Around the NHL 2016-2017

[TrueBlueGED]

Yeah, but just this once don't you want me to be right?

Of course I do! But you're not.

[Stoner]

Of course I do! But you're not.

The president says hi.

[Sabre fan]

Dallas, like Vancouver is a complete train wreck and sadly do not seem to have much in the way of prospects...and Lindy sure ain;t the right man for the job there though not too sure who is. anyways, it is sad to say the leafs are definately on the fast track to success...their management hasnt done much in the way of trades and have drafted pretty-much who you'd expect...clearly Babs has this team playing over their heads as he did foe many year sin detroit...Kadri is lights of all of a sudden! If we'd have gotten babs we'd have I figure at least 10 more wins and the Leafs would have at least ten less wins...major difference clearly is Babs and his way of getting he best of out whoever he has while we continue to try to make players something they aren't (Like Lindy did with Vanek)

[Huckleberry]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=19101343&ex_cid=espnapi_public

[drnkirishone]

that is one awesome grandpa

[Randall Flagg]

I posted about Rasmus Dahlin a couple weeks ago, playing in the SHL playoffs at age 16. He's got 4 points so far at least, and is pulling moves like this regularly: https://twitter.com/cmoresport/status/850709948178747392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fhfboards.hockeysfuture.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D130419367%23post130419367

 

I think he's Karlsson-tier.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

'No goal' has made the top 5 ...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-worst-moves-1.4062262

 

... worst decisions in the history of the NHL.  

 

I suggest that we all follow the advice of the writer and not watch the video.

[Stoner]

'No goal' has made the top 5 ...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-worst-moves-1.4062262

 

... worst decisions in the history of the NHL.  

 

I suggest that we all follow the advice of the writer and not watch the video.

:unsure:

 

Well, the writer is calling the crease rule one of the worst things the NHL did. It's always amazing to me how easily screwed up discussion of No Goal becomes (I have some history with that myself). This article even gets the photo caption wrong. Also, the loaded word "claimed" shouldn't have been used. The NHL didn't claim to have sent out a memo. They did send out the memo. The Sabres acknowledged receiving it. (I'd love to see it. Unfortunately, my request to the NHL was ignored.)

 

I'd also amend the text to say that the farthest the NHL went to defend the call was to send Bettman to the Stars' 10th anniversary Cup reunion to announce to the crowd that the goal was "good."

Edited April 8, 2017 by PASabreFan

[Eleven]

The crease rule was a good rule, though.  It made the decision whether a goal was good into essentially a binary decision:  Was the player in the crease, or not?  Left no room for guesswork / subjectivity as to whether the goalie actually was interfered with.  Other sports, most notably lacrosse and handball, have similar rules which work very, very well.

[Taro T]

'No goal' has made the top 5 ...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-worst-moves-1.4062262

 

... worst decisions in the history of the NHL.  

 

I suggest that we all follow the advice of the writer and not watch the video.

My choices:

 

1. NO GOAL! - Anyone needing an explanation can use this website's search function. It is your friend. ;)

 

2. The '94 Lockout. - Hey, we've FINALLY gotten to a place where our league is getting noticed in the US. (Gretzky in LA, 1 year removed from the SCF's & the Rags finally (sadly, some will say ;)) burying the 1940 chant. Even SI was paying attention, for cripes sake!) How can we possibly halt this momentum? How about we have our brand new (& 1st ever, btw) Commisioner challenge the head of the NHLPA that just got done kicking the league's butt in a strike with a lockout wiping out 3 months & 32 games. They lost that lockout badly & never got the momentum back.

 

3. SportsChannel America - Hey, after spending most of the '70's w/ no US network TV & the early '80's on cable's USA network, the league was FINALLY getting visibility on ESPN. How can we remedy this "problem" of expisure in the US? How about we move to a fledgling cable sports network that doesn't even have outlets in all the cities in the US thst have NHL teams? F###ing boneheads.

 

4. Owners colluding w/ Alan Eagleson - When all the other major sports leagues were having labor issues in the '70's & '80's, the NHL never did. It appeared it was because the league & players worked synergistically w/ each other. That appearance was completely false. Eagleson was selling out the players consistently. It poisoned the well & set up the extremely severe labor strife we've seen since '92. (This one should've been #2, but didn't feel like reordering them. :p)

 

5. Tie - Crease rule & current implementation of offsides review. - Putting in official reviews to call back otherwise valid goals because of something that didn't affect the play (a toe of a player not directly involved in the scoring sequence being in the crease before the puck was there) or was so indistinguishable from a legal play that it takes 5 minutes to review whether it was legal or not (offsides on non-called offsides) in a sport desperate for more scoring is just dumb. Which is par for the course for this league.

 

Honorable mentions - Having TO review goals but only giving them the camera views that were shown on TV to make their decision. How f####ing stupid is that? That's the way the system worked when it was introduced.

 

Allowing the referee to decide whether to have his decision reviewed by the VRJ. That rule cost the Sabres game 2 vs the Caps in '98 & was one of the 3 rules changes the league ended up making in the next offseason after costing the Sabres a goal & a game in the series they were declared eliminated in. #### you, Kerry Fraser!

The crease rule was a good rule, though.  It made the decision whether a goal was good into essentially a binary decision:  Was the player in the crease, or not?  Left no room for guesswork / subjectivity as to whether the goalie actually was interfered with.  Other sports, most notably lacrosse and handball, have similar rules which work very, very well.

It was a good rule in principle, but not in practice.

 

I still recall being at a Sabres -Isles game where Hasek came out of the net in a race to the puck w/ an Isle. He won the race but didn't get the puck out of the zone. The Isle jumped over him and ended up standing in the crease w/ his arms on the crossbar.

 

The Isle that picked off Dom's sprawling clearing attempt skated around him and shot the puck into the essentially empty net.

 

Result of the play: no goal. Had the Isle rammed into Dom rather than leaping over him, it would've been a good goal.

 

I truly believe (as that was in the heart of the "dead puck" & exploding salary Goodenow years) that the league did that intentionally to try to keep salaries down. They just had it blow up in their faces when they didn't have the balls to follow their own rules. Embarrassment overshadowed their fear of escalating salaries & the rule was gone pronto.

 

It also didn't eliminate guys interfering w/ goalies. They still did w/ impunity as long as the goalie was partially/ completely out of the crease. They also did it when they got out of the crease prior to the puck entering it. The classic "drive by."

[Sabres Fan in NS]

'No goal' made the writers list for the fact that the crease rule, which was new that season and enforced during the season, was not enforced when the most critical and controversial goal was scored that season.  The writer is not questioning the rule, but the lack of enforcement in that pivotal situation.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Sabres Fan In NS

[Taro T]

'No goal' made the writers list for the fact that the crease rule, which was new that season and enforced during the season, was not enforced when the most critical and controversial goal was scored that season.  The writer is not questioning the rule, but the lack of enforcement in that pivotal situation.

Which is why it was the worst of them all. The league could've chosen to be right. Instead they chose to be expedient. :censored:

[Stoner]

'No goal' made the writers list for the fact that the crease rule, which was new that season and enforced during the season, was not enforced when the most critical and controversial goal was scored that season.  The writer is not questioning the rule, but the lack of enforcement in that pivotal situation.

I read it differently, but whatever.

 

Not sure why you're saying the rule was new and the writer was saying it was three years old. The crease rule dated back to the early 90s, IIRC. I remember at least one goal being wiped out in the famous 1-0 game against the Devils in the 94 playoffs.

[Stoner]

It was a good rule in principle, but not in practice.

 

I still recall being at a Sabres -Isles game where Hasek came out of the net in a race to the puck w/ an Isle. He won the race but didn't get the puck out of the zone. The Isle jumped over him and ended up standing in the crease w/ his arms on the crossbar.

 

The Isle that picked off Dom's sprawling clearing attempt skated around him and shot the puck into the essentially empty net.

 

Result of the play: no goal. Had the Isle rammed into Dom rather than leaping over him, it would've been a good goal.

Wanting to right a wrong is how we ended up with the memo in the first place and ultimately the Game 6 controversy. The memo was not new to March 1999. It had many clarifications (12 if my memory serves me right from Budd Bailey's reporting after seeing the memo) that had been added over the years. One of them involved a player skating in on an empty net and somehow getting into the crease before the puck. Also a playing wrapping the puck around the other side of the net from the goalie and doing the same. The infamous Clarification 9.

 

With a true black and white approach, you might have had that faceoff in the Buffalo end you've dreamt of since.

Edited April 8, 2017 by PASabreFan

[Brawndo]

Senators clinch second place in the Atlantic and home ice through the first round.

[Taro T]

Wanting to right a wrong is how we ended up with the memo in the first place and ultimately the Game 6 controversy. The memo was not new to March 1999. It had many clarifications (12 if my memory serves me right from Budd Bailey's reporting after seeing the memo) that had been added over the years. One of them involved a player skating in on an empty net and somehow getting into the crease before the puck. Also a playing wrapping the puck around the other side of the net from the goalie and doing the same. The infamous Clarification 9.

 

With a true black and white approach, you might have had that faceoff in the Buffalo end you've dreamt of since.

Ttbomk, the clarifications weren't cumulative. There were 12 clarifications in the March memo. The league conflated clarification 9 & 10 to falsely claim the goal was good.

 

They further changed the definition of "control" in a later rulebook (can't remember which year ottomh, it was a looooong week) to hide the fact that they were interchangably using "possession" for "control" when the operative memo clarification of the rule hinged on "control." In '99, in order to gain "control of the puck" a skater needed to play it with his stick. Hull initially played the rebound with his skate and was in the crease prior to the puck being there before he touched it with his stick thus gaining control.

 

As we have discussed far too often, even following the guidance of the memo, the play did not result in a legal goal.

[Randall Flagg]

Senators clinch second place in the Atlantic and home ice through the first round.

Happy for EK.

[millbank]

Piss on us all you wish , we are going to the playoffs

Go Leafs Go

[nfreeman]

Well, Auston Matthews scored his 40th just now into an empty net to clinch a playoff spot for the Leafs (at home vs Pittsburgh, after being down by 1 with 5 min to go in the 3rd). 

 

Makes you kinda wish the Sabres had reeled in Babcock, innit?

[Weave]

Well, Auston Matthews scored his 40th just now into an empty net to clinch a playoff spot for the Leafs (at home vs Pittsburgh, after being down by 1 with 5 min to go in the 3rd). 

 

Makes you kinda wish the Sabres had reeled in Babcock, innit?

 

And won one of those lotteries......

[Randall Flagg]

Matthews is the first player to score 40 goals in his post-draft NHL season since Mario Lemieux. 

Luckily he has 5 assists or else this would sting really bad. 

His usage is probably going to get a lot shittier soon though, the dude has been reeling in almost 70% offensive zone starts

[TrueBlueGED]

And won one of those lotteries......

 

If we're going pure hindsight (and assume Ekblad would have been the pick), I'm definitely glad we didn't win the lottery in 2014.

 

No doubt 2015 stings. Putting aside McDavid's value as a player, if we win that lottery, I think we also land Babcock.

[Taro T]

Piss on us all you wish , we are going to the playoffs

Go Leafs Go

Well, hopefully your boys lose tomorrow in regulation so they can be the Caps whipping boys. :p

 

Enjoy it. You're a good enough egg that I ALMOST wish I didn't seriously dislike your team. (But, I expect I'll be back in TO soon enough to remember/understand why I dislike them. :))

 

Best regards, Grant. :beer:

If we're going pure hindsight (and assume Ekblad would have been the pick), I'm definitely glad we didn't win the lottery in 2014.

 

No doubt 2015 stings. Putting aside McDavid's value as a player, if we win that lottery, I think we also land Babcock.

2016 does too. Getting Laine or Matthews would've given the Sabres a forwards squad that even Bylsma couldn't have screwed up. And w/ no Matthews, no Loafs playoff sneak in.

[Stoner]

Ttbomk, the clarifications weren't cumulative. There were 12 clarifications in the March memo. The league conflated clarification 9 & 10 to falsely claim the goal was good.

 

They further changed the definition of "control" in a later rulebook (can't remember which year ottomh, it was a looooong week) to hide the fact that they were interchangably using "possession" for "control" when the operative memo clarification of the rule hinged on "control." In '99, in order to gain "control of the puck" a skater needed to play it with his stick. Hull initially played the rebound with his skate and was in the crease prior to the puck being there before he touched it with his stick thus gaining control.

 

As we have discussed far too often, even following the guidance of the memo, the play did not result in a legal goal.

I'd say the operative word was "maintain." Even if control was defined as kicking the puck, one kick isn't maintaining control. That one could go to the Hockey Supreme Court though.

 

I will probably never find the link again, but I know I read somewhere that the March memo was a reinforcement of existing clarifications. It makes sense in that the crease rule had been around for years and you'd think they weren't just then putting out a list of exceptions. But, hey, it's the NHL. Not sure it really matters.

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, hopefully your boys lose tomorrow in regulation so they can be the Caps whipping boys. :P

 

Enjoy it. You're a good enough egg that I ALMOST wish I didn't seriously dislike your team. (But, I expect I'll be back in TO soon enough to remember/understand why I dislike them. :))

 

Best regards, Grant. :beer:

 

2016 does too. Getting Laine or Matthews would've given the Sabres a forwards squad that even Bylsma couldn't have screwed up. And w/ no Matthews, no Loafs playoff sneak in.

 

I may or may not have wet dreams about Laine on Eichel's wing.