone had done that to Bob or Boosh we would have had a **** fit if he had gotten away with it.
People here complain about everything. That doesn't mean it's a mockery of the league. I would have had no problem with it. It's not even close to the same as turning your back on the play and putting your stick in a goalies face.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:45 PM
  #92
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,398
vCash: 50
at the very, very worst it should of been no goal and matching minors. If that was the case the faceoff would of come out of the offensive zone correct?
I am already over it. The game never should of gone to OT anyway. we had chances and couldnt finish.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:48 PM
  #93
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
at the very, very worst it should of been no goal and matching minors. If that was the case the faceoff would of come out of the offensive zone correct?
I am already over it. The game never should of gone to OT anyway. we had chances and couldnt finish.
Vet goalies get away with murder... always been that way.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:53 PM
  #94
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
I'm shocked people think this was somehow accidental. It's so obvious to me. He put an open palm in the goalie's face. It was intentional. He wasn't pointing at anything, or calling for a shot. He was pulling an Avery.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 12:53 PM
  #95
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Ah, yeah, this kind has nothing to do with what I'm saying... and I'm on record saying that I think the decision to legislate against what Pronger did is dumb. However, Cartsiephan's argument that we see players doing that with regularity is pure fantasy.

It doesn't matter if a goalie can or cannot look around a player's hand held in front of his eye level (obviously he can). What matters is that the NHL is saying that such a play is an unsportsmanlike conduct, and they don't want to see it in the NHL. Whether you agree with that statement or not is a matter to take up at a level above the call specific to Pronger. If that's the way they're going to call it going forward, then that's the rule.



Who cares? They're saying this is how they want the rule implemented... everyone citing the Avery incident is ignoring the fact that the NHL is stating that this is how they interpret the rule, and, therefore, the call on the ice was correct. You really can't argue with that.

Which is why I noted earlier in the thread that the O'Donnell boarding call against the Caps earlier in the year is 100x more infuriating, because it was obviously NOT boarding.
Ah, yeah, when you say he out his hand in Kipper's face it does kind of make it seem like his hand was, ya know, in his face. It was in his line of vision but in all reality nowhere near his face.

Also the rule clarification stated any player turned away from the play facing the goalie couldn't do this type of thing which Pronger was not.

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 01:00 PM
  #96
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
Ah, yeah, when you say he out his hand in Kipper's face it does kind of make it seem like his hand was, ya know, in his face. It was in his line of vision but in all reality nowhere near his face.
Maybe we have different definitions of "near."



BTW, this photo also catches him with his head turned to get Kipper in his peripheral vision.

Quote:
Also the rule clarification stated any player turned away from the play facing the goalie couldn't do this type of thing which Pronger was not.
Irrelevant. The league has said they sent out a notification that (supposedly) clarified the rule to include what Pronger was doing. We haven't seen that, but this is what they claimed after the fact. Additionally, the unsportsmanlike conduct call really didn't need a clarification, as it is one that refs have an immense amount of discretion with...

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 01:12 PM
  #97
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Maybe we have different definitions of "near."


I guess we do.


Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 01:18 PM
  #98
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post
I guess we do.

You seriously don't view that as holding his hand near his face for the purpose of screening his vision? We're talking ~3 feet as they move here. Never said he was giving him a facewash.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 01:24 PM
  #99
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,508
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Maybe we have different definitions of "near."



BTW, this photo also catches him with his head turned to get Kipper in his peripheral vision.



Irrelevant. The league has said they sent out a notification that (supposedly) clarified the rule to include what Pronger was doing. We haven't seen that, but this is what they claimed after the fact. Additionally, the unsportsmanlike conduct call really didn't need a clarification, as it is one that refs have an immense amount of discretion with...
I get what you are saying here with this picture, but the problem with calling that as part of the Avery rule is very troubling. Even if Pronger came out and said, "Yeah, I put my arm out for a second to block his view," that raises a whole bunch of isseus with people standing in front of the net who are not doing that and who are in fact just directing the play. It would be 100% on the ref to make a distinction between directing the play and USC and this would lead to ridiculously inconsistent calls.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2010, 02:45 PM
  #100
Cartsiephan*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It was pretty clear what he was doing, and if the league doesn't want players doing that (which apparently they do not) then the correct call was made. That's the way it is.

The issue is not Pronger setting a screen... it's Pronger taking his hand off his stick and purposefully using his open hand to block the goalie's vision... no, you do not see that all that often. In fact, I cannot think of another example of a player doing what Pronger was doing off the top of my head (though, I'm sure video could be found).
The league does not want the players to act like Avery, what Pronger did was part of the game. How many times has this been called? Twice in how many years? I understand the idea of the addendum to the USC but the ref made a judgement call of something which need not be called. If the league is going to use this as the bar then it is even more Mickey Mouse than I previously thought.

Cartsiephan* 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 04:18 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.