HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Around the League #5: 2013 Play-offs Edition!: Nucks fire AV, AVs hire Roy

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-17-2013, 12:32 AM
  #151
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,070
vCash: 500
Spector is arguing in favor of the rule tonight. I just think that he's a closet Kings fan.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 12:32 AM
  #152
Spawn
Registered User
 
Spawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
I agree that the rule needs to be changed. I think they should give the refs some discretion.

If it is deemed intentional, then it's 2min. If it's accidental then the offending team can't change their players.
Problem is that it is never intentional. No one clears the puck over the glass on purpose because they know it's a penalty.

Make it so they can't change. Simple. Just like an icing.

Spawn is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 12:35 AM
  #153
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawn View Post
Problem is that it is never intentional. No one clears the puck over the glass on purpose because they know it's a penalty.

Make it so they can't change. Simple. Just like an icing.
I seem to recall that they put the rule in place because players were doing it intentionally. It used to be only a penalty if goalies did it, then they expanded it to any player in his defensive zone. So if players start doing it again, make that a penalty. Otherwise the icing punishment is fine.

s7ark is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 01:41 AM
  #154
I am the Liquor
Registered User
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,256
vCash: 8345
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustrock View Post
Bullcrap penalty to start with then the ridiculous call on Vlasic. It's unfortunately the right call according to the rules it's just a shame a game has to be decided by the refs.
Those were both penalties. The first was a pretty good penalty from the Shark's player's perspective. He tripped a player who had a very good chance to score. The Vlasic penalty was a close call, but it looked like the right call was made. Stupid rule but it is what it is.

I am the Liquor is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 02:12 AM
  #155
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,070
vCash: 500
Steve Kouleas just brought this to my attention: We could be looking at having the last four Stanley Cup winners in the Conference Finals. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles.

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 08:29 AM
  #156
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,018
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Never really realized until I heard on specs show, but Pitt, Chi, LA, Bos the most recent cup champs all alive. Wouldn't that be something, a bit more bragging rights.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-17-2013, 08:34 AM
  #157
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,018
vCash: 50
So Del Zotto takes a puck off the side of the head, Moore takes one that takes a bunch of chicklets out and Girardi takes one close to his nuts. Then add Boychuck who I really don't know how he is still alive, and one has to think that the trainers need to hire an ice bag maker to assist them.

Am a bit surprised with all the shot blocking the Rags do and the Staal injury that there are Rag players without visors.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-17-2013, 08:35 AM
  #158
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,018
vCash: 50
Oh yes Torres.

Just when I didn't think Shanny and the league can get any dumber they go ahead and top themselves. A suspension that might be 3 games or could be double that?

Come on even Harry and Lloyd had consistency.

joestevens29 is online now  
Old
05-17-2013, 10:21 AM
  #159
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustrock View Post
I thought it was deflected right away. TV was inconclusive, but the overall point is that's retarded to not give the ref some discretion on the call. No game should be decided on that play.
I thought it was as well. But heres the deal. On that call theres no way in hell the ref who emphatically was calling the penalty, could reasonably know for sure that he got the call right. This being late in a game and an obviously huge call to make it a long 2 man kill. Which suggests one thing.

Lets be clear here. Kings, a goal down in a big game at home and a contest that could define the series get 3 PP chances including a long 2man advantage in the last 8mins of play. This in a playoff game where eveybody knows a lot of things get ignored. Nothing like helping the Kings out.

Look, I like the Kings, like the brand of hockey they play, but what occurred is *********.

So is the Torres suspension. Mind you I'd love to see what Torres could do against a physical LA team and two postseasons in a row not allowed to see that. Anybody watching the game figure how much different things would be if Dustin Penner got suspended on a questionable hit?

Penner was a horse in this game. Torres would've been up for the task as well.


I don't really understand this league. Marchand, well after the whistle, performs surgery on somebodies nutsack, no call, nothing, by a player known for dirty play who does something dirty nearly every game and nothing for that. Fine broth of a lad. Shanny does play his favorites don't he?


Last edited by Replacement: 05-17-2013 at 11:00 AM.
Replacement is online now  
Old
05-17-2013, 10:55 AM
  #160
dustrock
Too Legit To Quit
 
dustrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Those were both penalties. The first was a pretty good penalty from the Shark's player's perspective. He tripped a player who had a very good chance to score. The Vlasic penalty was a close call, but it looked like the right call was made. Stupid rule but it is what it is.
Sorry was thinking about the earlier call in the Sharks net.

And yeah Penner is a beast.

dustrock is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 12:42 PM
  #161
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatKeith View Post
Just ditch the damn rule. It's a stupid rule and everyone knows it.

Just make it like icing so you can't change your players.
It's not a stupid rule, it was one of the best rule changes to come out of the 2005 lockout. The final two minutes of hockey games taking 30 - 40 minutes with a never ending stream of faceoffs due to the lack of penalties for throwing the puck out of play back in the dead puck era was not only tedious, but also greatly contributed to the ability of teams to sit on one goal leads with few consequences. Any coach would rather take a faceoff with tired players than face continued pressure or a penalty, they'd be popping the puck over the glass intentionally again without restraint if it was just an icing call.

The referee blew the call on a play, it happens.

Tarus is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 12:49 PM
  #162
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
It's not a stupid rule, it was one of the best rule changes to come out of the 2005 lockout. The final two minutes of hockey games taking 30 - 40 minutes with a never ending stream of faceoffs due to the lack of penalties for throwing the puck out of play back in the dead puck era was not only tedious, but also greatly contributed to the ability of teams to sit on one goal leads with few consequences. Any coach would rather take a faceoff with tired players than face continued pressure or a penalty, they'd be popping the puck over the glass intentionally again without restraint if it was just an icing call.

The referee blew the call on a play, it happens.
No, it happened emphatically, with zeal, on a play the ref could not have been clear on. Ask yourself why.

Obviously the logical thing to do there if unsure is not make the call. To make that call late in the game on a very questionable instance, with Sharks already down a man, was not just "a mistake, it happens" It damn well predictably caused the outcome of the key game, and quite possibly series.

When in doubt let the teams on the ice decide the outcomes. Thats why I watch the games, to see skilled players effect and determine outcomes. Not some blind anal zebra with a bloated ego wanting to be the center of attention determining outcome in a playoff game.

Nobody watching that game could come away with any impression that this call tied the game.

Replacement is online now  
Old
05-17-2013, 01:00 PM
  #163
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
No, it happened emphatically, with zeal, on a play the ref could not have been clear on. Ask yourself why.

Obviously the logical thing to do there if unsure is not make the call. To make that call late in the game on a very questionable instance, with Sharks already down a man, was not just "a mistake, it happens" It damn well predictably caused the outcome of the key game, and quite possibly series.

When in doubt let the teams on the ice decide the outcomes. Thats why I watch the games, to see skilled players effect and determine outcomes. Not some blind anal zebra with a bloated ego wanting to be the center of attention determining outcome in a playoff game.

Nobody watching that game could come away with any impression that this call tied the game.
I don't disagree with you that the NHL has a problem with superstar refs, and if there was a way to make them less able to be intrusive I would be all for it.

My contention is with the idea that the rule itself is stupid, or has no value.

Tarus is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 01:01 PM
  #164
dustrock
Too Legit To Quit
 
dustrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,800
vCash: 500
You know what would help the speed of the game? Have the linesmen actually drop the **£*££** puck quickly.

Obviously if the goalie or d-man are clearing the puck to delay then call it like they used to.

The fact is, the NHL either doesn't know or doesn't care about increasing scoring for 5-on-5 play.

Most teams seem to live or die by the PP these days.

dustrock is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 01:18 PM
  #165
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
I don't disagree with you that the NHL has a problem with superstar refs, and if there was a way to make them less able to be intrusive I would be all for it.

My contention is with the idea that the rule itself is stupid, or has no value.
The intent of the rule is to abate clear and conscious delay of game. The type of cynical play where a player just wanting to get off the ice and end play for any reason could just dump it over the boards even if he had time. Basically it was just get a linechange play.
Usually occurring when a tired line was out there and wanting a change.

The trouble is, as with many things, once a rule is developed theres a slippery slope that ends with what happend last night. Where a player, with no intent, and pressure, and who's stick was interfered with, and was being physically challenged at the moment ended up INADVERTENTLY dumping the puck slightly over the glass. Slightly.

There was no intent, none, it wasn't intent to delay game.


See how the spirit of the rule and application of the rule end up being different things?

I kind of like the rule. But I have zero faith in how NHL zebras define and apply it. Also, is the glass height exactly standardized in all NHL arenas.

Replacement is online now  
Old
05-17-2013, 01:36 PM
  #166
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
The intent of the rule is to abate clear and conscious delay of game. The type of cynical play where a player just wanting to get off the ice and end play for any reason could just dump it over the boards even if he had time. Basically it was just get a linechange play.
Usually occurring when a tired line was out there and wanting a change.

The trouble is, as with many things, once a rule is developed theres a slippery slope that ends with what happend last night. Where a player, with no intent, and pressure, and who's stick was interfered with, and was being physically challenged at the moment ended up INADVERTENTLY dumping the puck slightly over the glass. Slightly.

There was no intent, none, it wasn't intent to delay game.


See how the spirit of the rule and application of the rule end up being different things?

I kind of like the rule. But I have zero faith in how NHL zebras define and apply it. Also, is the glass height exactly standardized in all NHL arenas.
No player ever intends to throw the puck out of play since they put the rule in, which is the whole point.

You can either deal with the occasional blown call, remove the penalty and watch teams again start using audience members as target practice every time they are up by one goal, or redefine it full of vague and subjective language that further puts the game into the hands of the referees.

Tarus is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 01:43 PM
  #167
s7ark
LeonTheProfessional
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustrock View Post
Sorry was thinking about the earlier call in the Sharks net.

And yeah Penner is a beast.
Oh yeah, I am 100% back on the bring Penner back bandwagon. The Oilers could really use his size in the top 9. And he did play well here.

s7ark is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 01:43 PM
  #168
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
No player ever intends to throw the puck out of play since they put the rule in, which is the whole point.

You can either deal with the occasional blown call, remove the penalty and watch teams again start using audience members as target practice every time they are up by one goal, or redefine it full of vague and subjective language that further puts the game into the hands of the referees.
The original ruling was in response to Obvious intent delay of game.

Ask yourself how this call was made in response to obvious and clear intent. The player was being intefered with, his stick was being interfered with, and the puck barely cleared he boards.

How could the ref ascertain from this that the player intended to delay the game. How could you?

It wasn't intended, it was inadvertent due to the player being interfered with that arguably impacted the bang off the glass which was more likely intended.

Replacement is online now  
Old
05-17-2013, 02:07 PM
  #169
Section337
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
My opinion, I am good with removing intent as a factor from as many rules as possible. It's impossible to qualify.

Section337 is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 02:13 PM
  #170
GreatKeith
Super Smashed Oilers
 
GreatKeith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,147
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by s7ark View Post
Oh yeah, I am 100% back on the bring Penner back bandwagon. The Oilers could really use his size in the top 9. And he did play well here.
Yeah and he can get himself lost in the Belanger triangle along with all of our other UFA signings. No thanks. It's great if he's a playoff performer but if he does nothing to help you get there then it's a moot point.

GreatKeith is online now  
Old
05-17-2013, 02:20 PM
  #171
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
The original ruling was in response to Obvious intent delay of game.

Ask yourself how this call was made in response to obvious and clear intent. The player was being intefered with, his stick was being interfered with, and the puck barely cleared he boards.

How could the ref ascertain from this that the player intended to delay the game. How could you?

It wasn't intended, it was inadvertent due to the player being interfered with that arguably impacted the bang off the glass which was more likely intended.
You're thinking of the other rule that has been in place pre-dating the 2005 rule, which was never called unless it was blatant

Quote:
A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who deliberately shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck outside the playing area during the play or after a stoppage of play
Requiring the addition of the new rule in 2005, and the defending player shooting the puck over the glass rule doesn't cover intent

Quote:
When any player, while in his defending zone, shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface, except where there is no glass, a penalty shall be assessed for delaying the game. When the puck is shot into the players’ bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck is shot over the glass ‘behind’ the players’ bench, the penalty will be assessed.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26355


Last edited by Tarus: 05-17-2013 at 02:56 PM.
Tarus is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 03:07 PM
  #172
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarus View Post
You're thinking of the other rule that has been in place pre-dating the 2005 rule, which was never called unless it was blatant



Requiring the addition of the new rule in 2005, and the defending player shooting the puck over the glass rule doesn't cover intent



http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26355
OK, thanks for clarification. I was not aware of that change. I stand corrected.

Replacement is online now  
Old
05-17-2013, 06:41 PM
  #173
Moonlapse Vertigo
Katz n' MacT BFFs
 
Moonlapse Vertigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,070
vCash: 500


"Five game suspension. Minimum." - Shanahan

Moonlapse Vertigo is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 06:45 PM
  #174
Tarus
Fire Mact
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
OK, thanks for clarification. I was not aware of that change. I stand corrected.
It's all good.

I do agree with your point about referees getting far too involved with the outcome of games though. Penalty definitions changing from play to play, player to player, referees managing games via even up calls, timed penalties, soft calls, even the lineman and their tyrannical reign over the faceoffs are a major issue.

Which is why I tend to defend the few rules designed with more concise parameters that are less prone to situational interpretation by the on-ice officials.

Tarus is offline  
Old
05-17-2013, 06:46 PM
  #175
402
#ualberta
 
402's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Egypt
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Very nice goal from #87

402 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:28 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.