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

Yesterday's 2 man advantage

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-04-2012, 11:07 AM
  #1
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,366
vCash: 500
Yesterday's 2 man advantage

I asked this in the game thread but didn't get a response I think this is interesting enough to warrant a thread. The Flyer hooked Anisimov and then hi-sticked him drawing blood. Why is it that we got a 2 man advantage in this situation and against Chicago their coach (don't know how to spell his name lol) got to choose a double minor rather than a 2 man advantage? Is it because it was a double minor on the high stick and thus the alternative would be a 6 minute power play and that can't happen?

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:14 AM
  #2
Dactyl
LMFAO KOSTKA
 
Dactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,972
vCash: 500
i dont exactly know but there were 3 penalties. we were on the PP, then AA got hooked, then AA got high sticked. one of the 3 was ended because of the goal but 2 man advantage was the right call (not so sure if we should have gotten the full 2 minutes though) and that chicago incident was a mess we should have had a 2 man advantage for 2 minutes not a 1 man advantage for 4 minutes

Dactyl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:20 AM
  #3
TrueBlue9
Registered User
 
TrueBlue9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
I asked this in the game thread but didn't get a response I think this is interesting enough to warrant a thread. The Flyer hooked Anisimov and then hi-sticked him drawing blood. Why is it that we got a 2 man advantage in this situation and against Chicago their coach (don't know how to spell his name lol) got to choose a double minor rather than a 2 man advantage? Is it because it was a double minor on the high stick and thus the alternative would be a 6 minute power play and that can't happen?
steps:
1. Jagr takes penalty rangers on PP
2. Anisimov hooked delayed Penalty
3. Anisimov Scores (PP goal)
4. Anisimov High stick draws blood
5. Jagr out of box on PP goal
6. Hook in box 2min
7. High stick in box 4 min
8. First two min 5 on 3
9. Hook out of box
10. Second two min 5 on 4

(expect they scored on 5 on 3 so that wasn't a full two min)

TrueBlue9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:22 AM
  #4
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueBlue9 View Post
steps:
1. Jagr takes penalty rangers on PP
2. Anisimov hooked delayed Penalty
3. Anisimov Scores (PP goal)
4. Anisimov High stick draws blood
5. Jagr out of box on PP goal
6. Hook in box 2min
7. High stick in box 4 min
8. First two min 5 on 3
9. Hook out of box
10. Second two min 5 on 4

(expect they scored on 5 on 3 so that wasn't a full two min)
There were 3 minors on one play and we automatically got a 2 man advantage. But against Chicago there were 2 minors on one play and they got to choose. That's what I'm asking. Was it the extra minor that made the difference? Was there a screw up in either of the two games?


Last edited by SnowblindNYR: 04-04-2012 at 11:33 AM.
SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:23 AM
  #5
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
The 2 penalties were committed by 2 different players. If it was the same player it would have been a double minor.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:27 AM
  #6
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 17,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
There were 3 minors on one play and we automatically got a 2 man advantage. But against Chicago there were 2 minors on one play and they got to choose. That's what I'm asking. Was it the extra minor that made the difference? Was there a screw in either of the two games?
We got the two man advantage because since the goal was scored on the PP, Jagr's penalty expired, and then that way, the hook and the high sticking counted. I think if that goal wasn't on the PP, we would have gotten a 5-4 PP instead.

Rangers Fail is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:28 AM
  #7
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
There was a screw in the Chicago game. It should have been 2 mins 5-on-3 but the refs decided to make up new rules as they went along. The double minor in Chicago was ******** by the refs.

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:31 AM
  #8
ck20
Registered User
 
ck20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 1,189
vCash: 500
It's just the refs/league making things up as they go along. At least they're consistent in never being consistent.

ck20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:34 AM
  #9
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaQUp View Post
The 2 penalties were committed by 2 different players. If it was the same player it would have been a double minor.
I actually missed most of that game. I thought it was 2 different players in the Chicago game too. Am I wrong?

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:39 AM
  #10
Greg02
Registered User
 
Greg02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,866
vCash: 500
Here's what happened in the Chicago game:

One player on Chicago took a double minor, another one took a single. One NYR also took a minor. That means that one of the Chicago minors gets offset. Chicago got to choose if it was one from the double minor or from the single minor.

Greg02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:41 AM
  #11
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg02 View Post
Here's what happened in the Chicago game:

One player on Chicago took a double minor, another one took a single. One NYR also took a minor. That means that one of the Chicago minors gets offset. Chicago got to choose if it was one from the double minor or from the single minor.
correct. It wasn't a screw job

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:43 AM
  #12
MSG the place to be*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,783
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everyday Im Hagelin View Post
There was a screw in the Chicago game. It should have been 2 mins 5-on-3 but the refs decided to make up new rules as they went along. The double minor in Chicago was ******** by the refs.
Isn't it preferable to be on a 2 min 5 on 3 PP than a 4 min 5 on 4?

MSG the place to be* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 11:43 AM
  #13
asphyXy
Registered User
 
asphyXy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Nutley, NJ
Posts: 213
vCash: 50
Greg02 got it.


Last edited by asphyXy: 04-04-2012 at 11:45 AM. Reason: Greg02 got it.
asphyXy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 12:10 PM
  #14
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 17,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg02 View Post
Here's what happened in the Chicago game:

One player on Chicago took a double minor, another one took a single. One NYR also took a minor. That means that one of the Chicago minors gets offset. Chicago got to choose if it was one from the double minor or from the single minor.
All right, thanks. Wish I knew that instead of thinking how ridiculous that was.

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 12:29 PM
  #15
truebluegoalie
Registered User
 
truebluegoalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by f2d View Post
correct. It wasn't a screw job
I can't believe people still think it was a screw job or that the refs were making stuff up, here is the actual rule from the Chicago game:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26556

Team A Captain’s choice to play one player short-handed for four minutes or two players short-handed for two minutes. Should he choose the latter, an additional team A player must be placed on the penalty bench to serve the minor penalty for A3.

And I believe this covers last night, if I am reading it correctly:

15.4 Calling a Penalty – Short-handed Team – Goal Scored - If when a team is “short-handed” by reason of one or more minor or bench minor penalties, the Referee signals a further minor penalty or penalties against the “short-handed” team and a goal is scored by the non-offending side before the whistle is blown, then the goal shall be allowed. The penalty or penalties signaled shall be assessed and the first of the minor penalties already being served shall automatically terminate under Rule 16 – Minor Penalties. Major and match penalties shall be imposed in the normal manner regardless of whether or not a goal is scored.

So as terrible as I think NHL officials have been lately, they aren't making up rules, like some people like to think.


Last edited by truebluegoalie: 04-04-2012 at 12:36 PM.
truebluegoalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 12:50 PM
  #16
RUSF18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
I understand that it's the rule, but why doesn't the wronged team get to choose the manner in which the penalty is negated? Why give the benefit to the team who committed the penalties?

RUSF18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 12:53 PM
  #17
truebluegoalie
Registered User
 
truebluegoalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUSF18 View Post
I understand that it's the rule, but why doesn't the wronged team get to choose the manner in which the penalty is negated? Why give the benefit to the team who committed the penalties?
Because that would make too much sense.

truebluegoalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2012, 01:00 PM
  #18
RUSF18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by truebluegoalie View Post
Because that would make too much sense.
Ha...was trying to think of a reason. What I came up with is that when you get called for Too Many Men, you choose your own guy to serve the penalty, and in theory, you could choose your worst player who was on the ice. It could be the opponent's choice to choose your best player (or best PKer) to punish the offending team the greatest.

But on the other side, the choice of the player serving doesn't fundamentally change the power play situation, which the choice between a 5 on 3 for 2 mins and a 5 on 4 for 4 mins obviously does.

RUSF18 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 01:44 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.