HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

GDT: Oilers @ Ducks--Dec 14th 2003

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2003, 03:37 PM
  #26
hmminvisiblecola1279
I just hope we can
 
hmminvisiblecola1279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: win a game
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,262
vCash: 500
just started listening to the game, am i missing much other than the score.

hmminvisiblecola1279 is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:39 PM
  #27
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
It's been a decent game to watch so far.

Silver is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:43 PM
  #28
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Brewer throws it toward the net, Horcoff kicks it to the front of the net, and it goes off of Giguere...they are reviewing it.

I don't know if it will count or not. Looks like it went off Salei's skate first, so I think it should count.

Silver is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:45 PM
  #29
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Whoa, no goal. I'd like to hear that one explained to me by someone in the know. Looks like a bad call there.

We have a powerplay coming up now though.

Silver is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:45 PM
  #30
hmminvisiblecola1279
I just hope we can
 
hmminvisiblecola1279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: win a game
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,262
vCash: 500
thanks silver sounds like a bad call.

hmminvisiblecola1279 is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:46 PM
  #31
windowlicker
Registered User
 
windowlicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Murky Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,180
vCash: 500
the Horcoff goal should have 100% been a goal... that was probably the biggest bull$hit call i have seen in a long time................. im a little speechless.. even the anaheim announcers were saying its a goal without a doubt

windowlicker is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:46 PM
  #32
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Our powerplay is such a mess. I have no idea what the units are supposed to be, it changes every powerplay. Any chance MacT can turn off the blender for a game or two and get a couple of set units working together?

All I want for Christmas...

Silver is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:47 PM
  #33
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmminvisiblecola
thanks silver sounds like a bad call.
Terrible call. Horcoff did kick it, but it definitely went off of Salei's skate before it ended up in the net. Should have counted.

Silver is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:50 PM
  #34
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Sounded like a perfectly good call to me. Rod and Morley say that they saw Horcoff kick it very clearly (and both agree that it was a good call). If there was a kicking motion, and it didn't touch a stick on the way in, it's not a goal. It doesn't matter if it deflected off of someone else on the way in.

Rule 57
d)... The goal shall not be allowed if the puck has been intentionally kicked with his skate or foot, using a distinct kicking motion, and subsequently enters the net.

Allan is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:51 PM
  #35
DaveONE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
that goal should of counted.. someone must of payed off the refs

DaveONE is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:51 PM
  #36
hmminvisiblecola1279
I just hope we can
 
hmminvisiblecola1279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: win a game
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,262
vCash: 500
between bad reffing,goals called back, pathetic pk and pp, and lapses of concentration this team just cannot catch a break. then again they are young but three pps in the first and no goal, absolutely brutal.

hmminvisiblecola1279 is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:53 PM
  #37
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveONE
that goal should of counted.. someone must of payed off the refs
Read the rule book before you whine about the refereeing. That was called right, to the word. Rule 57.

Allan is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:53 PM
  #38
windowlicker
Registered User
 
windowlicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Murky Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,180
vCash: 500
that dissallowed goal is really burning me up. theres No way that doesnt count, the rules are specific, and they should be followed. If i was Mac't, i would reserve about 4,000$ for my own xmas gift and just RIP into the video booth crew after this one.

I mean, again.. the Oil is dominating, outshooting, and this time actually outscoring someone,, yet this game is one bounce away from being "crap.. hope we can comeback from one goal down again".

Im just really steamed about that call...... it was a goal by all definitions.

windowlicker is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:53 PM
  #39
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
Sounded like a perfectly good call to me. Rod and Morley say that they saw Horcoff kick it very clearly (and both agree that it was a good call). If there was a kicking motion, and it didn't touch a stick on the way in, it's not a goal. It doesn't matter if it deflected off of someone else on the way in.

Rule 57
d)... The goal shall not be allowed if the puck has been intentionally kicked with his skate or foot, using a distinct kicking motion, and subsequently enters the net.
Yeah, but it didn't go into the net due to the kick, it went in because it went of the Duck defenceman's skate. If the puck didn't hit Salei, it would have gone right through the crease and out the other side.

Silver is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:55 PM
  #40
windowlicker
Registered User
 
windowlicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Murky Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
Read the rule book before you whine about the refereeing. That was called right, to the word. Rule 57.
there can be a kicking motion as long as it touches another solid object before going in. i seem to remember seeing Hull on some Det PP making some nice soccer passses.

windowlicker is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:55 PM
  #41
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
Read the rule book before you whine about the refereeing. That was called right, to the word. Rule 57.
Did you see it, or just hear it on the radio?

Horcoff kicked it across the front of the crease, then it deflects of Salei's toe and goes in. The fact that it was a kick is irrelevant, because it didn't go in off of Horcoff, it went in off of Salei.

Silver is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:55 PM
  #42
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
I know. But Horcoff did kick it, and it did subsequently end up in the net, and that's all the rule book said. Unless Salei intentionally kicked it in, it can't count. The rule is based on the last player to intentionally direct the puck, and I don't think Salei did that.

Allan is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:57 PM
  #43
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
By that logic you could never kick a pass then either, because it subsequently enters the net. Kicking the puck isn't like a glove pass or a high stick, the play doesn't get whistled down when you do it.

If the puck goes in off a Duck and it hasn't been touched by a high stick or gloved by an Oiler player, I don't see how you can call it off.

Silver is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 03:59 PM
  #44
sidelines
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Watching the game on PPV, and just noticed some things in the first period.

First off, Chistov sucks in his own end. Theres no other way to put it. Ok, first off he did a good job of coming back and taking Dvorak. But Dvoraks not his man. Hes a winger and needs to be covering his d-man. So once D-vo goes behind the net, Chistov moves out front and stands there. Everyone has there man tied up, but Chistov is just standing in front of the net doing nothing. So, Cross skates in and bam, 1-1 game. The announcers also mentioned he's a -9 this year and 8 of his 11 points have come on the powerplay. Another thing, Bell Express Vu is screwed. It wouldn't showed me the event ID until the game started, and I had to order it on channel 718 unstead of 421.. It's good to see Hemsky getting lots of PP time. Conklin looks good, that goal was a fluke. Hopefully the Oil will have a strong second period and get a win.

 
Old
12-14-2003, 03:59 PM
  #45
windowlicker
Registered User
 
windowlicker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Murky Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,180
vCash: 500
all this yapping changes nothing though. Although I did like what I saw in that first. Right now I see this as a close win for the Oil ... 2-1 or 3-2.

windowlicker is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 04:00 PM
  #46
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
By that logic you could never kick a pass then either, because it subsequently enters the net. Kicking the puck isn't like a glove pass or a high stick, the play doesn't get whistled down when you do it.
I don't follow you. If you kick a pass, and nobody shoots it, then there's no goal, so there's no problem. If you kick an pass, and someone shoots it into the net, somebody else has touched it, so there's also no problem. If you kick a pass, and it goes into the net, it wasn't really a pass, it was a kicked shot, so no goal.

Allan is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 04:05 PM
  #47
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
I don't follow you. If you kick a pass, and nobody shoots it, then there's no goal, so there's no problem. If you kick an pass, and someone shoots it into the net, somebody else has touched it, so there's also no problem. If you kick a pass, and it goes into the net, it wasn't really a pass, it was a kicked shot, so no goal.
Dammit, looks like we are eating crow and Allan is correct.

Rule 70:

(b) A puck that deflects into the net off of an attacking player who does not use a distinct kicking motion, is a legitimate goal.

(NOTE) The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:

1. A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled NO GOAL.
2. A kicked puck that deflects off ANY stick (excluding the goalkeeper's stick) shall be ruled a GOOD GOAL. After the puck has been kicked, makes contact with any stick and then deflects off any player (excluding the goalkeeper) and into the net will still be ruled a GOOD GOAL.
3. The player who kicks the puck and has the puck deflect off his OWN stick and then into the net, this will be ruled a GOOD GOAL.

The Anaheim color guys didn't get that one right either, they thought it should have counted

My apologies Allan.

Silver is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 04:06 PM
  #48
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
the puck goes in off a Duck and it hasn't been touched by a high stick or gloved by an Oiler player, I don't see how you can call it off.
Sorry, missed the second part. The rule about a puck directed into the net by a kick doesn't say "directly into the net", unfortunately. I don't agree, either, but that's the rule. Also 70a covers this even more clearly than 57d

(a) Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or Official.

Like the rule or not, it's pretty clear. Too bad for Horcoff.

Allan is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 04:08 PM
  #49
Allan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: United Nations
Posts: 1,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
My apologies Allan.
Quite alright. Sorry to double the post about the second rule. I was having some trouble with this one, too, because in the Hockey Canada rule book, which I am far more used to (I'm a referee myself), that rule doesn't exist. You have to kick the puck directly in, which makes far more sense to me.

Allan is offline  
Old
12-14-2003, 04:10 PM
  #50
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan
Quite alright. Sorry to double the post about the second rule. I was having some trouble with this one, too, because in the Hockey Canada rule book, which I am far more used to (I'm a referee myself), that rule doesn't exist. You have to kick the puck directly in, which makes far more sense to me.
So can I start complaining about the stupid rule now?


Whew, their goon almost scored on us! Yikes.

Silver is offline  
Closed Thread

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 11:23 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.