HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Habs win 4-2 VS LAFS

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2013, 03:19 PM
  #401
firewagon77*
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
The Maple laughs fans and especially the Toronto media is still crying about the high stick by Gretzky on Gilmour,yet you never hear the homer Toronto media mention the high stick by Justin Williams that almost took Saku Koivu's eye out.

firewagon77* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 03:23 PM
  #402
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsawce View Post
He was in the crease and prevented Price from gaining the positioning he wanted to have, that's against the rule. Whether they let worse offenses go or not is irrelevant. By the book, it was interference resulting in a goal, not sure what's so hard to comprehend about this.

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease
If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.
I know the rules. That's not the point. These goals are good more often than not.

But also, if you want to claim it was by the book, then where was the penalty? How
can you disallow a goal for interference but then not give a penalty?..What?..


If this was us, I'm sure most if not all fans would be whining about it.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 03:24 PM
  #403
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,079
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
No offense to you but **** Orr. He was trying again to start **** with Subban.

Orr is a dick.
A dick we would love to have on our team. That's Orr job to start something. Proof that making people accountable with fighting means NOTHING. It's not because Parros would hurt Orr that the latter would try to start something else. People keep saying how we have tons of dirty guys in our team, from Pleks to whoever...yet..how many times did Pleks had to fight?

Whitesnake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 03:30 PM
  #404
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
But how do you know Price wouldn't have made the save if given the proper space to work with? Price was way to deep in his crease to challenge a point shot like that.

The crease is there for a reason and it's to give the goalie the PROPER space to work, JVR was inside that crease and it prevented Price to do his job.

And please 99%.. you're kidding right? It's not as consistent as it should but I've also seen many disallowed goal because a players was in the goalie's crease like in this case.

Wanna see bad disallowed goal? Here's some:




Holmstrom wasn't even in the crease. If JVR was clearly out of the crease like Holmstrom, then yes it would have been a bad call. A good positioning goalie like Price would have easily made a save if he's given the space RESERVED for him to work.

Anyways, rules are rules. Whine when the refs doesn't follow the rules.. but when they applied it properly, there's nothing to whine about.
If rules are rules then where was the penalty?
I mean, was there an interference or not? There is no level of interference. You either are interfering or not. If you are, then you're supposed to get a penalty.

As for whether or not Price would have saved it, maybe, maybe not. Maybe Price still has a hard time finding the puck and doesn't see it come.
But the point is that they allow these goals more often than not.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 03:34 PM
  #405
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I know the rules. That's not the point. These goals are good more often than not.

But also, if you want to claim it was by the book, then where was the penalty? How
can you disallow a goal for interference but then not give a penalty?.
.What?..


If this was us, I'm sure most if not all fans would be whining about it.
Because what qualifies as interference to disallow goals and what qualifies interference for penalty are two different things. As they are two different entries in the rulebook, each with their own descriptions?

PricePkPatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 03:35 PM
  #406
Mynameismark*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
A dick we would love to have on our team. That's Orr job to start something. Proof that making people accountable with fighting means NOTHING. It's not because Parros would hurt Orr that the latter would try to start something else. People keep saying how we have tons of dirty guys in our team, from Pleks to whoever...yet..how many times did Pleks had to fight?

The difference being that without those types, every game and every single shift there is a possibility of anyone taking cheap shots at our guys without reproach. If you can curb just a bit of it, you've done better. If you can make your own players feel safer and play bigger, you're winning. They do play meaner and bigger with a Parros in the lineup, just as they always had whenever we dress a HW.

Without him, you'd have guys like Prust, White and Moen, who can all be valuable come playoff time...maybe not even make it to the playoffs, or be so badly bruised up they will be less effective. Gotta think of the big picture. Fighters and fighting will always have it's place in this game and always should.

Mynameismark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 03:54 PM
  #407
Leo Getz
Registered User
 
Leo Getz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I know the rules. That's not the point. These goals are good more often than not.

But also, if you want to claim it was by the book, then where was the penalty? How
can you disallow a goal for interference but then not give a penalty?..What?..


If this was us, I'm sure most if not all fans would be whining about it.
I don't believe the call was for the contact but more so for "If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed." Which doesn't have the caveat of an automatic penalty.

Leo Getz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 03:56 PM
  #408
compile
Give me Scotch!
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vaughan, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 483
Send a message via Skype™ to compile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson14 View Post
Look man Leafs fans/players are more up in arms about this because of what happened in Pittsburgh then anything and Habs fans would be too. I think the right call was made tonight but it was a lot more harmless than what Malkin did to score a goal against the Leafs literally pushing a goalie into the net. Hence the frustration. Also to people saying the Leafs get ref bias??? Again, look at the Malkin goal...you can throw that conspiracy out the window.

That goal celebration is pure do*che btw. Can't believe people like that phoney stuff.
So celebrating a goal is a ****** move got it. What would you call celebrating knocking out an opponent in a fight?

__________________
Originally Posted by Jeffonfire
There's no ghosts... only god exists. Luckily, he is our netminder.
compile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 04:15 PM
  #409
SB164
Registered User
 
SB164's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,435
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gally11 View Post
I was reading their PGT last night, that guy was hilariously mad. Like "PK Subban ****ed my wife" kind of mad.

SB164 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 04:19 PM
  #410
sventington
Registered User
 
sventington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 972
vCash: 500
This week could be huge for us. I think we have a realistic shot at 6 of the 8 available points. Boston will be tough though.

sventington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 04:22 PM
  #411
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sventington View Post
This week could be huge for us. I think we have a realistic shot at 6 of the 8 available points. Boston will be tough though.
Every team has to be faced like it's gonna be a tough game. Never take any game for granted.

Buffalo almost ended us. Washington's crappy play actually won against us. Let's not get arrogant.

PricePkPatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 04:49 PM
  #412
Habbadasher
Registered User
 
Habbadasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: My couch
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,680
vCash: 500
I am truly amazed. Habs fans arguing with Habs fans because a call went our way.

The rules will never be consistently called, because the refs are human.

A few years ago our goalie was on top of the puck, the puck was out of sight, but a Leaf pushed our goalie away, dug it out from under him and scored and it counted. It all washes out.

Can't we be happy with a win?

Habbadasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 04:51 PM
  #413
sventington
Registered User
 
sventington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 972
vCash: 500
I remember that happening against the Pens either last year or two years ago as well, in overtime. Very frustrating.

sventington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 04:57 PM
  #414
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusfring View Post
Was a weak call. If it was against us, this board would have melted down.
If it was against us, it would mean we'd actually have a player in the crease successfully screening goalie. Easier said than done.

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:02 PM
  #415
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch View Post
Because what qualifies as interference to disallow goals and what qualifies interference for penalty are two different things. As they are two different entries in the rulebook, each with their own descriptions?
But even in the rule book they say that if a goal is disallowed because of goalie interference then the player doing the interfering will get a penalty.
There is no different levels of interference. Either you are or you're not and it's always supposed to be penalized.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:02 PM
  #416
pcamp
Registered User
 
pcamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 892
vCash: 500
Remember the Silfverberg goal on Price or on the exact opposite Vanek on Budaj? Expecting consistency from NHL refs will make you turn mad. Personally, i thought the ref were trying to keep Toronto in the game they missed two blattant high sticks

pcamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:09 PM
  #417
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khal Drogo View Post
The difference being that without those types, every game and every single shift there is a possibility of anyone taking cheap shots at our guys without reproach. If you can curb just a bit of it, you've done better. If you can make your own players feel safer and play bigger, you're winning. They do play meaner and bigger with a Parros in the lineup, just as they always had whenever we dress a HW.

Without him, you'd have guys like Prust, White and Moen, who can all be valuable come playoff time...maybe not even make it to the playoffs, or be so badly bruised up they will be less effective. Gotta think of the big picture. Fighters and fighting will always have it's place in this game and always should.
There is absolutely no reason to believe there would be more cheap hits without fighting. They could reduce the number of hits by giving out harsher suspensions.

The argument that fighting should always be part of the game is ridiculous. It makes no difference.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:13 PM
  #418
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Getz View Post
I don't believe the call was for the contact but more so for "If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed." Which doesn't have the caveat of an automatic penalty.
Impairing the ability of a goalie to defend his net within his crease is interference, which should be an automatic penalty.

If the interference is important enough to disallow a goal, then a penalty should also be given.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:14 PM
  #419
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
There is absolutely no reason to believe there would be more cheap hits without fighting. They could reduce the number of hits by giving out harsher suspensions.

The argument that fighting should always be part of the game is ridiculous. It makes no difference.
Not to mention that Orr took a run at Pacioretty in game 1 of the season after fighting Parros once already in the game. Let's not forget that the second fight of that game that led to Parros' weird injury came after Orr was chasing PK Subban.

Andy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:15 PM
  #420
compile
Give me Scotch!
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vaughan, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 483
Send a message via Skype™ to compile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If rules are rules then where was the penalty?
I mean, was there an interference or not? There is no level of interference. You either are interfering or not. If you are, then you're supposed to get a penalty.

As for whether or not Price would have saved it, maybe, maybe not. Maybe Price still has a hard time finding the puck and doesn't see it come.
But the point is that they allow these goals more often than not.
There's not penalty because he didn't touch Price.
You can't be in the crease prior to the puck being there. Once the puck is in the crease it's fair game.

I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with the right call being made.

compile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:15 PM
  #421
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Impairing the ability of a goalie to defend his net within his crease is interference, which should be an automatic penalty.

If the interference is important enough to disallow a goal, then a penalty should also be given.
Then I agree with you. Like you said, it's clearly in the rulebook.

PricePkPatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:36 PM
  #422
Rosso Scuderia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
If rules are rules then where was the penalty?
I mean, was there an interference or not? There is no level of interference. You either are interfering or not. If you are, then you're supposed to get a penalty.

As for whether or not Price would have saved it, maybe, maybe not. Maybe Price still has a hard time finding the puck and doesn't see it come.
But the point is that they allow these goals more often than not.
Doesn't the rule also state that a goalie interference doesn't mean it automatically a penalty? Don't tell me you haven't seen a goal being disallowed without a penalty being called.

In this case, its not JVR that initiate but more like Price initiate the contact because JVR was inside his work area specifically designed and created to avoid play like this. There's no where in the rulebook that states EVERY goalie interference inside the crease should result to a penalty. The crease is there for a reason.

Also read this:

Quote:
Table 18 - Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper
Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations

Situation:
C. An attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper at the same time a goal is scored.

Results:
Goal is disallowed. The official in his judgment may call a Minor penalty on the attacking player. The announcement should be, “No goal due to interference with the goalkeeper.”

Rosso Scuderia is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:37 PM
  #423
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sventington View Post
This week could be huge for us. I think we have a realistic shot at 6 of the 8 available points. Boston will be tough though.
The Devils haven't been that great this year but the Habs always have a tough time winning against them and points will be hard to come by. Not a cake walk by any stretch..

The game against the Bruins will be the 2nd half of a back to back and the 3rd game in 4 nights for the Habs against a Bruins team that will have had 5 days rest.. Nice scheduling by the Bruins who will be completely rested and sitting in Montreal waiting for the Habs to return from NJ. That game could get ugly around the middle of the 2nd period and for the entire 3rd period.

The game against the Sabres is no gimme either. They always play the Habs very tough. I hope your point prediction is correct but the Habs will have to earn every one of them.

sheed36 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:38 PM
  #424
compile
Give me Scotch!
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vaughan, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,506
vCash: 483
Send a message via Skype™ to compile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
Impairing the ability of a goalie to defend his net within his crease is interference, which should be an automatic penalty.

If the interference is important enough to disallow a goal, then a penalty should also be given.
Impairing != making contact.
A player in the crease prior to the puck entering takes up the area of the ice were a goalie is protected this reducing his "area" of effectiveness.

Impairing means reducing the goalies ability to make a save. It's not a penalty to be on the crease while NOT making contact with that goalie. It's a penalty when a player makes CONTACT with a goalie.

If we use your example goaltender interference would be called once every minute then.

compile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:39 PM
  #425
PricePkPatch
Registered User
 
PricePkPatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosso Scuderia View Post
Doesn't the rule also state that a goalie interference doesn't mean it automatically a penalty? Don't tell me you haven't seen a goal being disallowed without a penalty being called.

In this case, its not JVR that initiate but more like Price initiate the contact because JVR was inside his work area specifically designed and created to avoid play like this. There's no where in the rulebook that states EVERY goalie interference inside the crease should result to a penalty. The crease is there for a reason.

Also read this:
Good argument. In that case, I withdraw my support of Kriss E's argument.

PricePkPatch 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 09:58 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.