HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Briere's blatant offside goal ruling question

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-12-2012, 08:19 AM
  #76
Jill Sandwich
Master of Unlocking
 
Jill Sandwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arklay Mansion
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,673
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jill Sandwich
Quote:
Originally Posted by gretskidoo View Post


Get over it.
Best part was Talbot's quote after; "Yeah, I thought we were cycling it pretty good there."

Jill Sandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 08:26 AM
  #77
Mustang2750
Registered User
 
Mustang2750's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,272
vCash: 500
Gotta love Pens fans. Whining about the offsides goal but completely ignoring the no call on icing goal they scored prior to that. Standard.

Mustang2750 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 08:44 AM
  #78
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 31,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustang2750 View Post
Gotta love Pens fans. Whining about the offsides goal but completely ignoring the no call on icing goal they scored prior to that. Standard.
to be fair, icing was called by one ref and waived off by the other. That's way different than a blatant offside.

Either way, the Penguins lost because they played like garbage for about 3/4 of the game. Bad call or not, you can't give up a 3 goal lead. It's not like we can say we were unlucky; Pens got some bounces to make it 3-0 in the first place. Ugh.

Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 09:51 AM
  #79
Bryzard of Oz
Registered User
 
Bryzard of Oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
to be fair, icing was called by one ref and waived off by the other. That's way different than a blatant offside.

Either way, the Penguins lost because they played like garbage for about 3/4 of the game. Bad call or not, you can't give up a 3 goal lead. It's not like we can say we were unlucky; Pens got some bounces to make it 3-0 in the first place. Ugh.
A missed call is a missed call.

Both calls were bad, both led to goals, people need to get over it.

The Pens didn't lose because of the linesmen. They lost because they dropped a major turd on the ice for the last 42 minutes.

Bryzard of Oz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 09:53 AM
  #80
thelos
Bunk
 
thelos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,610
vCash: 500
Stuff like this, missed icing, too many men leading to a goal, and goal interference non call leading to a goal would be good situations for a coach's challenge if the NHL ever brought that in

thelos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 09:55 AM
  #81
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pi View Post
Plus, the Pens have MUCH bigger issues than Briere's offside goal. 3-0 has to be the worst lead in hockey.
I thought 2-0 is the cliched "worst lead in hockey", but for the Pens it definitely is 3-0. For it to happen one in awhile is bad, but 2x in under 10 days is terrible.

iamjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:02 AM
  #82
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustang2750 View Post
Gotta love Pens fans. Whining about the offsides goal but completely ignoring the no call on icing goal they scored prior to that. Standard.
The icing wasn't a no-call. One ref called it, and another ref closer to the play waved it off. The offsides wouldn't have been as bad if it was inches over, but he was a stride-plus past the line before the puck crossed the line.

I'm not gonna say that's why they lost the game. The D looked X-Gen quality in the 3rd and overtime. As I said on another board, they played the last 22 minutes of that game like they were trying not to lose instead of a team that was trying to win. That being said, none of us will ever know how the game would have played out if that offside is called.

iamjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:06 AM
  #83
Bryzard of Oz
Registered User
 
Bryzard of Oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamjs View Post
The icing wasn't a no-call. One ref called it, and another ref closer to the play waved it off.
Call it what you want, it was bad call/non-call/no-call/whatever.

Pens dump it, clearly behind the red line, no Flyer has a legitimate chance of playing it, get to the puck first = icing

Bryzard of Oz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:11 AM
  #84
TheOtherOne
Registered User
 
TheOtherOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,110
vCash: 500
There was nothing wrong with the goal itself. The missed call was an offside. Offside calls are just not reviewable in general. Nothing special about this one.

Pretty stupid call though.

TheOtherOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:13 AM
  #85
The Kingslayer
Registered User
 
The Kingslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yuck horse piss!
Country: Cambodia
Posts: 21,691
vCash: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by bring back the jets View Post
pens got screwed over pretty hard tonight imo but i dont really care who wins this series anways so meh
Pens screwed themselves thats about it. The refs made 2 calls that ended up being goals. One for each side. Its a wash. Remember the pens had a 3-0 lead and blew it. Not the refs fault.

The Kingslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:15 AM
  #86
SeriousHabs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,661
vCash: 500
I am more puzzled by MAF's decision to do a side poke check and a two pad stack when facing a sniper that is still in the faceoff circle.

SeriousHabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:17 AM
  #87
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 24,902
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousHabs View Post
I am more puzzled by MAF's decision to do a side poke check and a two pad stack when facing a sniper that is still in the faceoff circle.
This. He looked lost on that one.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:21 AM
  #88
Keaver
Registered User
 
Keaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 423
vCash: 500
It was a missed call just like the missed Icing call that was the direct result of the 3rd Penguins goal making it irrelevant. Penguins gave the Flyers that game.

Keaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:22 AM
  #89
Kaktus*
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 22,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousHabs View Post
I am more puzzled by MAF's decision to do a side poke check and a two pad stack when facing a sniper that is still in the faceoff circle.
This is what MAF does a lot during games. When it works, he looks great and when it does not he can not recover.

Kaktus* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:26 AM
  #90
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 31,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryzard of Oz View Post
Call it what you want, it was bad call/non-call/no-call/whatever.

Pens dump it, clearly behind the red line, no Flyer has a legitimate chance of playing it, get to the puck first = icing
I honestly haven't seen a replay, but if the ref thinks it was a pass to a teammate they can waive off icing even if they don't touch it. A slapshot/clear/slap-pass from the blueline that goes right by the feet of a teammate at the other blue line is waived off all the time. Like I said, I haven't seen the replay. I have no idea if this is what happened.

Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:26 AM
  #91
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 24,902
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by nitroglycerin View Post
This is what MAF does a lot during games. When it works, he looks great and when it does not he can not recover.
What's the point of trying to make a fancy a save when you can just square up. I mean, it was a breakaway and he committed way too soon, very easy goal for Briere.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:27 AM
  #92
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 24,902
vCash: 10592
Pens sat back with the lead and couldn't get the momentum back. That's why they lost. Next time, get at least a 4 goal lead before mailing it in.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:28 AM
  #93
brett9897
Registered User
 
brett9897's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I don't understand why there simply isn't a phone call from the video booth to negate plainly bad calls? Just seems like it would make too much sense: "Hey ref, that was offside, no goal. Ok bye." Just seems like that's the way to protect the integrity of the game the best way instead of having an arcane system of rules to mask incompetence. I'm not crying about the goal, I just mean in general.
Where do you draw the line? So if Pittsburgh had gone offside and it was missed a minute prior to the goal should it be called off? Technically their should have been a faceoff over a minute prior and who knows if things would have changed should that call be made. Is there a 10 second buffer? 15 second? 30 second? Does the missed call have to be against the team that scored?

That is why it isn't reviewable. There is no clear place to draw the line on when a missed call should be factored in.

For those saying that the waved off icing was unfair, you play until the whistle blows. Doesn't matter if he couldn't see the ref.

brett9897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:30 AM
  #94
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
I honestly haven't seen a replay, but if the ref thinks it was a pass to a teammate they can waive off icing even if they don't touch it. A slapshot/clear/slap-pass from the blueline that goes right by the feet of a teammate at the other blue line is waived off all the time. Like I said, I haven't seen the replay. I have no idea if this is what happened.
It didn't. Not unless the definition of "nearby" has changed dramatically.



Basically, the problem was the same in both cases: the linesman was out of position. The only logical reason to cancel the icing call on that is to presume that Sullivan got to the puck first. He didn't. Thus, it was the wrong call--perhaps not a "non-call" like the offside, but both are equally wrong.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:32 AM
  #95
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brett9897 View Post
For those saying that the waved off icing was unfair, you play until the whistle blows. Doesn't matter if he couldn't see the ref.
...same for the offside, no?

You're suggesting that the problem was the Flyers player stopped playing--but if that play is correctly called, the scoring chance never happens. I really don't see a major difference between the two.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:33 AM
  #96
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 31,462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post

It didn't. Not unless the definition of "nearby" has changed dramatically.



Basically, the problem was the same in both cases: the linesman was out of position. The only logical reason to cancel the icing call on that is to presume that Sullivan got to the puck first. He didn't. Thus, it was the wrong call--perhaps not a "non-call" like the offside, but both are equally wrong.
that's fair. I remember watching it being surprised it wasn't icing. I just hadn't seen a replay to be able to say for sure what happened.

Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:36 AM
  #97
brett9897
Registered User
 
brett9897's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeh82 View Post

It didn't. Not unless the definition of "nearby" has changed dramatically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz8FDBL4-mU

Basically, the problem was the same in both cases: the linesman was out of position. The only logical reason to cancel the icing call on that is to presume that Sullivan got to the puck first. He didn't. Thus, it was the wrong call--perhaps not a "non-call" like the offside, but both are equally wrong.
I honestly can't tell from that angle if it is touched first by Philly. Philly gets back first but does he ever actually touch the puck? I can't really see. After the hit the puck is just sitting there like no one has touched it yet.

brett9897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:36 AM
  #98
Eights
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 301
vCash: 500
I think it's a shame that call gets all the attention.

I thought the Pens came out and played great physical hockey. They were throwing the body around and the refs let them. Which I applaud. Several of those hits were late. Not egregiously late, but late. So of course Rinaldo goes for finishing a check and Giroux goes for boarding, but none of the late hits on Grossman were called. The late hit from behind on Tablot. Hartnell getting whacked in the head.

And while everyone realizes the linesman waived off the icing, it wasn't the right call to do so IMO and that led to a goal too.

Furthermore, Crosby's dive last night was seen by the refs who (thankfully) didn't call it, but neither did he call him for unsportsman like which easily could have been the case. And that's ignoring his head whip backwards while he was holding Jagr drawing the obstruction penalty (which I felt Jagr deserved and Crosby did a good job of drawing). Between Letang and Crosby the fake backwards heap whip count was at 3 last night.

Eights is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:40 AM
  #99
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brett9897 View Post
I honestly can't tell from that angle if it is touched first by Philly. Philly gets back first but does he ever actually touch the puck? I can't really see. After the hit the puck is just sitting there like no one has touched it yet.
I mean it seems pretty clear to me that Coburn, whose stick is extended toward the puck was the one to touch it, and that Sullivan, whose stick is goal-side, not directed at the puck itself, did not. In either case, where's the official? Not in a position to make the call.

And I agree with the poster above. These two calls are getting most of the attention, but it is difficult to understand how anyone could objectively argue that the Flyers received a disproportionate share of questionable calls last night. At worst, the bad calls cancelled out, but the PPs were still 3-1 in an evenly played game.


Last edited by Jack de la Hoya: 04-12-2012 at 10:44 AM. Reason: Mistake on possession after the touch-up
Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 10:41 AM
  #100
Bryzard of Oz
Registered User
 
Bryzard of Oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brett9897 View Post
I honestly can't tell from that angle if it is touched first by Philly. Philly gets back first but does he ever actually touch the puck? I can't really see. After the hit the puck is just sitting there like no one has touched it yet.
It's a bad angle, on others it's quite obvious Coburn plays the puck

Bryzard of Oz 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 02:48 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.