HFBoards

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

Tue., Mar. 11, 2014| Devils 2 at Flyers 1

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-12-2014, 10:46 AM
  #151
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernieParent View Post
On controversial plays, I always try to imagine what my reaction would be if the roles were reversed. Had a goal like the Hartnell play been allowed against the Flyers, I would have been pretty ticked.
But if that exact play had Coburn knocking Clowe into Mason, it would have counted...

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 10:48 AM
  #152
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zarley zelepukin View Post
It sort of looks that way on the view from behind the net, but not the other angles. Especially if you look at the overhead. Volchenkov kinda hits him with his skates, but Hartnell makes body on body contact.
and there you go ..... case closed


THIS kind of contact IS allowed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPAxxReeHN0


Last edited by Bernie Parent 1974: 03-12-2014 at 11:22 AM.
Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 11:46 AM
  #153
GapToothedWonder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Posts: 25
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennysflyers16 View Post
4 mill goalies need to steal the odd game when team struggles, he isn't doing that.
4 mill would mean he is the 17th highest paid goalie in the league. With a few other guys that will likely out earn him the year after. So really a 4 mill dollar goalie might not be the unstoppable force you are thinking of.

GapToothedWonder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 11:48 AM
  #154
FlyersFanz
aut viam inveniam au
 
FlyersFanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BlkVanOutsideUrHouse
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
2 disallowed goals in row? Is the ref hate starting already?
Officials aren't even going to Toronto for the reviews on the play. I would have called that a goal because Hartnell did everything in his power not to hit Marty( you can see the snow fly from his skates) and the bottom line if it was any other goalie in net it would be a goal.

__________________
Love My Flyers!

Last edited by FlyersFanz: 03-12-2014 at 11:55 AM.
FlyersFanz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 11:53 AM
  #155
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,476
vCash: 50
if Hartnell makes no attempt to stop they can and will not allow the goal. doesn't matter if you are pushed or not.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 11:57 AM
  #156
bennysflyers16
Registered User
 
bennysflyers16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 16,661
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
if Hartnell makes no attempt to stop they can and will not allow the goal. doesn't matter if you are pushed or not.
And its Hartnell, guys like him and Downie ( his weak penalty) will never get the benefit of the doubt. Less skilled guys that have reputations, that is what you will get from the refs, this is no surprise. As long as we have them in our top roles, we will never get the benefit of the doubt.

bennysflyers16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 11:57 AM
  #157
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,078
vCash: 955
I don't know how any of you can think that was a good goal.

I want the refs to call it like that every time.

__________________
I deride your truth handling abilities
CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 11:59 AM
  #158
OgbertTheNerd
what
 
OgbertTheNerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
I don't know how any of you can think that was a good goal.

I want the refs to call it like that every time.
Yeah, as BernieParent said, I wouldn't be too happy had they called that a good goal if the roles were reversed.

OgbertTheNerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:00 PM
  #159
FlyersFanz
aut viam inveniam au
 
FlyersFanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BlkVanOutsideUrHouse
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
I don't know how any of you can think that was a good goal.

I want the refs to call it like that every time.
Nobody said it was a "good" goal but it was a goal none the less. Puck crosses the goal line it's a goal, did the whistle blow before the puck crosses? If not it's a goal, not all of them are pretty.
Bottom line is the ref waved it off so it doesn't matter at this time.

FlyersFanz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:02 PM
  #160
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,476
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry44 View Post
But if that exact play had Coburn knocking Clowe into Mason, it would have counted...
there is no conspiracy theory

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:04 PM
  #161
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,078
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFanz View Post
Nobody said it was a "good" goal but it was a goal none the less. Puck crosses the goal line it's a goal, did the whistle blow before the puck crosses? If not it's a goal, not all of them are pretty.
The puck went in because Hartnell impeded Brodeur's ability to make the save. It was the right call and it was also why the play was not reviewable.

It doesn't matter when the whistle went.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:04 PM
  #162
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,476
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
I don't know how any of you can think that was a good goal.

I want the refs to call it like that every time.
yup.
right after it happened everyone is ticked off but after looking at it you have to waive it off.
like I said earlier they had enough chances to do things and didn't get it done. it should not have come down to a waived off goal

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:07 PM
  #163
FlyersFanz
aut viam inveniam au
 
FlyersFanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BlkVanOutsideUrHouse
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
The puck went in because Hartnell impeded Brodeur's ability to make the save. It was the right call and it was also why the play was not reviewable.

It doesn't matter when the whistle went.
Watch the replay, Hartnell made an attempt to stop but Volchenkov and his leg impeded that. If this is the rule in the NHL it's a dumb one. Incidental contact happens. The only question I would have on that play is if Scotty had a kicking motion
http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/1...ils-nhl-replay


Last edited by FlyersFanz: 03-12-2014 at 12:13 PM.
FlyersFanz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:08 PM
  #164
Hollywood Couturier
Moderator
 
Hollywood Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 19,965
vCash: 500
Tough loss but the team is 7-2-1 in the last 10 now. They haven't looked the best the last two games and with the upcoming stretch they gotta get that figured out.

Just trying to make myself feel better, haha.

__________________

"I Came Here To Bury Caesar, Not Praise Him" - Roy Halladay
Hollywood Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:14 PM
  #165
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,078
vCash: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFanz View Post
Watch the replay, Hartnell made an attempt to stop but Volchenkov and his leg impeded that. If this is the rule in the NHL it's a dumb one. Incidental contact happens
Rule 69.1:

Quote:
Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise
that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the
crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be
allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking
players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances
be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking
player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s
ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal;
or (2) an
attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a
goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact
with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when
such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the
attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice
judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or
review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or
otherwise
, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a
goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or
any part of the body.

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should
have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being
hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player
enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s
ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be
disallowed.


If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a
defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the
goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the
attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player
has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an
attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into
contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed
contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if
necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is
scored it would be disallowed.
Incidental contact that results in the goalie's inability to make a save, still results in no goal.

The second last paragraph is the argument you could try to make in this case, but it's pretty weak.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:30 PM
  #166
FlyersFanz
aut viam inveniam au
 
FlyersFanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BlkVanOutsideUrHouse
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
Rule 69.1:



Incidental contact that results in the goalie's inability to make a save, still results in no goal.

The second last paragraph is the argument you could try to make in this case, but it's pretty weak.
Weak or not it still should be reviewable...without the review the ref behind the net doesn't see the whole picture
I understand at this point what's done is done but it still makes you feel that we got jipped 2 games in a row, bottom line is like another poster said the Flyers should have walked away with the win in the previous 59mins

FlyersFanz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:34 PM
  #167
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,476
vCash: 50
Incidental contact can be pretty subjective and can be interpreted different ways. the rule basically takes it out of the refs hands to determine if the contact was incidental or not.
I would rather have a rule like this in place(yes even tho it hurt the Flyers last night) then leaving it up to the stripes on whether contact could of been avoided or not.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:36 PM
  #168
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,476
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFanz View Post
Weak or not it still should be reviewable...without the review the ref behind the net doesn't see the whole picture
I understand at this point what's done is done but it still makes you feel that we got jipped 2 games in a row, bottom line is like another poster said the Flyers should have walked away with the win in the previous 59mins
weak or not was there enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice?
No.

GoneFullHextall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:38 PM
  #169
TheKingPin
Registered User
 
TheKingPin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Parent 1974 View Post
nope, watch again from the overhead:

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/3/1...ils-nhl-replay

Vol's skate barely touched fatso. vol and hartsy banged each other, hartsy's shoulder moved fatso backwards, and that contact caused the puck to go in.

only if Vol was on hartnells' back could the ref rule good goal, or rule delayed penalty on vol for interference, or make no call & let the war room make the call [as they sometimes do: make no on ice call]

if that was kimmo banging with ruutu & mason getting knocked into, nobody here would argue for the goal to count
Gotcha I have not seen that view yet but I'll check that link when I can. Thanks for posting


Yea looking at it he did makes contact with the goalie but it wasnt a large enough degree to disallow the goal imo.


Last edited by TheKingPin: 03-12-2014 at 02:37 PM.
TheKingPin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 12:47 PM
  #170
FlyersFanz
aut viam inveniam au
 
FlyersFanz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BlkVanOutsideUrHouse
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
weak or not was there enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice?
No.
Let's hope more reviews come into play in the future...not saying everything should be reviewed but maybe questionable goals would be number 1 on the list.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=445720

FlyersFanz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 02:25 PM
  #171
LegionOfDoom91
Registered User
 
LegionOfDoom91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
both goaltenders gave up one they would like to get back.
you go 0-6 on the PP and you don't deserve to win the hockey game.

it always seems its the refs fault when they lose a close hockey game. they didn't do enough offensively to get it done. bottom line.
Pretty much, they didn't really make Brodeur's job hard at all last night. Our PP's basically consisted of Giroux, Voracek, & Timonen hitting anything but the net. They didn't crash the net all night neither, Hartnell finally decided to do that with a minute left in the hockey game.

That game was very winnable & they blew it.

LegionOfDoom91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 02:33 PM
  #172
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,839
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegionOfDoom91 View Post
Pretty much, they didn't really make Brodeur's job hard at all last night. Our PP's basically consisted of Giroux, Voracek, & Timonen hitting anything but the net. They didn't crash the net all night neither, Hartnell finally decided to do that with a minute left in the hockey game.

That game was very winnable & they blew it.
Don't forget the pass to Simmonds so he could slowly turn and cram it into Fatty's pads.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 02:49 PM
  #173
Curufinwe
Registered User
 
Curufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: New Zealand
Posts: 7,693
vCash: 500
Vinny can't do it at ES, so maybe he should get a chance on the top PP unit to just tee up his shot from the right circle.

Curufinwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 03:12 PM
  #174
Teezax
Registered User
 
Teezax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,362
vCash: 500
I don't mind them not calling a goal there, chances are the Devils would have scored again before we got the point anyway, we're just not meant to beat them. This is the reality

Teezax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2014, 03:14 PM
  #175
Teezax
Registered User
 
Teezax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curufinwe View Post
Vinny can't do it at ES, so maybe he should get a chance on the top PP unit to just tee up his shot from the right circle.
Agreed on this, he still has his shot and we are under utilizing it.
That G to Hartnell pass in the slot is so 2013. Not to mention that drop pass to
G in the defensive zone is as well.

Teezax 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 06:13 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.