HFBoards

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

GDT | 4/25 | Rangers @ Sabres | 7:00pm | Game 1 | Versus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-26-2007, 12:38 PM
  #1101
Bruce Ciskie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Proctor, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bruce Ciskie Send a message via Yahoo to Bruce Ciskie
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
That's why the NFL is smart. They tell you why the play is under review. They'll say something like:
The Jets have challenged the ruling on the field of a completed pass.

So why can't they say something like,
The play is under review for the net being knocked off before the puck was put into the net.
The play is under review for the player using his hand to put the puck into the net
The play is under review for the player using a high stick to score a goal
The play is under review for the player kicking the puck into the net

Something like that would make it so much better. The league really tries to be so secretive .
I don't know that I'd say they're being secretive...as if they have something to hide. It's just not something that they have thought to talk about publicly. It drives me nuts that we let hockey officials get away with this stuff, whether it be in pro or college.

I'm not going to scream from the rooftops about how we should do things that cater to casual fans. Casual fans should learn the game on their own, as the majority of the hardcore hockey fans I know did. Learn the game and decide if you like it or not.

But I have seen situations in college games I've broadcasted where even the die-hard fans leave the building having no idea what happened on a certain play because the officials don't bother to explain their decisions.

In a case like last night, there's a pretty good chance that many Ranger fans wouldn't have been satisfied with even a full explanation of what was reviewed and what decision was made as a result of that review. However, we're all owed at least that much.

What I like most about football officials is not just that they will say "We are going to review the ruling on the field of ___"...but that they will usually come out of that review and explain what the ruling is and why it was made. Not every hardcore fan can be expected to know all the rules (heck, even a lot of us broadcasters don't know all the rules well enough to explain them), but the officials do know those rules and should accept as an honor the chance to help the fans understand the game better.

Bruce Ciskie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 12:45 PM
  #1102
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Levitate;9082036] How can you possibly say Rachunek isn't to blame for getting badly beaten by Vanek? [QUOTE]

I think I exhausted my arguments... Wait, here's another one: Mr. Shanahan left his ass in the opposition end and Rachunek had to cover for him. Shanny was supposed to slow Vanek down before defense even started to play him.
Overall Shanahan was -4 for the game. Given the fact that he did score one goal, it means he was on the ice for ALL 5 GOALS AGAINST. Him and Rachunek play the same side. Co-incidence?

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 12:46 PM
  #1103
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,594
vCash: 500
Well if last night we would have been told, the only reason why there was a review was to see if the net was knocked off, it would have been more accepted. We could have said, well the ref probably couldn't see him hit the puck with his hand because it happened so fast (of course a few would have said the ref is blind and should be shot). However, we don't know and we assume that it was due to the puck hitting the players hand.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 12:47 PM
  #1104
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,557
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=94now;9082648][QUOTE=Levitate;9082036] How can you possibly say Rachunek isn't to blame for getting badly beaten by Vanek?
Quote:

I think I exhausted my arguments... Wait, here's another one: Mr. Shanahan left his ass in the opposition end and Rachunek had to cover for him. Shanny was supposed to slow Vanek down before defense even started play him.
Overall Shanahan was -4 for the game. Given the fact that he did score one goal, it means he was on the ice for ALL 5 GOALS AGAINST. Him and Rachunek play the same side. Co-incidence?
Come on lay off Shanny...you can't put a number on his leadership...

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 12:48 PM
  #1105
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,594
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=94now;9082648][QUOTE=Levitate;9082036] How can you possibly say Rachunek isn't to blame for getting badly beaten by Vanek?
Quote:

I think I exhausted my arguments... Wait, here's another one: Mr. Shanahan left his ass in the opposition end and Rachunek had to cover for him. Shanny was supposed to slow Vanek down before defense even started play him.
Overall Shanahan was -4 for the game. Given the fact that he did score one goal, it means he was on the ice for ALL 5 GOALS AGAINST. Him and Rachunek play the same side. Co-incidence?
Actually Shanny's goal was a PP goal. However, one of Buffalo's goals were a PP goal too. So we do know that Shanny was on for all even strength goals. I'd have to see about the first PP goal by Buffalo.

EDIT: First goal was Avery & Betts

Oh and BTW, Rachunek was a +/- 0. So how about them apples. Mara -2, Girardi -2, Tyutin -2. Girardi & Tyutin were on for the first PP goal against.

Line 1: Hossa = 0
Line 1: Nylander = 0
Line 1: Jagr for 1 (EN) = 0

Line 2: Straka for 3
Line 2: Avery was on for 4 goals against. (1 PP) = 3
Line 2: Shanahan for 4 (1 EN) = 3

Line 3: Callahan = 0
Line 3: Cullen for 1 (EN) = 0
Line 3: Prucha = 0

Line 4: Ortmeyer = 0
Line 4: Betts for 2 (1 EN + 1 PP) = 0
Line 4: Hollweg = 0

D: Rozsvial = 0
D: Malik for 1
D: Mara for 2
D: Rachunek for 1
D: Girardi for 3 (1 EN + 1 PP) = 1
D: Tyutin for 3 (1 EN + 1 PP) = 1

That should be about right. I subtracted Empty Net and PPGA for the final tally


Last edited by WhipNash27: 04-26-2007 at 01:08 PM.
WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 12:49 PM
  #1106
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,557
vCash: 500
If Rozsival is out the Rangers are in big trouble...Rozisival eats up quality minutes and the Rangers have NOBODY else that can play as much as him...

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 12:51 PM
  #1107
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post

Come on lay off Shanny...you can't put a number on his leadership...
I'm sorry, my bad, sir...

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 12:53 PM
  #1108
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Tromelin
Posts: 9,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
Well if last night we would have been told, the only reason why there was a review was to see if the net was knocked off, it would have been more accepted. We could have said, well the ref probably couldn't see him hit the puck with his hand because it happened so fast (of course a few would have said the ref is blind and should be shot). However, we don't know and we assume that it was due to the puck hitting the players hand.
It was a good goal....

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 12:54 PM
  #1109
Bruce Ciskie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Proctor, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bruce Ciskie Send a message via Yahoo to Bruce Ciskie
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
Well if last night we would have been told, the only reason why there was a review was to see if the net was knocked off, it would have been more accepted. We could have said, well the ref probably couldn't see him hit the puck with his hand because it happened so fast (of course a few would have said the ref is blind and should be shot). However, we don't know and we assume that it was due to the puck hitting the players hand.
In my book, when a play is reviewed, everything should be reviewable.

(Keep in mind, I said last night that I was convinced the puck hit the shaft of Pominville's stick, based on the overhead view combined with some common sense conclusions gleaned from the other angles Vs. showed. Haven't seen the play this morning, and probably won't see it again unless Vs. shows it during their studio coverage tonight.)

So they should have at least looked at every aspect of the goal, even if they were initially wanting to see whether or not the net was off. But if in the process of doing that, they saw conclusive evidence that the goal shouldn't count, the goal should still be waved off.

JMHO. Honestly, I don't know what the NHL policy is, and I don't care, because I probably don't agree with it anyway.

Bruce Ciskie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 12:56 PM
  #1110
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,186
vCash: 500
Overall, while the game was disappointing, I felt it was pretty even for all but about 5-8 minutes of play. Rangers need to stay out of the penalty box and start being active with their sticks again defensively. It's almost like they were shocked/intimidated by Buffalo's speed and that distracted them from playing the way we're used to them playing at this point. I expect a better game 2. There's not an enormous amount to fix here.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 01:03 PM
  #1111
KingLundqvistXXX
Confetti & Balloons
 
KingLundqvistXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffNYI View Post
You guys got Islandered.
We're all in the same boat after all, enemies or not, we will be cheated by Buffalo and Toronto.

KingLundqvistXXX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 01:20 PM
  #1112
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
Come on lay off Shanny...you can't put a number on his leadership...
Yeah, he's only scored goals in 4 consecutive playoff games. He's worthless

In all seriousness though, Shanny didn't look too good last night. A lot of blatent missed passes...


Last edited by SPG: 04-26-2007 at 01:35 PM.
SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 01:34 PM
  #1113
Dr. Zoidberg
Registered User
 
Dr. Zoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
That's why the NFL is smart. They tell you why the play is under review. They'll say something like:
The Jets have challenged the ruling on the field of a completed pass.

So why can't they say something like,
The play is under review for the net being knocked off before the puck was put into the net.
The play is under review for the player using his hand to put the puck into the net
The play is under review for the player using a high stick to score a goal
The play is under review for the player kicking the puck into the net

Something like that would make it so much better. The league really tries to be so secretive .
The thing is that they can check for all of those things in one video review. Its not like the stupid challenge system in the NFL. The review took so long yesterday as two things were being checked:
1.) Was the puck in the net before it was knocked off? Yes.
2.) Did Pominville punch it in. Dunno. I havent seen a smoking gun, and the TSN views looked pretty clean to me. Havent seen the Vs. feed.

Mostly I wish that they would announce the reasoning for allowing the goal.

Dr. Zoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 01:47 PM
  #1114
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Steinbrenner View Post
If Rozsival is out the Rangers are in big trouble...Rozisival eats up quality minutes and the Rangers have NOBODY else that can play as much as him...
Definitely bad news if he's out for a while. He chews up a LOT of minutes for this team... makes you wonder if Staal might be an option again (obviously not to take all Rosie's minutes) if his team is eliminated before the end of this series (or next series if we advance). Sudbury is up 3-2 in the OHL ECF's right now.

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:28 PM
  #1115
JimmyTheGreek
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BikeGiftingMan View Post
I watched the game, yes, on TSN, and they said that it WAS a goal.
They called it a goal on Versus...without a doubt.

JimmyTheGreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:30 PM
  #1116
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,594
vCash: 500
No they were all saying that it wasn't a goal for the longest time and when they said it was a goal the announcers were all surprised. Then when they talked to the league of course they had to kiss ass.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:31 PM
  #1117
The New Originals
Registered User
 
The New Originals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A.V. Land
Country: United States
Posts: 5,026
vCash: 500
It was a goal.

The New Originals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:33 PM
  #1118
KingLundqvistXXX
Confetti & Balloons
 
KingLundqvistXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 990
vCash: 500
For the guy that wondered, yes...Jeanneret sure did his fair share of screaming:

http://eod.liquidviewer.com/wgr-od/w...25_bufnyr1.wma


KingLundqvistXXX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:36 PM
  #1119
puckhead1213
Registered User
 
puckhead1213's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLundqvistXXX View Post
For the guy that wondered, yes...Jeanneret sure did his fair share of screaming:

http://eod.liquidviewer.com/wgr-od/w...25_bufnyr1.wma

5 times to be exact. Music to my ears.

puckhead1213 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:38 PM
  #1120
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhead1213 View Post
5 times to be exact. Music to my ears.
If Jeanneret is "music to your ears" I'd hate to hear the music you listen to...

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:39 PM
  #1121
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,957
vCash: 500
Not sure if anyone mentioned this but they gave Nylander two assists last night when he only had one.

On that Shanny goal it was clearly Straka that drove to the net and dished it off to Shanny for the open net goal.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app/?service=...ype=3&gnum=211

Probably a scoring mistkae because of the #82 and #92 thing.

That leaves Nylander wth 10 points instead of 9 and the Playoff leader again.

HockeyBasedNYC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:44 PM
  #1122
puckhead1213
Registered User
 
puckhead1213's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPG View Post
If Jeanneret is "music to your ears" I'd hate to hear the music you listen to...
You'll be hearing plenty of him over the next three games. Maybe he'll grow on you.

puckhead1213 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:45 PM
  #1123
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
94...

if Shanny slowed Vanek down, wouldn't that have been interference?

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:47 PM
  #1124
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhead1213 View Post
You'll be hearing plenty of him over the next three games. Maybe he'll grow on you.
Absolutely not.

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 02:48 PM
  #1125
puckhead1213
Registered User
 
puckhead1213's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPG View Post
Absolutely not.
Fair enough.

puckhead1213 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 04:00 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.