I'm not sure if it's the Devils or if it's our offense being impotent. We have what...one breakaway per month? Maybe one odd man rush per game? Compare that to last year, where breakaways and odd mans were common.
I'd lean more towards the offense being impotent. Perhaps Lavi has heeded management's wishes and toned down the offense in favor of defense, but the fowards just aren't that good at it and he's not sure how to coach it. The expected result would indeed be what we've seen; less offense, kinda OK defense.
The sequence in OT (was it OT or 3rd? darn this Alzheimer's) where the Flyers and Devils went end to end with a 2-on-2 each was striking in its contrast. I think it was Read carrying the puck; he got angled outside, and the other Flyer with him was totally covered, ending in Read taking a wrister that was easily saved. The Devils headed up ice and broke into the Flyers zone 2-on-2. The puck carrier took the puck straight ahead and chipped it to Clarkson (I think), who got the excellent scoring opportunity that Bryzgalov saved low glove side.
Do they formally announce if he doesn't get a phone call?
I'm not sure the play was as close as people made it out to be last night.
Sam C tweeted a little bit ago that there was still no word on it yet. It's been 24 hours since the game and he didn't even get a call yet. My guess would be he's not getting suspended.
Sam C tweeted a little bit ago that there was still no word on it yet. It's been 24 hours since the game and he didn't even get a call yet. My guess would be he's not getting suspended.
Well, given that the only point of contact was Schenn's forearm on Harrold's chest, I should hope there is no suspension. It's what us old guys call a clean hit on a guy looking for the puck in his feet.
Well, given that the only point of contact was Schenn's forearm on Harrold's chest, I should hope there is no suspension. It's what us old guys call a clean hit on a guy looking for the puck in his feet.
I know but he did leave his feet and plus you never know with Shanny.
Hopefully Schenn doesn't get anything, but I think it was definitely charging. I must say I was also quite surprised how vigorously JJ, Jones, and even Lisa and Bill opposed the boarding call on Rinaldo earlier in the game. I thought that was pretty much as clear as it gets. Not worthy of suspension or anything, but boarding nonetheless.
Hopefully Schenn doesn't get anything, but I think it was definitely charging. I must say I was also quite surprised how vigorously JJ, Jones, and even Lisa and Bill opposed the boarding call on Rinaldo earlier in the game. I thought that was pretty much as clear as it gets. Not worthy of suspension or anything, but boarding nonetheless.
Schenn shouldn't get anything. He took a dumb penalty and damn near cost the team 2 points, 2 minutes was punishment enough.
They revised the rule on boarding to make it more vague, to give the referees difference and not have to go black and white. If you want to see it as "hitting too hard close to the boards," I'm sure some referees see it that way too. When you're recording a hit for every minute of ice time you get, that's going to happen.
You just can't whine for an entire intermission that he got a call based on reputation, when it hasn't come into play in almost a month. And moreover, constantly laud him during that time for playing above the reputation. That was his 2nd non-coincidental minor since the Montreal game, when he began to turn around the penalties taken/drawn radio. 2 minor penalties in a month, for a guy who once said he dreamed of leading the league in penalty minutes. It was just another attempt to martyr him and/or the organization for all the undeserved penalties they've gotten over the last 40 years.
I'm sure if he drew 6 or 7 penalties for every 1 bad call, he'd take it. When your world revolves around emotion and/or what happens at the penalty box, and not with actual hockey skills and process of play, you can't expect to always get away with toeing the line.
And the fact that the refs have gotten off his back in a matter of days, proves he didn't have a reputation, he was just taking penalties that stupid.
They revised the rule on boarding to make it more vague, to give the referees difference and not have to go black and white. If you want to see it as "hitting too hard close to the boards," I'm sure some referees see it that way too. When you're recording a hit for every minute of ice time you get, that's going to happen.
You just can't whine for an entire intermission that he got a call based on reputation, when it hasn't come into play in almost a month. And moreover, constantly laud him during that time for playing above the reputation. That was his 2nd non-coincidental minor since the Montreal game, when he began to turn around the penalties taken/drawn radio. 2 minor penalties in a month, for a guy who once said he dreamed of leading the league in penalty minutes. It was just another attempt to martyr him and/or the organization for all the undeserved penalties they've gotten over the last 40 years.
I'm sure if he drew 6 or 7 penalties for every 1 bad call, he'd take it. When your world revolves around emotion and/or what happens at the penalty box, and not with actual hockey skills and process of play, you can't expect to always get away with toeing the line.
And the fact that the refs have gotten off his back in a matter of days, proves he didn't have a reputation, he was just taking penalties that stupid.
I agree, and also think that's just the cost of playing on the edge. The "reputation call" card is definitely overplayed. But I do think he's been playing great recently, doing exactly what he's supposed to, and drawing more penalties (and anger) than he himself is getting.
Hopefully Schenn doesn't get anything, but I think it was definitely charging.
Two minutes is enough. Happy St. Patrick's Day! Which may explain why no review by Shanny, he's been celebrating early..... Ahh, it's great to be half-Irish.
I need to learn how to bet on horses so I can translate what you just said
My advice: run!
I picked all six possible combinations of three horses (7, 9 and 10) to finish first and second in an exact order (7/9, 9/7, 10/9, 9/10, 10/7, 7/10). I had combinations that lost, too, but since the longshot (#7) won, the price was much higher than if 9 beat 10 or 10 beat 9. It was around $275 for $2. Not bad. It makes up for the defeats. I hope that makes sense, likely boring but whimsical description concluded. (Total wager was $12, 2x6).
I picked all six possible combinations of three horses (7, 9 and 10) to finish first and second in an exact order (7/9, 9/7, 10/9, 9/10, 10/7, 7/10). I had combinations that lost, too, but since the longshot (#7) won, the price was much higher than if 9 beat 10 or 10 beat 9. It was around $275 for $2. Not bad. It makes up for the defeats. I hope that makes sense, likely boring but whimsical description concluded.
Wow that is not bad at all! Thanks for the explanation.
