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

Player of the Game & The Good, The Bad, The Redden: Game #68 vs. Philadelphia Flyers

View Poll Results: Player of the Game: Game #68 vs. Philadelphia Flyers
Artem Anisimov 0 0%
Ryan Callahan 207 93.67%
Brandon Dubinsky 4 1.81%
Dan Girardi 0 0%
Henrik Lundqvist 6 2.71%
Ryan McDonagh 0 0%
Vaclav Prospal 0 0%
Michael Sauer 1 0.45%
Marc Staal 0 0%
Mats Zuccarello 3 1.36%
Other 0 0%
Voters: 221. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-06-2011, 08:10 PM
  #126
Whoot Whoot
Biased-NYR-Homer
 
Whoot Whoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Jeez I thought that last shot of the game was going to beat Henrik.

Great effort tonight! Lets beat the ducks. Ill be there in the 2nd row.

Whoot Whoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 08:17 PM
  #127
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Callahan was easily the POTG.
4 Goal night. Denied a 2-on-1 moments before Zuccs made it 3-0. Sprung the puck to AA for a primary assist. He was buzzing all night long.

Dubi, Fedetenko, McDonagh, and Lundqvist played terrific hockey. McCabe and Gilroy weren't brutal. Stepan could have had a couple of points tonight too. Gaborik looked a little swifter tonight. I like how he responded to Steeg too.

Can't really complain about any player tonight. Nor the coaching staff. Staal didn't play 30 minutes, McD played over 20 minutes, everyone got decent ice-time, and our special teams was exceptional.

I'll be impressed if they play like this for a couple of weeks. 1 Night isn't anything.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 08:22 PM
  #128
Loffen
Wen Kroy
 
Loffen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Soft euro
Posts: 17,422
vCash: 500
Cally & Zuke's goals


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yebcyFn2ycc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATEt5dGxlRs

Loffen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 08:44 PM
  #129
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,433
vCash: 500
huge wi n for tis team.

At tis time of year against a team they were 0-4 against?

Could not be a bigger win

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 08:51 PM
  #130
RangerBlues
Registered User
 
RangerBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BRONX NYC
Posts: 1,599
vCash: 500
"What an egregious turnover"

RangerBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 09:01 PM
  #131
NYR94
Registered User
 
NYR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,724
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR94
Quote:
RT @RoobEagles: 7-0 loss at NYR is Flyers' most lopsided shutout loss in 17 years -- since Jan. 6, 1994 (8-0 at Dallas) ... four assists for Russ Courtnall


it's really worst regular season shutout loss (8-0 loss to Buffalo in 2001 playoffs)

The Flyers owned the Rangers before this game. It needs to be used as a confidence and momentum builder.

NYR94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 09:15 PM
  #132
johnnydollaz89*
7 More Wins!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,701
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to johnnydollaz89*
Callahan FTW!!!!

johnnydollaz89* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 09:37 PM
  #133
Swept In Seven
Disciple of The Zook
 
Swept In Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9,319
vCash: 500
damn Cally had a party out there

Swept In Seven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 10:33 PM
  #134
Wraparounds
Powerful Wizard
 
Wraparounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,383
vCash: 500
Front page is updated, complete with youtube from Jesse Spector, Loffen, Seth, and hockeyfights.com!

Wraparounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 10:38 PM
  #135
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 35,037
vCash: 500
Amazing. That 2nd goal was one of the most amazing bottle-poppers I've ever seen. What a snipe! Took the cap clear off and spilled the contents all over the net. His hattrick goal was another awesome shot, and an awesome defensive play to boot. Best part was right before that play I yelled "Hey Cally I've never seen a hattrick before!!", and five seconds later my man delivers. Thanks for posting.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 10:57 PM
  #136
Wraparounds
Powerful Wizard
 
Wraparounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,383
vCash: 500
This was one of the best performances all season.

PotG: Cally
The Good: Dubi, Henrik, Zucca, Girardi, McDonagh
The Bad: LOL, Richards
The Redden: LOL, Versteeg

Wraparounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 10:58 PM
  #137
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,900
vCash: 500
What did Steeg do exactly this game?

BlueshirtBlitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 11:44 PM
  #138
Machinehead
Moderator
Purple Hayes
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 35,037
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
What did Steeg do exactly this game?
He got into a minor spat with Gaborik. The zebras jumped in before gloves were dropped. His giveaway didn't help either. I knew he was a mistake for the Flyers.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2011, 11:46 PM
  #139
JeffMangum
#meatisbeat
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 56,816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
What did Steeg do exactly this game?
Made numerous egregious turnovers, one that was basically a tape-to-tape pass to Callahan.

__________________

#TannerGlass2014
SEEN YOUR VIDEO!
#SheWentToHarvard
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 12:13 AM
  #140
n8
WAAAAAAA!!!
 
n8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: san francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,405
vCash: 500


This thread and the OP was legendary.
Dubi's fight against Richards was legendary.
Callahan was legendary.
Lundqvist was legendary.
Boyle going after Shelley. legend - wait for it - dary.

Buuuuuuuut...

we've seen the Rangers trample all over an opponent and not really bring the momentum through to the next games. So until we can put together 3-4 games in row like this, I'm gonna keep my excitement in check.


n8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 12:23 AM
  #141
Pugs35
Registered User
 
Pugs35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 1,050
vCash: 500
Loved the home whites. Bring 'em back.

Pugs35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 12:27 AM
  #142
trilobyte
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 12,670
vCash: 500
I forgot to hand a large portion of the Bad, or perhaps the Redden, to Versteeg and Zherdev. My apologies go out to those two gentlemen.

Zherdev. What a predictable disappearing act. He should have been a magician instead of a hockey player. Oh well, as long as he plays for some team not called the Rangers, it's all good.

trilobyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 01:24 AM
  #143
skymachine
Registered User
 
skymachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,184
vCash: 500
Good:

- #24 (POTG)
- Dubinsky and MZA with awesome games
- Henrik
- Getting to watch this game at the Mandalay Bay in Vegas
- Destroying the Flyers, at home and on NBC nonetheless
- White jerseys at home, they should do this more often, nice change of pace.
- That the Rangers are coming to California this week

Bad:

- Putting $100 on lucky 7 after the game ended and losing it.

Redden:

- None


Last edited by skymachine: 03-07-2011 at 01:41 AM.
skymachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 04:03 AM
  #144
Zuccarello Awesome*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
Oh also, I know it's over and doesn't matter at all, but I thought of another reason why Avery's goal should've counted, and how the wording of the rule should be changed.

What physically caused the puck to go into the net? Let's assume that Avery did use a "distinct kicking motion," ok? Did Avery's "kicking motion" cause the puck to move into the net? Or was it the force of the shot/pass by Sauer that DEFLECTED off Avery's skate that caused the puck to travel into the net? I think everyone can answer this objectively and clearly.

Sauer's shot/pass is what gave the puck the momentum / force to go in the net. All Avery's skate did was deflect it, causing it to change direction and go into the net. This is how the rule should be worded. "Kicking motion" on its own should be irrelevant. If the kicking motion is what solely caused the puck to go into the net, then it's no goal. However, if the puck had enough momentum on its own already (from a pass or shot) and the puck simply deflected off a skate that happened to be in the middle of a "kicking motion," then it's a good goal. Am I being clear enough? For example, if the puck was sitting still on the ice and Avery kicks it in, it's not a goal. But if the puck already has velocity / force / trajectory TOWARDS the general area of the net and a skate just re-directs its path into the net, even if it's with a "kicking motion," it should be a good goal.



Another somewhat related, but mostly unrelated note:

Why can't you hand-pass in the offensive zone or the neutral zone? Like, why did they ever make that a rule? If you don't have a stick and your down on the ice, but you have the presence of mind to sweep the puck (without closing your hand on it, of course) through a defenders leg and onto the tape of your teammate wide open in the slot, why shouldn't you be able to do that? I can't think of any reason why this would ruin the integrity of the game, or make it harder on d-men, or give anyone an unfair advantage. It's not like players would ever choose to pass the puck with their hand over their stick, but if you lose your stick or you're stick is being tied up and the puck is coming to you waist high, why can't you fist bump it over to your teammate in the offensive or neutral zone? If anyone can give me a legitimate reason for that, I'll wear the avatar of your choice for a week. But yea, I think it's a rule the league could look into amending. As of right now, it really just creates more unnecessary whistles, while stifling creativity. I think we can all agree that the game is better with fewer whistles, and this just seems like a no-brainer to me.

Zuccarello Awesome* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 04:43 AM
  #145
Maineice11
Registered User
 
Maineice11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maine
Country: United States
Posts: 6,383
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Maineice11
Quote:
Boyle was assessed an instigator by the laughably inept Stephen Walkom, who spent the afternoon auditioning with refereeing partner Francois St. Laurent for lead roles in the new NBC sitcom, "Clueless Refs."
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...dnXG0UX8KLgtxN

haha that is a great line by Larry Brooks of the New York Post!

Maineice11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 05:05 AM
  #146
KingStian
Registered User
 
KingStian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Norway
Posts: 686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuccarello Awesome View Post
Oh also, I know it's over and doesn't matter at all, but I thought of another reason why Avery's goal should've counted, and how the wording of the rule should be changed.

What physically caused the puck to go into the net? Let's assume that Avery did use a "distinct kicking motion," ok? Did Avery's "kicking motion" cause the puck to move into the net? Or was it the force of the shot/pass by Sauer that DEFLECTED off Avery's skate that caused the puck to travel into the net? I think everyone can answer this objectively and clearly.

Sauer's shot/pass is what gave the puck the momentum / force to go in the net. All Avery's skate did was deflect it, causing it to change direction and go into the net. This is how the rule should be worded. "Kicking motion" on its own should be irrelevant. If the kicking motion is what solely caused the puck to go into the net, then it's no goal. However, if the puck had enough momentum on its own already (from a pass or shot) and the puck simply deflected off a skate that happened to be in the middle of a "kicking motion," then it's a good goal. Am I being clear enough? For example, if the puck was sitting still on the ice and Avery kicks it in, it's not a goal. But if the puck already has velocity / force / trajectory TOWARDS the general area of the net and a skate just re-directs its path into the net, even if it's with a "kicking motion," it should be a good goal.
The problem with your reasoning is that the shot unlikely had been a goal if Avery had not touched it. The rule is very straightforward. It does not matter if it was the momentum from the shot or Avery who saw that the puck went in the goal, as long as he has a distinct kicking motion. Avery had that. As the puck hit the skate, the foot was in motion. On Cally's goal that was allowed, he had stopped the movement of the foot when the puck hit the skate. He changed direction with foot, but was not kicking. He is allowed to change direction with the skate, as long as he does not kick the puck.

You had been furious when the Flyers had gotten a goal allowed that way. There were not huge protests either when the referee announced the annulment either.

Regardless of whether we had lost the match by one goal, we could not used the annulment of Avery's goal as any excuse. It was the right decision. The officials didn't have a great match, but they had it right both times it went to Toronto.

KingStian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 06:00 AM
  #147
Mio41
Ron Harris #3
 
Mio41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,505
vCash: 500
Everytime the Rangers scored that moron put Jody Shelley out the next shift...

Mio41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 06:42 AM
  #148
Zuccarello Awesome*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingStian View Post
The problem with your reasoning is that the shot unlikely had been a goal if Avery had not touched it. The rule is very straightforward. It does not matter if it was the momentum from the shot or Avery who saw that the puck went in the goal, as long as he has a distinct kicking motion. Avery had that. As the puck hit the skate, the foot was in motion. On Cally's goal that was allowed, he had stopped the movement of the foot when the puck hit the skate. He changed direction with foot, but was not kicking. He is allowed to change direction with the skate, as long as he does not kick the puck.

You had been furious when the Flyers had gotten a goal allowed that way. There were not huge protests either when the referee announced the annulment either.

Regardless of whether we had lost the match by one goal, we could not used the annulment of Avery's goal as any excuse. It was the right decision. The officials didn't have a great match, but they had it right both times it went to Toronto.
Nah, that's a problem with your comprehension of what I wrote. It's tricky to explain and I tried to be as clear as possible, but that's not what I was saying. I didn't mean that you can only kick it in if it would've been a goal anyway. That's absurd; you can't assume goals and that's not even close to what I'm suggesting. I just meant that you can't KICK a loose puck that's lying on the ice in the crease into the net. But you can "kick" a shot/pass (like Sauer's on the Avery no-goal) into the net because you're simply re-directing the puck that already has momentum (regardless of the kicking "motion" that Avery exhibited and regardless of its initial trajectory) into the net.


Reasoning: It's a skill play to get a skate on a moving puck and re-direct it on goal, even if you display a "distinct kicking motion." It's not a skill play if you just kick a stationary puck over the goal line. Do you understand what I'm saying now? I know it's kind of confusing. And I guess one problem with my suggestion is then you leave it to the referees discretion to determine where to draw the line on what is a "moving puck" and what is not a "moving puck." I guess it's not that big of an issue to begin with as it doesn't happen all that often anyway.

Zuccarello Awesome* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 07:20 AM
  #149
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuccarello Awesome View Post
Nah, that's a problem with your comprehension of what I wrote. It's tricky to explain and I tried to be as clear as possible, but that's not what I was saying. I didn't mean that you can only kick it in if it would've been a goal anyway. That's absurd; you can't assume goals and that's not even close to what I'm suggesting. I just meant that you can't KICK a loose puck that's lying on the ice in the crease into the net. But you can "kick" a shot/pass (like Sauer's on the Avery no-goal) into the net because you're simply re-directing the puck that already has momentum (regardless of the kicking "motion" that Avery exhibited and regardless of its initial trajectory) into the net.


Reasoning: It's a skill play to get a skate on a moving puck and re-direct it on goal, even if you display a "distinct kicking motion." It's not a skill play if you just kick a stationary puck over the goal line. Do you understand what I'm saying now? I know it's kind of confusing. And I guess one problem with my suggestion is then you leave it to the referees discretion to determine where to draw the line on what is a "moving puck" and what is not a "moving puck." I guess it's not that big of an issue to begin with as it doesn't happen all that often anyway.
Are you really still arguing this? The call was correct under the league's consistent interpretation of the rule. Whether or not it was a "skill play" does not matter.

The test can really be boiled down to this: "Was the foot moving forward when the puck hit it?" If so, it's a distinct kicking motion and the Toronto is going to say no goal.

It doesn't matter if the player didn't intend to kick the puck in, it doesn't matter if the player was being knocked down, and it certainly doesn't matter if it was a "skill play." If the foot is moving forward when the puck hits it and goes into the net, it is not a goal.

A strong argument can be made that the rule should be abolished and it should be permissible to kick the puck in (perhaps with the implementation of a different qualifier that results in no goal calls to prevent dangerous plays -- such as the skate can't leave the ice, etc.).

The answer to the question in Avery's case was that the foot was moving forward when it made contact with the puck. End of discussion -- no goal.

The answer to the question in Callahan's case was that the foot was stationary when it made contact with the puck.

If you still don't understand the difference between the two, go watch the highlights of those two goals from last night's game.

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 08:42 AM
  #150
surGeon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Norway
Posts: 165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
Are you really still arguing this? The call was correct under the league's consistent interpretation of the rule. Whether or not it was a "skill play" does not matter.

The test can really be boiled down to this: "Was the foot moving forward when the puck hit it?" If so, it's a distinct kicking motion and the Toronto is going to say no goal.

It doesn't matter if the player didn't intend to kick the puck in, it doesn't matter if the player was being knocked down, and it certainly doesn't matter if it was a "skill play." If the foot is moving forward when the puck hits it and goes into the net, it is not a goal.

A strong argument can be made that the rule should be abolished and it should be permissible to kick the puck in (perhaps with the implementation of a different qualifier that results in no goal calls to prevent dangerous plays -- such as the skate can't leave the ice, etc.).

The answer to the question in Avery's case was that the foot was moving forward when it made contact with the puck. End of discussion -- no goal.

The answer to the question in Callahan's case was that the foot was stationary when it made contact with the puck.

If you still don't understand the difference between the two, go watch the highlights of those two goals from last night's game.
He's saying it's a bad rule, so your argument that it's a rule is kinda moot.

I agree with him. Whether or not the player makes a "kicking motion" is too arbitrary in my view. The relevant difference between kicking the puck in and deflecting the puck in with your foot is not in whether the foot is moving forward. The difference is whether or not the puck is hitting your foot or whether your foot is hitting the puck. If the rule is meant to prevent deflections like the one in the game, then I disagree with the rule.

surGeon 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 01:13 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.