HFBoards

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

#51: Penguins @ Flyers - January 24, 2010 - 12:30 PM (ET)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-25-2010, 05:38 PM
  #776
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbr2 View Post
I agree.

I don't understand how they can treat that as a penalty.

It was implemented to stop people from shooting the puck out for a line change, so it really should be like Icing

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2010, 07:05 PM
  #777
ilovetheflyers8
Registered User
 
ilovetheflyers8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: D.C.
Country: French Guiana Independentist
Posts: 4,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kambo View Post
Mostly because the close games are officiating **** storms like yesterday. Sure we might have gotten a PP with 46 seconds left, but was it a surprise to anyone that the Pens got a PP with 3 minutes left? It seems that no matter what, they always get one within the last 5 minutes of a game against us. If the roles were reversed last night, what are the chances that Timonen's penalty would have never been called?
You mean the puck over the boards call? Wouldn't they have to call that? There isn't really a way to avoid that, is there?

ilovetheflyers8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2010, 07:20 PM
  #778
Jules801
Just Some Broad
 
Jules801's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Good Ol' Glassboro
Country: Israel
Posts: 6,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quacker912 View Post
Ick. I felt like I had to cover myself up with him looking at me like that! Creepo!!

Jules801 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2010, 08:18 PM
  #779
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
It was implemented to stop people from shooting the puck out for a line change, so it really should be like Icing
exactly.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2010, 09:09 PM
  #780
thevoice
 
thevoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbr2 View Post
Man Lav is not happy about the calls. Good for him. It's about time someone says something.
I got pretty beat up in here for blaming the refs on the pathetic attempt to call a good game yesterday, specifically the two calls in the first period. (Hartnell getting penalized for being cross-checked into Johnson, and Richard's goal being disallowed when a penalty was upcoming on the Pens.)

Several people, who apparently think goals are easy to come by in this type of contest, thought the refereeing was a non-factor in the loss. Obviously, many of the people with this logic have never actually played the game. They probably think that Gretzky scored a goal in every game and had a hat trick every time he faced a back-up goalie. Not to mention the power-play. Quoting 1 for 8 statistics as if we were a man up for 16 minutes. Ridiculous. The game is hard enough and goals are hard to come by, especially in a match-up like this one, without having to overcome the refs as well as the opposition.

Some made the comments to the like of, even if the goal counted, two goals aren't going to win you many games in the NHL, and NEVER against the Penguins.

This type of lacksadaisical outlook ****ed me off enough today to look up a couple of facts.

1) There have already been ATLEAST 120 games this season in which the winning team has scored 2 or fewer goals.

2) The ALL MIGHTY Penguins have already played 18 games this season in which they have scored 2 or fewer goals, including 5 games in which they scored only one goal, and 5 games in which they were shut-out.

As I've already stated, when you play this game, it's hard enough to beat your opponent. You shouldn't have to beat the refs as well.

The officiating yesterday was heinous.

thevoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2010, 11:19 PM
  #781
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
1) You have too much time on your hands.

2) The Flyers average 2.78 GA/G. Score less than 3 goals, and you should expect to lose.

Blaming the game on the refs is lackadaisical. Why did we have abbreviated PPs? In part because our PP was sloppy and it was leading to penalties against. If our PP is crisp, controlling the puck, etc. then its less likely that we're getting abbreviated PPs.

We scored 1 goal...perhaps it would have been 2-0, but at that point it was 1-0. We didn't get the kill, and we didn't score again the rest of the game (and there was more than enough time and chances).

Shoulda. Coulda. Woulda.

Nevermind that the first goal we scored was on a really really weak call on Crosby.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2010, 11:40 PM
  #782
GoneFullHextall
JR=clueless
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 35,012
vCash: 50
Look it sucks we lost the game yesterday on a PPG late, but the Timonen call was the correct call. It wasnt like the Carter penalty last year in game 2.
It was a legit call and has been a penalty for how many seasons now?
Would the people who are *****ing it shouldnt be a penalty, complain if Gonchar did that and it wasnt called? I am going to guess we probably even have a thread on the subject complaining about it.
Forget about it and move on to the next game.

GoneFullHextall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 09:22 AM
  #783
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 114,588
vCash: 505
Even though I don't use it as an excuse for why they lost, Laviolette should have complained about the officiating. He might come off as a whiner, but he kills the guys over discipline and penalties, he should stand up for them if he truly thinks they got screwed in this case. It's not ok all the time but it is this time.

It plays in the minds of the refs next time, much like it does in the playoffs. How often in the playoffs does a coach complain about a call or the refs in a game and the next game all of a sudden the other team gets nailed repeatedly for it?

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

Stop Feeding the Rumor-Monger

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2014 (sorry it's late)
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 09:26 AM
  #784
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Just because we had 8 PP doesnt mean the refs didnt suck

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 09:32 AM
  #785
Scoopyten
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hovercraft View Post
Just because we had 8 PP doesnt mean the refs didnt suck
The refs were inconsistent and did a poor job both ways. That doesn't mean they're why the Flyers lost.

Scoopyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 09:43 AM
  #786
medicman
 
medicman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Myerstown PA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,144
vCash: 500
I so love versduh. Their website on the NHL page had us listed as third in the Eastern Conference. Doing the dog head twist to a whistle(and causing whiplash), checked NHL.com and found we were third in the division. Guess somebody should educate them on the breakdown.

medicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 09:47 AM
  #787
HoverCarle*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,859
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to HoverCarle*
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
The refs were inconsistent and did a poor job both ways. That doesn't mean they're why the Flyers lost.
I didnt say it was why the FLyers lost. But people still have a right to complain about them. We lost because we couldnt score on a backup

HoverCarle* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 10:11 AM
  #788
Kambo
 
Kambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pennsauken, NJ
Country: Ireland
Posts: 5,357
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kambo
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSaq View Post
The refs were inconsistent and did a poor job both ways. That doesn't mean they're why the Flyers lost.
Doesn't mean we still wouldn't have lost, but they're the reason we didn't take a 2 goal lead, which in the very least, would have taken it to overtime.

Kambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 10:31 AM
  #789
IrishSniper87
Registered User
 
IrishSniper87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Media, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetheflyers8 View Post
You mean the puck over the boards call? Wouldn't they have to call that? There isn't really a way to avoid that, is there?
True, I have no problem with the puck over the boards call. It was the best call the refs made all night, because they couldn't screw it up and their is nothing to argue. Everyone knows it is not allowed to throw the puck over the boards from your own zone. If teams could do it, they would do it all the time and ruin the game.

IrishSniper87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 11:11 AM
  #790
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Even though I don't use it as an excuse for why they lost, Laviolette should have complained about the officiating. He might come off as a whiner, but he kills the guys over discipline and penalties, he should stand up for them if he truly thinks they got screwed in this case. It's not ok all the time but it is this time.

It plays in the minds of the refs next time, much like it does in the playoffs. How often in the playoffs does a coach complain about a call or the refs in a game and the next game all of a sudden the other team gets nailed repeatedly for it?
Exactly. By putting it out there, he's put it in the minds of the refs that everything Hartnell does isn't necessarily a penalty.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 11:46 AM
  #791
GoneFullHextall
JR=clueless
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 35,012
vCash: 50
maybe if we score on that 5 on 3 It wouldnt of mattered. Might have changed the whole complextion of the game.

GoneFullHextall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 11:57 AM
  #792
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishSniper87 View Post
True, I have no problem with the puck over the boards call. It was the best call the refs made all night, because they couldn't screw it up and their is nothing to argue. Everyone knows it is not allowed to throw the puck over the boards from your own zone. If teams could do it, they would do it all the time and ruin the game.
Teams shouldn't be allowed to do it, but it creates a problem similar to that posed by free reign to ice the puck. And should be punished accordingly. The punishment is unnecessarily harsh.

UseYourAllusion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 12:01 PM
  #793
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion View Post
Teams shouldn't be allowed to do it, but it creates a problem similar to that posed by free reign to ice the puck. And should be punished accordingly. The punishment is unnecessarily harsh.
What irks me is that -- in theory -- you are being punished for purposefully delaying the game, when often the player had zero intention to put the puck out of play. Just a really poorly thought rule, just like the slashing rule. The slashing one is perhaps even dumber, since everyone knows composites split in two without much warning.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 12:19 PM
  #794
JSTAFF
Registered User
 
JSTAFF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: Italy
Posts: 4,386
vCash: 500
This thread is still going on? Let it go you ******s. We lost.

JSTAFF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 12:50 PM
  #795
GoneFullHextall
JR=clueless
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 35,012
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
What irks me is that -- in theory -- you are being punished for purposefully delaying the game, when often the player had zero intention to put the puck out of play. Just a really poorly thought rule.
I honestly think they have to leave the rule as is. You want to leave it to the discression of a ref if a player intentionally put the puck over the boards or not?
Maybe if they had the warning rule. You do it once you get the warning from the ref. 2nd time its a penalty. But if you do it anytime in say the last 3 minutes its a penalty.
I dont think you should be allowed to throw the puck over the boards time after time.

GoneFullHextall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 01:09 PM
  #796
thevoice
 
thevoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thevoice View Post
Was Kerry Fraser the ref today? How Hartnell is penalized for getting cross-checked into the goalie is beyond me? In the case of the Richard's goal, how is play allowed to continue if there is a penalty upcoming on the Flyers? Those two situations, back to back and separated by only seconds, was a game changer. The Flyers should have been up 2-0, but instead were tied 1-1. This was ridiculous. Other than the A**HOLE chant after the Hartnell penalty, why did they (Laviolette) not raise hell after that call? I could only catch the first period, but, that was enough to p*** me off. Of course, being national announcers, I don't think the non-goal was covered because I still don't know how that was disallowed?
I didn't want to have to resort to quoting my own post, but, I'm getting tired of hearing about this puck over the board thing. That is not the p***-poor refereeing we are complaining about. I heard it mentioned that the rule is stupid, and should be penalized no worse than an icing, resulting in a face-off in your end with no line change. But it is not an example of the refereeing people are complaining about, at least in the last 4 pages anyway.

thevoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 01:20 PM
  #797
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireHolmgrenDotCom View Post
I honestly think they have to leave the rule as is. You want to leave it to the discression of a ref if a player intentionally put the puck over the boards or not?
Maybe if they had the warning rule. You do it once you get the warning from the ref. 2nd time its a penalty. But if you do it anytime in say the last 3 minutes its a penalty.
I dont think you should be allowed to throw the puck over the boards time after time.
Right, but that would be kind of clear. As said earlier in the discussion of that particular rule: it was usually pretty obvious when someone did it on purpose before. I also understand the need for the rule, because the new icing rules would incentivize chucking it out of play w/out the rule.

However, no one can look at the play Timonen made and objectively claim he was purposefully putting the puck out of play. He was trying to play it up to Hartnell. That's where the intent of the rule isn't remotely in play, and it leads to a cheap penalty against...just don't like that, and I never like it when that penalty is called. Probably cost us at least a point in the standings.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 01:20 PM
  #798
thevoice
 
thevoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
1) You have too much time on your hands.

2) The Flyers average 2.78 GA/G. Score less than 3 goals, and you should expect to lose.

Blaming the game on the refs is lackadaisical. Why did we have abbreviated PPs? In part because our PP was sloppy and it was leading to penalties against. If our PP is crisp, controlling the puck, etc. then its less likely that we're getting abbreviated PPs.

We scored 1 goal...perhaps it would have been 2-0, but at that point it was 1-0. We didn't get the kill, and we didn't score again the rest of the game (and there was more than enough time and chances).

Shoulda. Coulda. Woulda.

Nevermind that the first goal we scored was on a really really weak call on Crosby.

OH YEAH! Time is all I have. Especially the 15 minutes it took to gather those numbers. Wow, what intense research. I can't tell you the score sheets and game logs I had to go through to compile those numbers. It was excruciating. Please, don't anybody out there let on that with this "fancy new internet thingy" it's not all that time consuming to pull up such basic information.

But, since you're so hung up on averages, maybe we should notify the NHL that we want to forfeit 5 of our wins because we didn't cover our GA average. I don't think those 10 points are that important any way. Just like that ONE goal, in a ONE GOAL GAME wasn't that important!

thevoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 01:29 PM
  #799
GoneFullHextall
JR=clueless
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 35,012
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post

However, no one can look at the play Timonen made and objectively claim he was purposefully putting the puck out of play. He was trying to play it up to Hartnell. That's where the intent of the rule isn't remotely in play, and it leads to a cheap penalty against...just don't like that, and I never like it when that penalty is called. Probably cost us at least a point in the standings.
I agree that Timonen at that point had no intent of doing what he did, he wouldnt have a reason to in a tie game.
That said, I stand by my stance if they are going to have the rule they need to leave it as is. We have referees out of position on goals for God sakes, you think they would be in good position to see if a puck has been on edge and accidently flipped into the stands?
I also think the players(some anyway) are good enough where they could make it look like an accident.
The Flyers had plenty of chances before that and even after that on the weak PP the Flyers got in the closing minute and change and then had Emery pulled and couldnt get the job done.

GoneFullHextall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2010, 01:37 PM
  #800
UseYourAllusion
Registered User
 
UseYourAllusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 6,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireHolmgrenDotCom View Post
I honestly think they have to leave the rule as is. You want to leave it to the discression of a ref if a player intentionally put the puck over the boards or not?
Maybe if they had the warning rule. You do it once you get the warning from the ref. 2nd time its a penalty. But if you do it anytime in say the last 3 minutes its a penalty.
I dont think you should be allowed to throw the puck over the boards time after time.
You shouldn't. But the play is most analogous to icing, and the current method of dissuading constant icing works. I don't see why application the icing rule wouldn't have a similar effect in preventing teams from throwing it out of the rink on a whim, without over punishing, as the current rule clearly does.

UseYourAllusion 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 12:58 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.