HFBoards

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

Player of the Game & The Good, The Bad, The Redden: Game #68 vs. Philadelphia Flyers

View Poll Results: Player of the Game: Game #68 vs. Philadelphia Flyers
Artem Anisimov 0 0%
Ryan Callahan 207 93.67%
Brandon Dubinsky 4 1.81%
Dan Girardi 0 0%
Henrik Lundqvist 6 2.71%
Ryan McDonagh 0 0%
Vaclav Prospal 0 0%
Michael Sauer 1 0.45%
Marc Staal 0 0%
Mats Zuccarello 3 1.36%
Other 0 0%
Voters: 221. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2011, 08:48 AM
  #151
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surGeon View Post
He's saying it's a bad rule, so your argument that it's a rule is kinda moot.

I agree with him. Whether or not the player makes a "kicking motion" is too arbitrary in my view. The relevant difference between kicking the puck in and deflecting the puck in with your foot is not in whether the foot is moving forward. The difference is whether or not the puck is hitting your foot or whether your foot is hitting the puck. If the rule is meant to prevent deflections like the one in the game, then I disagree with the rule.
He said:

Quote:
Oh also, I know it's over and doesn't matter at all, but I thought of another reason why Avery's goal should've counted, and how the wording of the rule should be changed.
He thinks the wording should change, but he also thinks it was a good goal, which it was not.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 09:16 AM
  #152
surGeon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Norway
Posts: 170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
He said:



He thinks the wording should change, but he also thinks it was a good goal, which it was not.
He says the goal should've counted. It is ambiguous whether or not he means that the goal should've counted because the rule is wrong or because the refs were wrong about the rule. In fact, in the very same sentence he recognizes the problem with the wording, which suggests he meant the former.

Regardless of who said what, it is a bad rule and I doubt the rule was intended to apply to what is quite clearly a deflection and not a kick.

surGeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 09:58 AM
  #153
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surGeon View Post
He says the goal should've counted. It is ambiguous whether or not he means that the goal should've counted because the rule is wrong or because the refs were wrong about the rule. In fact, in the very same sentence he recognizes the problem with the wording, which suggests he meant the former.

Regardless of who said what, it is a bad rule and I doubt the rule was intended to apply to what is quite clearly a deflection and not a kick.
I think the bolded is a pretty big leap. The people in Toronto that review on-ice calls (Campbell, et al.) play a hand in drafting the rules. Just because you disagree with the implementation given the wording doesn't mean that the rule was intended to be implemented the way you think it should.

Quite frankly, the distinction between a play where a player "bringing his skate forward during contact with the puck to kick the puck in" vs. "bringing his skate forward during contact with the puck to deflect the puck in" is so minuscule that I believe it impossible to qualify the difference. No distinction can or should be made between the two.

If you want to change the rule you either need to eliminate it altogether or establish an entirely different criterion to determine whether it's a good goal (ie: can't lift the skate off the ice). Distinguishing "skill plays" and "non-skill plays" is definitely not a legitimate determining factor, imo.

EDIT: I should also point out that the poster I quoted above (and one other poster) spent several pages worth of discussion in the game day thread complaining that Avery's goal was a good goal, which is why I interpreted the "should've counted" quote as continued complaining that it was 1) a good goal under current rules and 2) even so, the rule should be altered to reflect that more clearly.


Last edited by azrok22: 03-07-2011 at 10:03 AM.
azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 10:56 AM
  #154
Skrimpy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darko View Post
Dubinsky's knuckles must be killing him right now from all the damage done to them by Richards' head.
You mean that visor that Richards is too big a sissy to take off before a fight.

Skrimpy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 12:07 PM
  #155
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 16,840
vCash: 500
Cally is the obvious choice.

But I voted for Henrik. The pas save he made on Giroux (no less) chabged the game completely.

Flyers score there, exhausted or not, it's 2-1 and the Rangers probably start doubting themselves.

Henrik has been awesome the last two games. Hopefully this is his March run of carrying the team on his back.

And I'm really at a loss for words about Macdonagh and Sauer.

GWOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 12:34 PM
  #156
Zuccarello Awesome*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surGeon View Post
He's saying it's a bad rule, so your argument that it's a rule is kinda moot.

I agree with him. Whether or not the player makes a "kicking motion" is too arbitrary in my view. The relevant difference between kicking the puck in and deflecting the puck in with your foot is not in whether the foot is moving forward. The difference is whether or not the puck is hitting your foot or whether your foot is hitting the puck. If the rule is meant to prevent deflections like the one in the game, then I disagree with the rule.
Thank you. Finally some sanity and someone who understands what I'm trying to say. Thank you.

Zuccarello Awesome* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 12:53 PM
  #157
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuccarello Awesome View Post
Thank you. Finally some sanity and someone who understands what I'm trying to say. Thank you.
But at least 5 people ahve said what he said about it maybe being a bad rule but it's still the rule...

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 03:41 PM
  #158
surGeon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Norway
Posts: 170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
I think the bolded is a pretty big leap. The people in Toronto that review on-ice calls (Campbell, et al.) play a hand in drafting the rules. Just because you disagree with the implementation given the wording doesn't mean that the rule was intended to be implemented the way you think it should
True, unfortunately for the NHL.

Quote:
Quite frankly, the distinction between a play where a player "bringing his skate forward during contact with the puck to kick the puck in" vs. "bringing his skate forward during contact with the puck to deflect the puck in" is so minuscule that I believe it impossible to qualify the difference. No distinction can or should be made between the two.
The difference lies in the momentum of the puck. If you're adding momentum to the puck, then it's a kick. If you're subtracting momentum from the puck, it's a deflection. Rarely will there be a problem making the distinction here. It is certainly no more ambiguous than whether or not the player is making a "kicking motion," and it's a whole lot less arbitrary.

surGeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 03:43 PM
  #159
Loffen
Wen Kroy
 
Loffen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Soft euro
Posts: 18,227
vCash: 500
I wouldn't mind seeing the kicking motion rule tossed. It's annoying as ****.

Loffen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 03:43 PM
  #160
Wraparounds
Powerful Wizard
 
Wraparounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,388
vCash: 500
Wow, over 200 votes for Cally in the poll. That's definitely a record.

Wraparounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 03:47 PM
  #161
JeffMangum
I'm v
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 59,051
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loffen View Post
I wouldn't mind seeing the kicking motion rule tossed. It's annoying as ****.
It's there for a reason.

You don't want players kicking around in the crease purposely.

That's how incidents such as the Cam Ward incident happen.

It's extremely dangerous.

It wasn't a goal, and it didn't affect the game in anyway. It doesn't matter.

__________________
Soon.
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 04:21 PM
  #162
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 19,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraparounds View Post
Wow, over 200 votes for Cally in the poll. That's definitely a record.
I didn't even know we had 200 different people on HFNYR.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 04:23 PM
  #163
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
I didn't even know we had 200 different people on HFNYR.
We have between 250-300 regulars, I believe.

Fair to say Cally had it wrapped up.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 04:25 PM
  #164
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,006
vCash: 500
Wasn't around much yesterday - was there ever an explanation given as to why the Rangers wore white at home?

If it was up to me Id wear white the rest of the season.

I always brought up that the uniform color scheme effects a teams' psychologically - and i would get killed for it. But I'm an art major and studied color theory and branding psychology, its been proven theres a link between color and feeling (among other things)

With this particular team and all of its success on the road, I was THRILLED to see them wearing white. It'd be silly to say that its the reason they won, im not saying that. But never discount the influence it could have on a team, any team.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 04:27 PM
  #165
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,957
vCash: 500
It was said the Rangers asked for White beforehand to "change things up"

The Flyers agreed. My theory is the Rangers play on the road inspired the change.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 04:45 PM
  #166
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy Duke of NY View Post
It was said the Rangers asked for White beforehand to "change things up"

The Flyers agreed. My theory is the Rangers play on the road inspired the change.
Well it couldn't hurt to change it up. What was the worse that could have happened, they lose again?

Also, this is probably the last time they wear white at home this year. After seeing what happened yesterday, I doubt any team accepts the request to change uniforms again this year.

NYRFAN218 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 06:51 PM
  #167
Blatant
Formerly NYRFan1823
 
Blatant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: @blatantlacrosse
Posts: 2,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loffen View Post
I wouldn't mind seeing the kicking motion rule tossed. It's annoying as ****.
I like the rule actually the way it is, you should not be able to kick it in.

Blatant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 01:02 AM
  #168
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,268
vCash: 500
Dubi played a really strong game against the Flyers.

When he's on Dubi is a legit beast. Extremely tough to play against.

For the Rangers to make the playoffs that must continue.

Pizza 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 12:15 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.