HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > The AHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The AHL Discuss the American Hockey League; its players, teams, and games.

Calder Cup Finals - Norfolk Admirals vs. Toronto Marlies

View Poll Results: Who will win the series?
Admirals in 4 3 5.08%
Admirals in 5 10 16.95%
Admirals in 6 18 30.51%
Admirals in 7 3 5.08%
Marlies in 4 1 1.69%
Marlies in 5 4 6.78%
Marlies in 6 15 25.42%
Marlies in 7 5 8.47%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2012, 10:28 PM
  #51
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: Fiji
Posts: 25,881
vCash: 1
Wow.... I was expecting something lulzy from what I heard online, but that was just a jawdropping "WTF just happened" kind of thing.

I'm still mildly stunned by that....

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 11:26 PM
  #52
Butchered
Whatchu doin Cooper?
 
Butchered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 501
Country: United States
Posts: 4,323
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Butchered
As an Ads fan I'm glad they got the W but damn I feel for Scrivens. From what I understand, he kept Toronto in this game all night and for it to end on something like that. Geez.

And to toot a horn, Dustin Tokarski. 11-2-0 with 3 shutouts, a 1.49 GAA, and a .944 save percentage in the POs. Only 5 goals given up in the 7 games played through the ECF and finals so far. Wow. Kid continues his trend of playing biggest in the biggest games.

Butchered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 11:28 PM
  #53
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,983
vCash: 500
The puck was shot in before the entire team cleared the zone. I'm assuming the goal counted since they all got back onside before the puck actually went in correct? I should know this but then again, how many goals do you see where the puck is shot when the team is offsides.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 11:43 PM
  #54
Butchered
Whatchu doin Cooper?
 
Butchered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 501
Country: United States
Posts: 4,323
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Butchered
I think the goal counted because it wasn't a shot on goal. There was no intention of getting the puck on net, it just ended up getting there.

Butchered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 12:02 AM
  #55
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butchered View Post
I think the goal counted because it wasn't a shot on goal. There was no intention of getting the puck on net, it just ended up getting there.
Yeah, just read the rule. Interesting scenario though.

NYRFAN218 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 01:09 AM
  #56
MSPGabe
Born & Bred In Maine
 
MSPGabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 1,952
vCash: 500
I think it should be no goal. Everyone needs to be clear when the puck enters the zone.

Had Scrivens been in net, and stopped the puck, it would count as a shot on goal and a save, no?

MSPGabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 01:12 AM
  #57
CavemanLawyer
Registered User
 
CavemanLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ocean City, MD
Posts: 1,111
vCash: 500
Exactly. They blew it. https://twitter.com/#!/mirtle

Even former refs are saying it was blown. Along with that both coaches are confused and mind ****ed by the entire thing. But eh, thats the way it goes.

CavemanLawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 01:17 AM
  #58
KaylaJ
Tungsten!
 
KaylaJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hell
Country: United States
Posts: 14,567
vCash: 500
Unnoticed by officials, however, was the fact Norfolk had at least one player offside when the puck was shot in, which according to the AHL rulebook should have negated the goal:

“83.4 Disallowed Goal – If the puck is shot on goal during a delayed offside, the play shall be allowed to continue under the normal clearing-the-zone rules. Should the puck, as a result of this shot, enter the defending team’s goal, either directly or off the goalkeeper, a player or an official on the ice, the goal shall be disallowed as the original shot was off-side. The fact that the attacking team may have cleared the zone prior to the puck entering the goal has no bearing on this ruling.”


Per Mirtle's article. I'm still kinda confused.

KaylaJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 01:21 AM
  #59
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Na'ē panjā
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,770
vCash: 500
Eh.



At :15 you can see that all Admirals players had cleared the zone before the puck went into the net so it was a legal goal.

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 01:33 AM
  #60
vancanucks16
Registered User
 
vancanucks16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
Unnoticed by officials, however, was the fact Norfolk had at least one player offside when the puck was shot in, which according to the AHL rulebook should have negated the goal:

“83.4 Disallowed Goal – If the puck is shot on goal during a delayed offside, the play shall be allowed to continue under the normal clearing-the-zone rules. Should the puck, as a result of this shot, enter the defending team’s goal, either directly or off the goalkeeper, a player or an official on the ice, the goal shall be disallowed as the original shot was off-side. The fact that the attacking team may have cleared the zone prior to the puck entering the goal has no bearing on this ruling.”


Per Mirtle's article. I'm still kinda confused.
It means that if the shot just gets saved then the play continues, but if it results in a goal then it shall be disallowed. So yes it was an illegal goal but there is nothing that can be done now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
At :15 you can see that all Admirals players had cleared the zone before the puck went into the net so it was a legal goal.
But he shot it before they cleared the zone, that is what the rule states.


Last edited by vancanucks16: 06-08-2012 at 01:38 AM.
vancanucks16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 02:34 AM
  #61
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 5,026
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
Eh.



At :15 you can see that all Admirals players had cleared the zone before the puck went into the net so it was a legal goal.
Doesn't matter. Per the rulebook.

Quote:
The only way an attacking team can score a goal on a delayed offside situation is if the defending team shoots or puts the puck into their own net without action or contact by the offending team.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 02:44 AM
  #62
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Na'ē panjā
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancanucks16 View Post
But he shot it before they cleared the zone, that is what the rule states.
Actually, the linked article - maybe conveniently - omits a crucial part of the rule (bolded):

Quote:
83.4 Disallowed Goal – If the puck is shot on goal during a delayed off-side, the play shall be allowed to continue under the normal clearing-the-zone rules. Should the puck, as a result of this shot, enter the defending team’s goal during a delayed off-side, either directly or off the goalkeeper, a player or an official on the ice, the goal shall be disallowed as the original shot was off-side. The face-off will be conducted at the face-off spot in the zone closest to the point of origin of the shot or at the nearest face-off spot in the neutral zone adjacent to the attacking zone of the offending team.
EDIT: I'm full of it, the bolded part is only included in the NHL rulebook.


But we're assuming that the goal was the result from a "shot on goal". When the dump in was made, it was NOT considered a shot on goal, so much that the referees never indicated a delayed offside as the last Admiral cleared the zone and the puck flew along the boards.

Now, I couldn't find a special NHL or AHL rule citation on what exactly a shot on goal is and isn't but I did find this on answers.com so while it's not a final word on the subject, it's still an outlook:

Quote:
There is no NHL definition or rule of a shot, therefore, a shot on goal is up to the discretion of the official scorer. But in general terms, a shot on goal is a shot that is taken with the intent to score that either goes into the net for a goal or the goalie saves from going into the net for a goal. A shot that hits the goalpost or crossbar, or a shot the goalie stops that would not have gone in the net is not considered a shot on goal. A clearing pass that goes through everybody and winds up being stopped by the goalie is not considered a shot on goal because there was not intent by the 'shooter' to score a goal.
Similarly an errant pass from a teammate that is stopped by the goalie is not considered a shot on goal.


So there wasn't any intent by the Norfolk player to score or actually aim towards the net, so it wasn't a shot on goal and therefore it did not directly violate Rule 83.4 as when the puck entered the net it was no longer a delayed off-side and was not the fruit of a shot on goal.


Last edited by VinnyC: 06-08-2012 at 03:22 AM.
VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 02:52 AM
  #63
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,727
vCash: 2391
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
Unnoticed by officials, however, was the fact Norfolk had at least one player offside when the puck was shot in, which according to the AHL rulebook should have negated the goal:

“83.4 Disallowed Goal – If the puck is shot on goal during a delayed offside, the play shall be allowed to continue under the normal clearing-the-zone rules. Should the puck, as a result of this shot, enter the defending team’s goal, either directly or off the goalkeeper, a player or an official on the ice, the goal shall be disallowed as the original shot was off-side. The fact that the attacking team may have cleared the zone prior to the puck entering the goal has no bearing on this ruling.”


Per Mirtle's article. I'm still kinda confused.
Funny enough, the AHL is far more clear on this than the NHL's own version of the rule. It's a clear 'no goal' using the AHL rules.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 03:23 AM
  #64
WinterEmpire
Unregistered User
 
WinterEmpire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaylaJ View Post
Unnoticed by officials, however, was the fact Norfolk had at least one player offside when the puck was shot in, which according to the AHL rulebook should have negated the goal:

“83.4 Disallowed Goal – If the puck is shot on goal during a delayed offside, the play shall be allowed to continue under the normal clearing-the-zone rules. Should the puck, as a result of this shot, enter the defending team’s goal, either directly or off the goalkeeper, a player or an official on the ice, the goal shall be disallowed as the original shot was off-side. The fact that the attacking team may have cleared the zone prior to the puck entering the goal has no bearing on this ruling.”


Per Mirtle's article. I'm still kinda confused.
Hmm but the shot wasn't on goal. There's some grey area there with what happened I think

WinterEmpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 03:23 AM
  #65
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Na'ē panjā
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Funny enough, the AHL is far more clear on this than the NHL's own version of the rule. It's a clear 'no goal' using the AHL rules.
The section dealing with offsides in both rulebooks are virtually identical, not sure how it would be more or less clear.

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 03:39 AM
  #66
vancanucks16
Registered User
 
vancanucks16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
So there wasn't any intent by the Norfolk player to score or actually aim towards the net, so it wasn't a shot on goal and therefore it did not directly violate Rule 83.4 as when the puck entered the net it was no longer a delayed off-side and was not the fruit of a shot on goal.
Awesome extra insight, but I believe after it entered the net, it would be deemed a shot from when he took it, rather than it being deemed a shot in the middle of shot itself, when offside was no longer an issue.

Did I make any sense? I've edited it at least a dozen times


Last edited by vancanucks16: 06-08-2012 at 03:46 AM.
vancanucks16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 03:40 AM
  #67
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 5,026
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterEmpire View Post
Hmm but the shot wasn't on goal. There's some grey area there with what happened I think
Doesn't matter. The rule clearly states a goal can only be allowed on a delayed offsides if the defending team shoots or puts the puck in their own net without action or contact by the offending team.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 06:38 AM
  #68
KapG
Registered User
 
KapG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,962
vCash: 500
This has nothing to do with the gwg....however, these AHL refs are ****ing garbage.


I'm proud of the Marlies for making it this far. Wasn't really expecting them to do too much damage either with our two top forwards out in Kadri, Frattin.

The one thing besides the terrible officiating that is standing out to me while I watch this series is how bad these Norfolk players dive.

Touch them and they drop like a sack of bricks. Completely embarrassing.


Last edited by KapG: 06-09-2012 at 02:50 PM.
KapG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 07:50 AM
  #69
Adshockey06
Registered User
 
Adshockey06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KapG View Post
This has nothing to do with the gwg....however, these AHL refs are ****ing garbage.


I'm proud of the Marlies for making it this far. Wasn't really expecting them to do too much damage either with our three top forwards out in Kadri, Frattin and D'amigo.

The one thing besides the terrible officiating that is standing out to me while I watch this series is how bad these Norfolk players dive.

Touch them and they drop like a sack of bricks. Completely embarrassing.
Right just like your goalie jumping in front of anyone near the crease or 12 feet out(game2) and diving.... Both teams are trying to draw penalties, although toronto probably should'nt with that pp... and outside of angelidis doing that stupid fish out of water move on the icing name one other instance an admiral took a dive in game 3?

Adshockey06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 07:55 AM
  #70
KapG
Registered User
 
KapG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adshockey06 View Post
Right just like your goalie jumping in front of anyone near the crease or 12 feet out(game2) and diving.... Both teams are trying to draw penalties, although toronto probably should'nt with that pp... and outside of angelidis doing that stupid fish out of water move on the icing name one other instance an admiral took a dive in game 3?
That Angelidis play was one of the most embarrassing plays I have seen while watching playoff hockey this season. Right up there with some of Keslers flops.

You want another player who was diving around all game? Picard. He was going down far too easy.

As for the Marlies PP. Yah, it's completely embarrassing. We had essentially an entire period of PP in the first game and couldn't score once . So bad.

Oh well, that'll happen when you are missing your 3 top offensive players . I'm not trying to take anything away from Norfolk either, you guys are a good AHL team.

KapG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 08:57 AM
  #71
green lantern
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: sector 2814
Posts: 136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paris in Flames View Post
If this game wasn't already out of reach (which it is) a goal as demoralizing as that would probably be enough to sink the Marlies.

Since they're already down 3-0, it's a moot point but still. Oh well. That stunk.
how do you figure the game was out of reach? it was OT

green lantern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 09:15 AM
  #72
alcoraces
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
AHL has admitted that the goal should not have counted, but the result stands:

http://theahl.com/ahl-statement-rega...game-3-p177908

alcoraces is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 09:22 AM
  #73
TOGuy14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcoraces View Post
AHL has admitted that the goal should not have counted, but the result stands:

http://theahl.com/ahl-statement-rega...game-3-p177908
Not sure what kind of ruling I would have expected from the AHL, but I have to say the whole "Yeah you lost the game on a completely illegally scored goal, but we can't do anything about it" leaves me with kind of an empty feeling.

This is one of those situations where there probably wouldn't have been a solution that everyone liked, but this definitely is a slap in the face for the Marlies who have worked hard to get to this point of the season.

TOGuy14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 10:06 AM
  #74
KapG
Registered User
 
KapG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcoraces View Post
AHL has admitted that the goal should not have counted, but the result stands:

http://theahl.com/ahl-statement-rega...game-3-p177908
Those refs should face disciplinary actions for their incompetency. Pathetic.

KapG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 10:40 AM
  #75
Paris in Flames
Registered User
 
Paris in Flames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,368
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by green lantern View Post
how do you figure the game was out of reach? it was OT
My bad. I meant the series.

Say that had happened in game 2 and made it 2-0 or 1-1 instead of it happening in game 3 to make it 3-0, I think losing like that is enough to completely demoralize the Marlies to the point of not being able to bounce back.

Whereas now they're not able to bounce back anyway no matter how they lost.

Paris in Flames is online now   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 06:25 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.