LGR4GM Posted October 21, 2015 Author Report Posted October 21, 2015 Richards out and Torts in, for CBJ
Thwomp! Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Richards out and Torts in, for CBJ Jackets setting up for their magical run to just missing the playoffs again after a horrible start.
TrueBlueGED Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Richards out and Torts in, for CBJ I cannot believe Torts got another NHL job. Unreal.
Stoner Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Wow, a professional sports league ignoring/bending their own replay rules to benefit one team over another and/or to cover up their own incompetence? That never happens! Hopefully the Panthers make a bunch of noise about that to the league (not that it will do any good). The on ice officials literally ignored them and did what they could to ensure that there was no review. He can't challenge a high stick though?
Eleven Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Wow, a professional sports league ignoring/bending their own replay rules to benefit one team over another and/or to cover up their own incompetence? That never happens! Hopefully the Panthers make a bunch of noise about that to the league (not that it will do any good). The on ice officials literally ignored them and did what they could to ensure that there was no review. That's some high level BS right there.
Stoner Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 That's some high level BS right there. I don't see how a high stick before a legal goal is reviewable or challengeable.
Thwomp! Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I don't see how a high stick before a legal goal is reviewable or challengeable. From Wikipedia: Ice hockey[edit]The video goal judge reviews replays of disputed goals. As the referee does not have access to television monitors, the video goal judge's decision in disputed goals is taken as final. In the NHL, goals may only be reviewed in the following situations: puck crossing the goal line completely and before time expired, puck in the net prior to goal frame being dislodged, puck being directed into the net by hand or foot, puck deflected into the net off an official, and puck deflected into the goal by a high stick (stick above the goal) by an attacking player. All NHL goals are subject to review, and although most arenas have a video goal judge, often officials in the Situation Room (also known as the "War Room") at the NHL office in Toronto make the final decision. See Official (ice hockey) for more details.
Stoner Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 From Wikipedia: Ice hockey[edit]The video goal judge reviews replays of disputed goals. As the referee does not have access to television monitors, the video goal judge's decision in disputed goals is taken as final. In the NHL, goals may only be reviewed in the following situations: puck crossing the goal line completely and before time expired, puck in the net prior to goal frame being dislodged, puck being directed into the net by hand or foot, puck deflected into the net off an official, and puck deflected into the goal by a high stick (stick above the goal) by an attacking player. All NHL goals are subject to review, and although most arenas have a video goal judge, often officials in the Situation Room (also known as the "War Room") at the NHL office in Toronto make the final decision. See Official (ice hockey) for more details. I didn't see the play, but I took the description to mean Kessel knocked the puck down with a high stick and then scored on a separate shot.
Thwomp! Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I didn't see the play, but I took the description to mean Kessel knocked the puck down with a high stick and then scored on a separate shot. He did, but play should have been stopped prior to his separate shot. I guess it may not be reviewable by the letter of the law, but his high stick was blatant. Play should have been stopped. His stick was literally held straight up well above his head. From Wikipedia again: A stoppage in play results if a high stick comes in contact with the puck and the team who touched it regains control of the puck. However, play usually continues if a player touches the puck with a high stick and the opposing team gains control of the puck. If the puck goes into the opposing net after coming into contact with a high stick, the goal is disallowed. The level at which a stick is considered too high for a goal is the crossbar of the net. However, if a player knocks the puck into his own net with a high stick, the goal is allowed. I never realized how much gray area there is in that rule. If you take the bolded sentence literally, the high stick doesn't necessarily directly have to be the action that caused the goal. The goal did happen a second after the high stick, so play should have been called dead. That is conveniently not a play that a coach can challenge as far as I can tell. The video goal judge or the "NHL War Room" should have reviewed in my opinion. Maybe that's what Florida was trying to get to occur, but the officials rushed play so that it was a moot point. http://video.penguins.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=852013
Sabel79 Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I cannot believe Torts got another NHL job. Unreal. At the cost of a second-round pick, no less. What in the world? Maybe his act plays better in Cbus, but I highly doubt it.
LGR4GM Posted October 21, 2015 Author Report Posted October 21, 2015 He did, but play should have been stopped prior to his separate shot. I guess it may not be reviewable by the letter of the law, but his high stick was blatant. Play should have been stopped. His stick was literally held straight up well above his head. From Wikipedia again: A stoppage in play results if a high stick comes in contact with the puck and the team who touched it regains control of the puck. However, play usually continues if a player touches the puck with a high stick and the opposing team gains control of the puck. If the puck goes into the opposing net after coming into contact with a high stick, the goal is disallowed. The level at which a stick is considered too high for a goal is the crossbar of the net. However, if a player knocks the puck into his own net with a high stick, the goal is allowed. I never realized how much gray area there is in that rule. If you take the bolded sentence literally, the high stick doesn't necessarily directly have to be the action that caused the goal. The goal did happen a second after the high stick, so play should have been called dead. That is conveniently not a play that a coach can challenge as far as I can tell. The video goal judge or the "NHL War Room" should have reviewed in my opinion. Maybe that's what Florida was trying to get to occur, but the officials rushed play so that it was a moot point. http://video.penguins.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=852013 If that wasn't review-able but an offsides that happened 45 seconds prior to a goal scored is, the NHL should punch itself in the dick. I am gonna call COLLUSION!!!
qwksndmonster Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I cannot believe Torts got another NHL job. Unreal.The 1 season yell at them gig. If it works, they might even make the mistake of keeping him on beyond this season.
josie Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Get ready for this, CBJ.... https://vine.co/v/OKwaUw76tnb
WildCard Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Get ready for this, CBJ.... https://vine.co/v/OKwaUw76tnb Yeap, it's stuff like this that his players consistently say gets old real quick. It may work for a season, but all he does is yell, and they quickly tune him out. It's weird. Not only should Richards have had the USA gig, but now Torts takes his CBJ job too. Tough break Edited October 21, 2015 by WildCard
LGR4GM Posted October 21, 2015 Author Report Posted October 21, 2015 Yeap, it's stuff like this that his players consistently say gets old real quick. It may work for a season, but all he does is yell, and they quickly tune him out. It's weird. Not only should Richards have had the USA gig, but now Torts takes his CBJ job too. Tough break Yea not everyone on the team is a 21 year old kid. 30yr old vets aren't going to respond to being treated like little kids.
WildCard Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Yea not everyone on the team is a 21 year old kid. 30yr old vets aren't going to respond to being treated like little kids. It's the same reason Saban never worked out in Miami
TrueBlueGED Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 The 1 season yell at them gig. If it works, they might even make the mistake of keeping him on beyond this season. They gave up a 2nd round pick to hire him. Unless the GM also gets fired, I can't see this being only an interim job.
Eleven Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 They gave up a 2nd round pick to hire him. Unless the GM also gets fired, I can't see this being only an interim job. The coaches absolutely need to address this. Do they collectively bargain with the league or no?
3putt Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 The coaches absolutely need to address this. Do they collectively bargain with the league or no? Coaches do not.
Eleven Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Coaches do not. Well, then they need to start.
TrueBlueGED Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 The coaches absolutely need to address this. Do they collectively bargain with the league or no? I'm trying to remember the exact details, but I think the rule was put in place by the teams because they wanted compensation for hiring away their assets. I don't believe it was ever intended to apply to personnel that had been relieved of duties, but the rule also never explicitly said it didn't apply to them, so teams have been taking advantage of it by demanding compensation. I have to assume the rule will be clarified by next year (and for some reason, I thought they had clarified it already, but I guess not).
Eleven Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 I'm trying to remember the exact details, but I think the rule was put in place by the teams because they wanted compensation for hiring away their assets. I don't believe it was ever intended to apply to personnel that had been relieved of duties, but the rule also never explicitly said it didn't apply to them, so teams have been taking advantage of it by demanding compensation. I have to assume the rule will be clarified by next year (and for some reason, I thought they had clarified it already, but I guess not). This is correct. I think Murray may have had something to do with it, actually.
WildCard Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Hockey Central reporting Karri Ramo is on waivers
LTS Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 He did, but play should have been stopped prior to his separate shot. I guess it may not be reviewable by the letter of the law, but his high stick was blatant. Play should have been stopped. His stick was literally held straight up well above his head. From Wikipedia again: A stoppage in play results if a high stick comes in contact with the puck and the team who touched it regains control of the puck. However, play usually continues if a player touches the puck with a high stick and the opposing team gains control of the puck. If the puck goes into the opposing net after coming into contact with a high stick, the goal is disallowed. The level at which a stick is considered too high for a goal is the crossbar of the net. However, if a player knocks the puck into his own net with a high stick, the goal is allowed. I never realized how much gray area there is in that rule. If you take the bolded sentence literally, the high stick doesn't necessarily directly have to be the action that caused the goal. The goal did happen a second after the high stick, so play should have been called dead. That is conveniently not a play that a coach can challenge as far as I can tell. The video goal judge or the "NHL War Room" should have reviewed in my opinion. Maybe that's what Florida was trying to get to occur, but the officials rushed play so that it was a moot point. http://video.penguins.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=852013 I wouldn't use Wikipedia to quote an NHL rule. It doesn't even read like an NHL rule. Rule 80 covers high-sticking the puck. 80.1 High-sticking the Puck – Batting the puck above the normal height of the shoulders with a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick and subsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from the offending team (including the player who made contact with the puck), either directly or deflected off any player or official, there shall be a whistle. When a puck has been contacted by a high stick, the play shall be permitted to continue, provided that: (i) the puck has been batted to an opponent (when a player bats the puck to an opponent, the Referee shall give the “washout” signal immediately. Otherwise, he will stop the play). (ii) a player of the defending side shall bat the puck into his own goal in which case the goal shall be allowed. 80.3 Disallowed Goal – When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed. A goal scored as a result of a defending player striking the puck with his stick carried above the height of the crossbar of the goal frame into his own goal shall be allowed. Rule 38.2 - Every goal is to be reviewed by the Video Goal Judge. Goal Review Situations: 1. Puck crossing the goal line. 2. Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged. 3. Puck in the prior to, or after the expiration of time at the end of the period. 4. Puck directed or batted into the net by hand or foot. 5. Puck directed into the net off an Official. 6. Puck struck with a high-stick prior to entering the goal. 7. Establish correct game time. That said. His stick is not literally straight up. It is straight out. Moreover, I don't think it hits his stick as much as it deflects on the goaltender's glove and then hits his body. And yes.. the high stick is not subjected to a video challenge. As I see it.. the worst case explanation is that the puck contacted a high stick. That call was missed but the puck did not immediately deflect into the net and therefore cannot be reversed due to contact with a high stick. The best case is that it never touched his stick and it's a good goal. Also.. dug up more about when the off-sides can be reviewed back to. If the puck leaves the zone or all 5 players on the offensive side of the puck clear the zone at any point then you cannot review the offside prior to goal. However, if it sits in the zone for 2 minutes and all players on the offensive side of the puck have not left the zone to reverse an off-side call. And any penalties committed during that time are enforced and recorded as the time of the offside occurring. Rulebook: http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2015-2016-Interactive-rulebook.pdf (new sections are highlighted in orange)
Dannepanne Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Hockey Central reporting Karri Ramo is on waivers he's larger than Johnson (heh) and he's a finnish goaltender. I do wonder if it itches in GMTM:s trigger finger on this one.
Recommended Posts