Eleven Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 What I consider high scoring areas is the slot between the circles and the area below towards the net. LA works hard to get pucks to the slot and the crease and just pounds it. Most of NY shots are from inside and outside the circles. Shot chart: http://scores.espn.g...ameId=400560755 Quick, someone tell the Sabres! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Quick, someone tell the Sabres! No not yet you fools. In 2015 we can explain it to them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 There's a scoring area now? I thought there was just a defensive zone. I always knew there was a scoring area. Just didn't know both teams had one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Anybody still upset the Sabres couldn't swing a deal for Nash and Richards? I bet Leino is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Anybody still upset the Sabres couldn't swing a deal for Nash and Richards? I bet Leino is. Who is this Leino, you speak of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelo Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I can see the Kings sweeping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 So how was the 3rd LA goal in Game 3 not called as goaltender interference? What was the rationale there? Sure, the NY player, after the puck went in, shoved the LA player King and King fell on Lundqvist, but 1-2 seconds before, King was pushing himself right between Lundqvist and the NY player, and limiting Lundqvist's ability to move. Even the NBC commentators mentioned it interfered with Lundqvist's ability to play. And the reason I'm mentioning it now - my DVR didn't record the game and I missed that part of the game, so I recorded it this morning on the replay. Unbelievably bad call, and it changed the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 So how was the 3rd LA goal in Game 3 not called as goaltender interference? What was the rationale there? Sure, the NY player, after the puck went in, shoved the LA player King and King fell on Lundqvist, but 1-2 seconds before, King was pushing himself right between Lundqvist and the NY player, and limiting Lundqvist's ability to move. Even the NBC commentators mentioned it interfered with Lundqvist's ability to play. And the reason I'm mentioning it now - my DVR didn't record the game and I missed that part of the game, so I recorded it this morning on the replay. Unbelievably bad call, and it changed the game. LA had momentum before the goal. Even if interference was called, I honestly believe the Kings would have been able to force an overtime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 So how was the 3rd LA goal in Game 3 not called as goaltender interference? What was the rationale there? Sure, the NY player, after the puck went in, shoved the LA player King and King fell on Lundqvist, but 1-2 seconds before, King was pushing himself right between Lundqvist and the NY player, and limiting Lundqvist's ability to move. Even the NBC commentators mentioned it interfered with Lundqvist's ability to play. And the reason I'm mentioning it now - my DVR didn't record the game and I missed that part of the game, so I recorded it this morning on the replay. Unbelievably bad call, and it changed the game. After watching it several times, I really think it was a good no call. The two players were jockeying for position prior to the shot. and like thanes said, even if that one doesn't get called, I believe LA would've scored shortly thereafter anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Here's the overhead shot - King looked like he pretty blatantly pushed his way in between McDonaugh and Lunqvist, and was pushing into Lundqvist when the goal was scored. A player can jockey for position, but when he's pushing against and physically interfering with the goalie, isn't that goal-tender interference? Here's the pertinent wording from Rule 69 - Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; Now the exception is - Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. Dwight King's was not initiated outside the crease, and King was pushing his way right in there. Lundqvist was clearly well inside the crease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 To me it was a smart play by King. If he gets away with it the Kings have a great chance to score a goal. If he doesn't it's likely just a stoppage and not a penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 That gif looks to me like McDonaugh was interfering King as much as anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 That gif looks to me like McDonaugh was interfering King as much as anything. To me it was a smart play by King. If he gets away with it the Kings have a great chance to score a goal. If he doesn't it's likely just a stoppage and not a penalty. You both hit the nail on the head here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 The King goal was a shame, pure and simple. That play should've been blown dead, goal waved off, no penalty, and a face-off outside of the zone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 That gif looks to me like McDonaugh was interfering King as much as anything. Had the exact same thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I've seen bigger goalie interferences go uncalled, so I don't think anyone would be suprised this one was too. That said, it's a hard rule to enforce, simply because it's completely down to the refs discretion to call interference or not. What they need is a new "skate in the crease rule", allowing Toronto to review a goal where a player had his skate in the crease, to determine whether or not there may have been any interfering with the goaltender. Nothing like the original ridiculous one, where a goal would be disallowed if a player was decked in front of the net, and once skate grazed the blue paint as he was falling down. As things are right now, you basically need to tackle the goalie into his own net, for a goalie interference penalty to be called. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 The King goal was a shame, pure and simple. That play should've been blown dead, goal waved off, no penalty, and a face-off outside of the zone. Agreed, but I think Dwight King knew that was the worst that would happen and took a chance. It paid off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) I just hate to think of the outcome of a great series between two excellent teams possibly decided on poor penalty calls or blatant non-calls. The Kings are a top-shelf, tenacious, hard-playing team - they don't need 'help' from the officials.. Edited June 9, 2014 by Jsixspd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Agreed, but I think Dwight King knew that was the worst that would happen and took a chance. It paid off. I think that's right. I also agree with the suggestion that the Kings probably would've tied the game, even had that one been waved off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Maybe. The Kings scoring so early in the 3rd must have been a big shot in the arm for them, though, and gave them even more momentum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Maybe. The Kings scoring so early in the 3rd must have been a big shot in the arm for them, though, and gave them even more momentum. Maybe? I'd say almost definitely. The Kings are -1 in the 1st period, +1 in the 2nd period and +15 in the 3rd period. LA owns the last 20. Edited June 9, 2014 by thanes16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre Dance Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 I agree, that goal #3 should probably have been disallowed; but the goal WAS allowed right or wrong. The Rangers then needed to prevent them from scoring goal #4 to tie it and didn't. Plus, NY had over a period to score on LA and didn't. So, although I can feel for the Rags (sort of), they can't blame it all on that one goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Rangers could've put it away in OT as well. The trend in the finals so far : Rangers lose their finish as games wear on - LA gets sharper. Maybe? I'd say almost definitely. The Kings are -1 in the 1st period, +1 in the 2nd period and +15 in the 3rd period. LA owns the last 20. My guess is they're an extremely well-conditioned team. You know, kinda like the anti-Sabres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 Rangers could've put it away in OT as well. The trend in the finals so far : Rangers lose their finish as games wear on - LA gets sharper. My guess is they're an extremely well-conditioned team. You know, kinda like the anti-Sabres. The Kings best asset is conditioning. These guys are the most durable team in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted June 9, 2014 Report Share Posted June 9, 2014 The Kings are a kick ass team, don't get me wrong. I just don't wanna see poor officiating change the outcome of the game and the series. If the Kings are going to win, let them win on their own merits, not because officials need eye exams. Even if, someday, if the Sabres are in the playoffs, and a Sabres player did the exact same thing that King did to Lundqvist, and a goal resulted, I would still say the goal should be waived off. I wouldn't want to see the Sabres benefiting from poor officiating any more than any other team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.