I've seen it called before but not at the NHL level. IMO it should be an unsportsman like penalty. He could have pulled away or not stopped so sharply in the Goalies face. He did this simply to piss off Loungo and try to get him off his game. Its one of the little things I like to see called.
Almost every one who's played has done it and we all know why we did. Now think if you lose an edge when doing that you can fall on the keeper or worse go into him skate first. Not pretty.
The Refs sent a message early with that call that they were not about to take any Bull. I like it and I'm gald it did not affect the outcome of the game too much.
Well, icing a goaltender is an infraction that the officials are told to call, so why criticize them when they make it? As a goaltender myself, I hate having that happen because it's not allowed and borders goaltender interference/unsportsmanlike conduct. It may not be one of the 'biggest problems in hockey,' but I commend an official for having the guts to make that call.
Goalies get ran away too often now-a-days as opposed to a decade ago even, and one of the main reasons is because the hard pegs have been taken out of the posts and now they just use that small chip into the ice to secure it. Snowing a goaltender leads to goalies being ran, so that was the *right* call in that incident.
I feel no sympathy for a goalie who gets creamed b/c he's wandered out too far from his crease to play the puck...I do agree that when a player "snows" a goalie, it is done with bad intentions...its one those little things you do just to get under the skin of a player...I've done it, and I'll do it again if I have the opportunity but I dont see how it leads to taking a run at a goalie...you're jumping to extremes I think...its no different then a guy giving another player a face wash after the play...there is no way refs can police that all the time, let the players handle it...you mess with a goalie, you get thumped
I've seen it called before but not at the NHL level. IMO it should be an unsportsman like penalty. He could have pulled away or not stopped so sharply in the Goalies face. He did this simply to piss off Loungo and try to get him off his game. Its one of the little things I like to see called.
No, Wilson was merely avoiding running Luongo over. He had no room to move to either side and had to stop quickly. What wasnt right was Nash came in a stood up for Wilson(then being pushed around), then got pounced on by 3 panthers and no call.
Why the sarcasm? It brings a lot to the conversation.
I think the refs should call it every now and then. It used to be something that like would get you into a fight (I'm pretty sure it was some kind of unwritten rule???) but now that would probably fall under the instigator rule if a player went after the player that sprayed the goalie. Of course there will be the odd accident where the player is honestly trying not to spray the goalie while going for a loose puck around the crease.
That call was and is silly and should never be made in the pro game. You've got games filled with diving and obstruction and you and your other cohorts are trying to tell me that a little ice shower on the goaltender also needs to be cracked down on? Are you all devoid of common sense?
That's what the sarcasm is for. The NHL refs are already just barely competent and I find it extremely hilarious that there are some of you that actually side with the ref on that call and actually want more of that call made. Too funny.
You can easily tell that's not even his voice, and he get's excited over every little. It's tough to explain how he calls the game...it's definetly different though.
I take it that you have never played a competitive game of hockey in your life ...
Sweet; please make the connection for him then. How does an ice shower on a goalie lead to goalies being ran in the NHL? Please cite all the recent examples you can think of because I've never seen an ice shower lead to a goalie being ran in the NHL game. Obviously, I don't know anything; so, please, by all means, provide a detailed report on all incidents of this in the NHL.
You can easily tell that's not even his voice, and he get's excited over every little. It's tough to explain how he calls the game...it's definetly different though.
That comment right there is so utterly humorous and offbase that I can't even try to debate your other points right now.
Then please find a way to subside from your case of hysteria and acknowledge others' opinions.
When a goalie is snowed by opposing players, it is merely the first action leading towards legitimate physical contact. For you to even tolerate goalies getting sprayed by opposing players' intentional stops shows you have never played goaltender, have never refereed a game and have never taken a goalie's perspective in regards to this matter.
Often, defensemen will step in between and let the opposing player know of the consequences if their goalie is snowed. This leads to either the exact same thing being done to the opposition's goaltender, or one step further. Snowing a goaltender is a form of abuse that goalies should *not* have to put up with. It's against the rules when done intentionally and on purpose. Goaltenders are a team's most important players, and players are coached to defend them at all costs.
I've read all your posts in this thread and it seems you were obviously steamed for some reason last night, as nearly all your replies involved sarcasm and/or some sort of superiority buzz from you. Take a deep breath and return to normal, level-headed Lappy.
I agree. It is a blatant unsportmanlike penalty. everyone in the rink knows what you are doing. Same with most of the face washes in scrums.
Even I think an automatic minor for a facewash is a little to the extreme. If we did that, then there would be 10 penalties stemming from half of all scrums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan
Some refs have the good sense to just call one team in those scrums for a penalty.
This works wonders. I was lining a Midget AAA game last week, and the referee called put one team shorthanded after a scrum in the first minute (the team that started the scrum was SH)...they did it again three minutes later...referee did the same thing...not a single scrum took place after the whistle during the remaining 55-56 minutes because both teams knew that they would risk being shorthanded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
I know it is hard to get a steady level with so many referees and games, but it has to be the ambition of the league to get there.
And I can guarantee you that it is the league's ambition to get everybody as close to being on the same page as is humanly possible. That being said, and as you also admit, it is tough. With over 40 referees (not counting linesmen) in the NHL, it is impossible to get absolutely everybody on the same page as far as each referee's individual standards go. There will always be difference of opinion seen between one referee and another, no matter what we do. It is just a fact of life....but that is not to say that the league and referees will lack effort to reach that consistency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
By calling that a penalty, it does correctly encourage the forwards to not even try to stop and to just run over the goaltender.
You miss the point. The penalty was called because the showering of the goaltender was intentional. If a player stops in order to avoid running the goaltender, then the referee won't call a penalty, and if the goaltender gets a shower of ice in the process, he would have to settle with being glad he wasn't railroaded through the endboards. The intent is the key.
If a referee feels that a player showered a goaltender with ice intentionally, it should be an automatic minor penalty in my opinion. If it was not intentional, then no penalty will be assessed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyIsALegend
People complain when the referees miss the calls.
Well, icing a goaltender is an infraction that the officials are told to call, so why criticize them when they make it? As a goaltender myself, I hate having that happen because it's not allowed and borders goaltender interference/unsportsmanlike conduct. It may not be one of the 'biggest problems in hockey,' but I commend an official for having the guts to make that call.
Goalies get ran away too often now-a-days as opposed to a decade ago even, and one of the main reasons is because the hard pegs have been taken out of the posts and now they just use that small chip into the ice to secure it. Snowing a goaltender leads to goalies being ran, so that was the *right* call in that incident.
Exactly.
And about the net pegs...minor hockey only uses the ones with the small chips. In junior hockey and above, they use Marsh Pegs. They still have a peg that goes all the way through the ice and into the concrete foundation, but the pegs are not hard enough to keep the net in place no matter what. They still come off easy when the impact is hard enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
That comment right there is so utterly humorous and offbase that I can't even try to debate your other points right now.
He is a goaltender commenting on a goaltending subject. What are you besides a fan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
That call was and is silly and should never be made in the pro game. You've got games filled with diving and obstruction and you and your other cohorts are trying to tell me that a little ice shower on the goaltender also needs to be cracked down on? Are you all devoid of common sense?
That's what the sarcasm is for. The NHL refs are already just barely competent and I find it extremely hilarious that there are some of you that actually side with the ref on that call and actually want more of that call made. Too funny.
And I, as a player, coach and referee, find it hilarious that you think snowing a goaltender should be ignored just because there are other happenings going on during a game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyIsALegend
For you to even tolerate goalies getting sprayed by opposing players' intentional stops shows you have never played goaltender, have never refereed a game and have never taken a goalie's perspective in regards to this matter.
Then please find a way to subside from your case of hysteria and acknowledge others' opinions.
When a goalie is snowed by opposing players, it is merely the first action leading towards legitimate physical contact. For you to even tolerate goalies getting sprayed by opposing players' intentional stops shows you have never played goaltender, have never refereed a game and have never taken a goalie's perspective in regards to this matter.
Often, defensemen will step in between and let the opposing player know of the consequences if their goalie is snowed. This leads to either the exact same thing being done to the opposition's goaltender, or one step further. Snowing a goaltender is a form of abuse that goalies should *not* have to put up with. It's against the rules when done intentionally and on purpose. Goaltenders are a team's most important players, and players are coached to defend them at all costs.
I've read all your posts in this thread and it seems you were obviously steamed for some reason last night, as nearly all your replies involved sarcasm and/or some sort of superiority buzz from you. Take a deep breath and return to normal, level-headed Lappy.
I'm still waiting for your example; I made the offer to devildan as well. Show me some instances where NHL goalies have been ran because of an ice shower. You guys run on and on about your personal experiences, but those are not at issue here. What's at issue is whether such a call should be called in an NHL game. I don't care about your piss ant league just like you don't care about my piss ant league. We're talking about NHL players and the NHL game, nothing else. I'm more than happy to acknowledge your opinion about this once you give me some actual examples of what you stated; ditto everyone else. Again, your hockey experiences aren't at issue here nor are anyone else's. There are times to relate what you've experienced to a subject at hand, but this isn't one of them. What you're talking about, just like the others in agreement with you, are experiences at lower levels of organized hockey. It just doesn't happen in the NHL game like it does in other levels of hockey; that's what no one is seemingly capable of grasping here.
You miss the point. The penalty was called because the showering of the goaltender was intentional. If a player stops in order to avoid running the goaltender, then the referee won't call a penalty, and if the goaltender gets a shower of ice in the process, he would have to settle with being glad he wasn't railroaded through the endboards. The intent is the key.
No, I didn't miss the point; I was going all out sarcasm. Intent is unimportant at the NHL level in regards to this penalty. Shouldn't be called at the NHL level under any realistic circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
He is a goaltender commenting on a goaltending subject. What are you besides a fan?
He's a fan just as you are. Again, I re-emphasize that this is an NHL argument. To my knowledge, neither of you are NHL players; so, your opinions based on your own experiences at lower levels of hockey are irrelevant to the subject at hand just as mine are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
And I, as a player, coach and referee, find it hilarious that you think snowing a goaltender should be ignored just because there are other happenings going on during a game.
Not only do I think it should be ignored, but it has been ignored by NHL refs for many years already. So, rather than list your resume for me, why don't you provide some type of evidence as I have asked for from the others? What part of ice shavings being sprayed is so important in the scope of an NHL game that it should receive a minor penalty? Enlighten me about the subject at hand, not your personal experiences.
I absolutely agree with you22. I played all the way through to majors and don't think that my opinion on the game is worth any more than anyone elses around here. IF I had made it to the pros then I might feel differently but, if I had made it to the pros I probably wouldn't be hanging out on a hockey BB either.
This to me is a non issue. The refs are obviously calling more penalties to start this season just like they have done in the past. The infraction was a joke that would NEVER be called in the playoffs and as long as there are those kinds of inconsistencies in the way the game if officiated it just doesn't matter. To have someone "spray" you is now and always will be one of those things that players do to try and rile up the oppositions goalie. If it gets to them then two things happen, one, you get the satisfaction of getting into the goalies head and two, you get to realize that the guy playing amatuer hockey next to needs to ease up his grip a bit. In the pros I can't see it mattering at all. They have to have thicker skin than that.
Intent is unimportant at the NHL level in regards to this penalty. Shouldn't be called at the NHL level under any realistic circumstances.
Intent is a key factor no matter what level the game is at. In the end, hockey is hockey. As far as I see it, there should be one rulebook for all of hockey...much like soccer.
Just because it is the NHL does not mean that players should be allowed to take more liberties than they could when they came up through the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laperriere22
What part of ice shavings being sprayed is so important in the scope of an NHL game that it should receive a minor penalty? Enlighten me about the subject at hand, not your personal experiences.
Spraying a goaltender with ice shavings is not only dangerous to the goaltender's eyes, it is an unsportsmanlike act. There is a reason why the rulebook has an Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty...for stupid things like this.
NHL or not...if a referee feels an act is unsportsmanlike, he has the right to either give a warning, or a penalty if he feels it is more necessary (or if he has already issued a warning)...bottom line.
You're right the spraying of ice towards a goaltender is unsportsmanlike. We should call all the face washes and trash talk too. Because, hey that's ATLEAST as unsportsmanlike. Everytime someone uses unsportsmanlike language on the ice or from the bench the refs arm should reach for the sky. This way we can play special teams all night long. I like the spitting on the ice call too. It's unsanitary and potentially dangerous to the players; frankly I'm surprised the Players Assoc. has let it go on so long...
My biggest beef with officiating isn't usually a bad call; it's usually the hilarious inconsistency with which calls are made.
But last night was a jewel. Kimmo Timonen rifled a shot into Barrett Jackman while on the PP. The puck falls in front of Barrett and he turtles on it. In fairness to Jackman, he was hurt on the play though he would later return. Timonen, not about to give up on a PP especially when a whistle hasn't blown, skates up to Jackman and tries to poke the puck out. Replays seemed to indicate Timonen could see the puck and was trying to pull it out to resume play. The whistle is blown and Timonen gets a cheapshot crosscheck from behind. Who gets the calls? Timonen for slashing, Rycroft gets two as well. The first time I have ever seen slashing when the stick doesn't leave the ground. And it wasn't hard, malicious pokes either as you know Timonen isn't a dirty player. I was always under the impression that if you turtled on the puck, as long as people weren't malicious or aiming at your head, they could attempt to pry the puck out. Especially when they can see it.
My biggest beef with officiating isn't usually a bad call; it's usually the hilarious inconsistency with which calls are made.
But last night was a jewel. Kimmo Timonen rifled a shot into Barrett Jackman while on the PP. The puck falls in front of Barrett and he turtles on it. In fairness to Jackman, he was hurt on the play though he would later return. Timonen, not about to give up on a PP especially when a whistle hasn't blown, skates up to Jackman and tries to poke the puck out. Replays seemed to indicate Timonen could see the puck and was trying to pull it out to resume play. The whistle is blown and Timonen gets a cheapshot crosscheck from behind. Who gets the calls? Timonen for slashing, Rycroft gets two as well. The first time I have ever seen slashing when the stick doesn't leave the ground. And it wasn't hard, malicious pokes either as you know Timonen isn't a dirty player. I was always under the impression that if you turtled on the puck, as long as people weren't malicious or aiming at your head, they could attempt to pry the puck out. Especially when they can see it.
This is a lost cause thread everyone. Lappierre should be Andy VanHellemond's aid, he knows what's going on.
Safe to assume that you don't have any actual evidence of what I asked for then isn't it?
It's not a matter of me knowing it all, but a matter of me never seeing that called in the NHL before in my years of watching hockey. It's not only a rare call, but an unnecessary one because things don't happen in the pro game the way they do in lower levels of hockey. Most NHL goalies don't even react to it as it is and teams certainly don't take umbrage to it either. When it happens in the NHL game, it leads to absolutely nothing. That's my stance; if you can't provide any actual evidence to counter that, then it's not my problem.
My biggest beef with officiating isn't usually a bad call; it's usually the hilarious inconsistency with which calls are made.
But last night was a jewel. Kimmo Timonen rifled a shot into Barrett Jackman while on the PP. The puck falls in front of Barrett and he turtles on it. In fairness to Jackman, he was hurt on the play though he would later return. Timonen, not about to give up on a PP especially when a whistle hasn't blown, skates up to Jackman and tries to poke the puck out. Replays seemed to indicate Timonen could see the puck and was trying to pull it out to resume play. The whistle is blown and Timonen gets a cheapshot crosscheck from behind. Who gets the calls? Timonen for slashing, Rycroft gets two as well. The first time I have ever seen slashing when the stick doesn't leave the ground. And it wasn't hard, malicious pokes either as you know Timonen isn't a dirty player. I was always under the impression that if you turtled on the puck, as long as people weren't malicious or aiming at your head, they could attempt to pry the puck out. Especially when they can see it.
I watched that game myself and the call against Timonen is eerily similar to the call on Wilson that annoyed me to start this thread in the first place. That slashing call is something I've never seen called in the NHL either and it never should be. I understand that the refs wanted to make a statement that they don't want players doing what Timonen did. If that's the case though, they should blow the whistle quicker rather than make up a penalty against somebody.
I watched that game myself and the call against Timonen is eerily similar to the call on Wilson that annoyed me to start this thread in the first place. That slashing call is something I've never seen called in the NHL either and it never should be. I understand that the refs wanted to make a statement that they don't want players doing what Timonen did. If that's the case though, they should blow the whistle quicker rather than make up a penalty against somebody.
I agree, but if the refs would have blown the whistle Kimmo wouldn't have done it, the ref just sat there and waited for Kimmo to try to get the puck, then blew the whistle.
Safe to assume that you don't have any actual evidence of what I asked for then isn't it?
It's not a matter of me knowing it all, but a matter of me never seeing that called in the NHL before in my years of watching hockey. It's not only a rare call, but an unnecessary one because things don't happen in the pro game the way they do in lower levels of hockey. Most NHL goalies don't even react to it as it is and teams certainly don't take umbrage to it either. When it happens in the NHL game, it leads to absolutely nothing. That's my stance; if you can't provide any actual evidence to counter that, then it's not my problem.
I don't really know what you're talking about as far as me giving you evidence of something. Is it the comment that ANOTHER poster made about it leading to goalies getting run? ANOTHER poster made that comment, not me. Leave it to the OTHER poster to back-up his argument, I don't believe that it leads to goalies getting run. I, IN MY VERY OWN OPINION, believe that it's unsportsmanlike and worthy of a penalty. If you have never seen a scrum around a goalie after an opposing player snowed him then I don't know what to say, I have though (yes in the NHL).
I watched that game myself and the call against Timonen is eerily similar to the call on Wilson that annoyed me to start this thread in the first place. That slashing call is something I've never seen called in the NHL either and it never should be. I understand that the refs wanted to make a statement that they don't want players doing what Timonen did. If that's the case though, they should blow the whistle quicker rather than make up a penalty against somebody.
NHL officiating is just poor. I won't go so far as to say they favor one team over another, but the level of inconsistency I have seen this year is appalling. The NHL needs to step in and do something. The NHL rulebook needs to be more than a guidebook.
The NHL rulebook needs to be more than a guidebook.
That is all a rulebook is and all it can be for the most part in any league.
The rulebook gives definitions of the rules, and it is then up to the referee to interpret those definitions. He calls penalties based on his opinion of what is written in the rulebook....and the rulebook is written to give him that judgment.
