JJFIVEOH 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. I don't see how a high stick before a legal goal is reviewable or challengeable. 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 Lots of grey area. No matter how anybody looks at it, the rushed faceoff was completely out of line and needs to be addressed. Alas it was the Panthers vs. Penguins....... .... it won't even be mentioned. Gallant did delay the game out of spite after overtime. The officials went right off the ice as soon as the Pens scored the OT winner, so Gallant challenged the goal. Everybody had to come back out onto the ice and Cindy was talking smack to Gallant. The next game should be interesting.
Eleven Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Lots of grey area. No matter how anybody looks at it, the rushed faceoff was completely out of line and needs to be addressed. Alas it was the Panthers vs. Penguins....... .... it won't even be mentioned. Gallant did delay the game out of spite after overtime. The officials went right off the ice as soon as the Pens scored the OT winner, so Gallant challenged the goal. Everybody had to come back out onto the ice and Cindy was talking smack to Gallant. The next game should be interesting. Yeah, that's the part that's high level BS.
Thwomp! Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 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) Thanks for the detail. I was in a hurry and sometimes Wikipedia is useful at times like that. I think what I posted does not conflict with anything you posted here, so we're in agreement. My two thoughts: 1. The 1st bolded leaves much room for interpretation. The goal was scored a second after being hit with a high stick. To the 2nd bolded, the rule does not say "directly" or "immediately". In my view the puck hits his stick high and his stick is straight up in the air at that point. 2. The rushed face-off was BS.
Eleven Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Why isn't Murray on this Ramo thing yet?
Dannepanne Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Why isn't Murray on this Ramo thing yet? don't the process usually take 24h even if claimed?
MattPie Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 don't the process usually take 24h even if claimed? Last I know, it's 24 hours from noon to noon (??). Any team that wants can put in a claim and I think the team that's worst in the standings gets the player. There may be a short-cut if the last-place team puts in a claim, but otherwise I think we have to wait.
thewookie1 Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Why isn't Murray on this Ramo thing yet? He may already be, however he would need to send Lieuwen down in order to free up the space thus meaning he may have to work out a way to pick him up after tonight's game so we have a back up
Eleven Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 He may already be, however he would need to send Lieuwen down in order to free up the space thus meaning he may have to work out a way to pick him up after tonight's game so we have a back up I think this is our answer.
LTS Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 Thanks for the detail. I was in a hurry and sometimes Wikipedia is useful at times like that. I think what I posted does not conflict with anything you posted here, so we're in agreement. My two thoughts: 1. The 1st bolded leaves much room for interpretation. The goal was scored a second after being hit with a high stick. To the 2nd bolded, the rule does not say "directly" or "immediately". In my view the puck hits his stick high and his stick is straight up in the air at that point. 2. The rushed face-off was BS. No worries. Let's go into this further. Rule 38.2 states a video goal judge may call for a review on a goal scored through the apparent use of a high stick contact with the puck. This then reverts to rule 80.3 which defines when the goal should be disallowed. 80.3 states that if the puck is deflected directly into the net or it is deflected and hits another player or official and goes into the net it is a disallowed goal. In this case the puck hit the ice. Thus rule 80.1 is now in effect which says the play should be whistled dead because Kessel (really, it's any Penguin) touches the puck (unless a Panther touches it). There's no reason to believe the puck in the video touches a Panther player on the way to the ice. So, you would argue that it should be blown dead, if it really touched his stick. However, it was not. At that point the goal is scored. Rule 38.2 cannot be applied for a review because the goal was clearly not scored through the use of a high stick. No reason to review because no one is arguing that Kessel shot the puck into the net from a legal position. Therefore, the fast face-off is not a problem. There is no coach's challenge, no video review. It's a good goal. The only thing that can happen in this instance is a complaint to the NHL Officiating people about the lack of a call on the high-stick touch. Even then, you and I will disagree on whether it was contacted by a high-stick.
Stoner Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 LTS shoots, he scores. In my best Neo... cogence, insight, thank you. Gallant did delay the game out of spite after overtime. The officials went right off the ice as soon as the Pens scored the OT winner, so Gallant challenged the goal. Everybody had to come back out onto the ice and Cindy was talking smack to Gallant. The next game should be interesting. I asked about this before the season. Is there a penalty for frivolous challenges, or challenges meant to function as an extra-long timeout?
Thwomp! Posted October 21, 2015 Report Posted October 21, 2015 No worries. Let's go into this further. Rule 38.2 states a video goal judge may call for a review on a goal scored through the apparent use of a high stick contact with the puck. This then reverts to rule 80.3 which defines when the goal should be disallowed. 80.3 states that if the puck is deflected directly into the net or it is deflected and hits another player or official and goes into the net it is a disallowed goal. In this case the puck hit the ice. Thus rule 80.1 is now in effect which says the play should be whistled dead because Kessel (really, it's any Penguin) touches the puck (unless a Panther touches it). There's no reason to believe the puck in the video touches a Panther player on the way to the ice. So, you would argue that it should be blown dead, if it really touched his stick. However, it was not. At that point the goal is scored. Rule 38.2 cannot be applied for a review because the goal was clearly not scored through the use of a high stick. No reason to review because no one is arguing that Kessel shot the puck into the net from a legal position. Therefore, the fast face-off is not a problem. There is no coach's challenge, no video review. It's a good goal. The only thing that can happen in this instance is a complaint to the NHL Officiating people about the lack of a call on the high-stick touch. Even then, you and I will disagree on whether it was contacted by a high-stick. Ok, the play and aftermath was perfectly fine and not shady at all. The officials were not being by ignoring the Florida coaches and doing a quick face-off, that was just my perception. I look forward to this exact situation happening against the Sabres, since this perfectly fine precedent has been set. LTS shoots, he scores. In my best Neo... cogence, insight, thank you. I asked about this before the season. Is there a penalty for frivolous challenges, or challenges meant to function as an extra-long timeout? I'm fine with coaches doing whatever they can in protest when they're treated as nonexistent by supposedly impartial officials.
JJFIVEOH Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 LTS shoots, he scores. In my best Neo... cogence, insight, thank you. I asked about this before the season. Is there a penalty for frivolous challenges, or challenges meant to function as an extra-long timeout? Ok, the play and aftermath was perfectly fine and not shady at all. The officials were not being ###### by ignoring the Florida coaches and doing a quick face-off, that was just my perception. I look forward to this exact situation happening against the Sabres, since this perfectly fine precedent has been set. I'm fine with coaches doing whatever they can in protest when they're treated as nonexistent by supposedly impartial officials. Exactly. ^^^^^^^^^
Doohicksie Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Meanwhile in Edmonton, the Oilers are sticking it to the Red Wings, including a beautiful goal by McJesus. Boy do the Wings look old and slow. Edited October 22, 2015 by Robins Egg
Randall Flagg Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 McDavid with another beautiful goal.
Hoss Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Anyone have the goal? https://twitter.com/EdmontonOilers/status/657028114199908352
WildCard Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 https://twitter.com/EdmontonOilers/status/657028114199908352 Thanks, Hoss. Pretty goal indeed. That's his go to move on 1-1 with the goalie opportunities. He made it a ton in Juniors
Doohicksie Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 You can see it on the NHL site: http://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/en/icetracker?id=2015020090&navid=sb:gamecenter&intcmpid=sb-gamecenter
WildCard Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 You can see it on the NHL site: http://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/en/icetracker?id=2015020090&navid=sb:gamecenter&intcmpid=sb-gamecenter Thanks, Egg. Hoss beat you to it though :P
Doohicksie Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Yeah but this one has sound and you can blow it up to full screen.
WildCard Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Oilers on pace for their 3rd straight victory tonight, have they finally gotten it together? I still maintain the Sabres have a better core, and that we will take longer to mesh due to all of the new parts, but...the Oilers may have something here. And, not because we lost the lottery, but I really, really don't like that team Paul Statsny went to the IR btw, broke foot http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=784206&navid=nhl:topheads Edited October 22, 2015 by WildCard
TrueBlueGED Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Oilers on pace for their 3rd straight victory tonight, have they finally gotten it together? I still maintain the Sabres have a better core, and that we will take longer to mesh due to all of the new parts, but...the Oilers may have something here. And, not because we lost the lottery, but I really, really don't like that team Paul Statsny went to the IR btw, broke foot http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=784206&navid=nhl:topheads Keep in mind they're doing this without Eberle. I continue my support for Edmonton's core from afar--I simply think their core frowards are better than ours across the board (Hall > Kane, Eberle > Ennis, McDavid > Eichel, RNH~=ROR). I think I like Risto more than Klefbom, but Nurse is probably better than both Pysyk and McCabe; they don't have a Bogosian at all, but I'm not as high on him as many around here. What I think really kills Edmonton is their depth--I'll take our bottom-6 forwards and secondary defensive pieces all day every day over what Edmonton has to offer. And we all know that for a deep playoff run, depth is really important (and if you don't agree with this, I direct your attention to Pittsburgh), so I'm not exactly saying their championship prospects are much better than ours. It'll be fun to watch it all play out.
X. Benedict Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 https://twitter.com/EdmontonOilers/status/657028114199908352 saaaaweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
LTS Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 Ok, the play and aftermath was perfectly fine and not shady at all. The officials were not being ###### by ignoring the Florida coaches and doing a quick face-off, that was just my perception. I look forward to this exact situation happening against the Sabres, since this perfectly fine precedent has been set. I'm fine with coaches doing whatever they can in protest when they're treated as nonexistent by supposedly impartial officials. I think the officials could make their lives easier by talking to the coaches. But I wasn't trying to address that. :)
Dannepanne Posted October 22, 2015 Report Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Ramo clears waivers per Elliotte Friedman Edited October 22, 2015 by Dannepanne
Recommended Posts