Game discussion thread GDT: Kings at Sabres 7PM 12-13-16

[SwampD]

The Kings defenseman gave some good skating effort and then shut it down and coasted from the faceoff dot to the line. The puck slowed way down, and when the coasting player caught it, it had passed the line by less than a half of a foot, probably 2-3 inches. He had already controlled it before the whistle went because of how quick it was, and the total lack of skating to close the distance was something that makes them wave off the icing almost every other similar situation, including one other time with Franson in this particular game (who is actually a slow skater!) There is obviously a lot of subjectivity and nobody had a radar gun on the guy , but it *felt* strongly against the way that icing is usually judged.

I thought they only raced to the dots, though.

 

And at least they were pretty consistant all game long. There was no wiggle room with icing yesterday.

Edited December 14, 2016 by SwampD

[Randall Flagg]

I thought they only raced to the dots, though.

The whistle didn't go until after the player had played the puck - they didn't know it would even pass the line until the player got there and was playing it, and since he visibly slowed down, they usually don't call that an icing. Even when the puck does get there before the gliding player. It's just such a loose rule (especially how players sometimes get as much as two feet of leeway dumping the puck in some nights) while the other line infraction is challenge-able. As we see last night, icings can have direct impacts on goals too.

[SwampD]

The whistle didn't go until after the player had played the puck - they didn't know it would even pass the line until the player got there and was playing it, and since he visibly slowed down, they usually don't call that an icing. Even when the puck does get there before the gliding player. It's just such a loose rule (especially how players sometimes get as much as two feet of leeway dumping the puck in some nights) while the other line infraction is challenge-able. As we see last night, icings can have direct impacts on goals too.

The play definitely skirts on the edge of that rule. I didn't have the reaction of the crowd last night but watching it again I could see why some did.

[dudacek]

Totally on-board with Flaggs take. Thought the same last night.

The lack of an icing call on Carters second had just as much impact as any missed offside.

I hate the offside challenge.

 

Upon further review, can I just get 1970s hockey back entirely, minus the goonery as a strategy?

(There, six months in advance of my 50th birthday, I officially got old)

[nfreeman]

Upon further review, can I just get 1970s hockey back entirely, minus the goonery as a strategy?

(There, six months in advance of my 50th birthday, I officially got old)

 

I'm afraid it's gone for good unless we enlarge the nets or shrink the goalies.

[pi2000]

The whistle didn't go until after the player had played the puck - they didn't know it would even pass the line until the player got there and was playing it, and since he visibly slowed down, they usually don't call that an icing. Even when the puck does get there before the gliding player. It's just such a loose rule (especially how players sometimes get as much as two feet of leeway dumping the puck in some nights) while the other line infraction is challenge-able. As we see last night, icings can have direct impacts on goals too.

 

That was a blown call.   

 

The linesman only blows the whistle at the dots A) if the puck has already crossed the line when the players reach the dots and B) if there are two players engaged in a race for the puck.

 

In this case neither condition A nor B were met, so the linesman's only decision was whether or not the Kings player could have reached the puck before it crossed the line... which seems like he obviously could have had he not slowed down....    in 99% of those you get the right call, icing.

 

Blown icing calls happen at every level, and the linesman usually own up to it.    Typically you'll get a call in your favor at some point further along in the game to make up for it.    In this case the linesman's mistake led directly to a Kings goal, so I'm sure he was being extra lenient towards the Sabres for the remainder of the game and most likely told the Sabres bench as much.   Mistakes happen and make up calls happen. 

[SwampD]

That was a blown call.   

 

The linesman only blows the whistle at the dots A) if the puck has already crossed the line when the players reach the dots and B) if there are two players engaged in a race for the puck.

 

In this case neither condition A nor B were met, so the linesman's only decision was whether or not the Kings player could have reached the puck before it crossed the line... which seems like he obviously could have had he not slowed down....    in 99% of those you get the right call, icing.

 

Blown icing calls happen at every level, and the linesman usually own up to it.    Typically you'll get a call in your favor at some point further along in the game to make up for it.    In this case the linesman's mistake led directly to a Kings goal, so I'm sure he was being extra lenient towards the Sabres for the remainder of the game and most likely told the Sabres bench as much.   Mistakes happen and make up calls happen. 

You had me until this line. I don't believe a ref would say that ever,... even if he was.

[pi2000]

You had me until this line. I don't believe a ref would say that ever,... even if he was.

 

It happens all the time... the linesemen or ref apologizes to the bench saying something to the effect of "I owe you one" or "we'll even it up"... it's certainly not uncommon, at least not when I played at a high level.

[Stoner]

I thought they only raced to the dots, though.

 

And at least they were pretty consistant all game long. There was no wiggle room with icing yesterday.

That's what I'm getting it, that some may be misunderstanding the "new" icing rule.

That was a blown call.   

 

The linesman only blows the whistle at the dots A) if the puck has already crossed the line when the players reach the dots and B) if there are two players engaged in a race for the puck.

 

In this case neither condition A nor B were met, so the linesman's only decision was whether or not the Kings player could have reached the puck before it crossed the line... which seems like he obviously could have had he not slowed down....    in 99% of those you get the right call, icing.

 

Blown icing calls happen at every level, and the linesman usually own up to it.    Typically you'll get a call in your favor at some point further along in the game to make up for it.    In this case the linesman's mistake led directly to a Kings goal, so I'm sure he was being extra lenient towards the Sabres for the remainder of the game and most likely told the Sabres bench as much.   Mistakes happen and make up calls happen. 

I *believe* part of the linesman's judgment call is whether the puck will cross the line. Copy and paste perhaps to follow.

It happens all the time... the linesemen or ref apologizes to the bench saying something to the effect of "I owe you one" or "we'll even it up"... it's certainly not uncommon, at least not when I played at a high level.

That should never happen at the NHL level.

[MattPie]

I know I've seen faceoffs at center ice in that situation. "Soe-ry, we'll drop it centre, eh?"

[Taro T]

That's what I'm getting it, that some may be misunderstanding the "new" icing rule.

I *believe* part of the linesman's judgment call is whether the puck will cross the line. Copy and paste perhaps to follow.

That should never happen at the NHL level.

Correct (unless the rule was tweaked for this season, it was written that way last year).

 

The 1st determination is whether the puck will make it far enough for icing (no mention in the rules as to HOW the linesman makes this determination, it would seem obvious that he includes a judgement as to whether any skater will likely get to it before the line) & THEN he decides which team's player will get to the puck 1st REGARDLESS of which one won the "race to the dots."

 

Which gives the linesman the opportunity to look foolish as he "expects" the puck to make it far enough for icing & it then doesn't. It also allows for fans to be upset even when the linesman gets who would've won the race to the puck correct but that person WASN'T the 1st to the dot (ie Franson beating McDavid to the dot by a stride, McClavicle will still win that race).

 

So, once again, even when the NHL gets something right (going to hybrid icing which prevents injuries), it still gets it wrong (calling icing even occassionally when the puck doesn't reach the line).

[Stoner]

Correct (unless the rule was tweaked for this season, it was written that way last year).

 

The 1st determination is whether the puck will make it far enough for icing (no mention in the rules as to HOW the linesman makes this determination, it would seem obvious that he includes a judgement as to whether any skater will likely get to it before the line) & THEN he decides which team's player will get to the puck 1st REGARDLESS of which one won the "race to the dots."

 

Which gives the linesman the opportunity to look foolish as he "expects" the puck to make it far enough for icing & it then doesn't. It also allows for fans to be upset even when the linesman gets who would've won the race to the puck correct but that person WASN'T the 1st to the dot (ie Franson beating McDavid to the dot by a stride, McClavicle will still win that race).

 

So, once again, even when the NHL gets something right (going to hybrid icing which prevents injuries), it still gets it wrong (calling icing even occassionally when the puck doesn't reach the line).

I didn't understand this nuance of hybrid icing. So there is no race to the dots after all? I've even heard broadcasters say, "tie goes to the defense." It's more like a deadline for the linesman to make the call, by the time the first skate reaches the dot?

 

For everyone's reference:

 

81.1 Icing – For the purpose of this rule, the center red line will divide the

ice into halves. Should any player of a team, equal or superior in

numerical strength (power-play) to the opposing team, shoot, bat or

deflect the puck from his own half of the ice beyond the goal line of

the opposing team, play shall be stopped. For the purpose of

deflected pucks, this only applies when the puck was originally

propelled down the ice by the offending team.

 

For the purpose of this rule, the point of last contact with the puck

by the team in possession shall be used to determine whether icing

has occurred or not. As such, the team in possession must “gain the

line” in order for the icing to be nullified. “Gaining the line” shall mean

that the puck, while on the player’s stick (not the player’s skate) must

make contact with the center red line in order to nullify a potential

icing.

 

For the purpose of interpretation of the rule, there are two

judgments required for "icing the puck". The Linesman must first

determine that the puck will cross the goal line. Once the Linesman

determines that the puck will cross the goal line, icing is completed

upon the determination as to which player (attacking or defending)

would first touch the puck. This decision by the Linesman will be made

by no later than the instant the first player reaches the end zone faceoff

dots with the player's skate being the determining factor. Should

the puck be shot down the ice in such a manner that it travels around

the boards and/or back towards the end zone face-off dots, the same

procedure shall be in effect in that the Linesman shall determine

within a similar distance as to who will have touched the puck first.

 

For clarification, the determining factor is which player would first

touch the puck, not which player would first reach the end zone faceoff

dots.

 

If the race for the puck is too close to determine by the time the

first player reaches the end zone face-off dots, icing shall be called.

Edited December 14, 2016 by PASabreFan

[Taro T]

I didn't understand this nuance of hybrid icing. So there is no race to the dots after all? I've even heard broadcasters say, "tie goes to the defense." It's more like a deadline for the linesman to make the call, by the time the first skate reaches the dot?

 

For everyone's reference:

 

81.1 Icing – For the purpose of this rule, the center red line will divide the

ice into halves. Should any player of a team, equal or superior in

numerical strength (power-play) to the opposing team, shoot, bat or

deflect the puck from his own half of the ice beyond the goal line of

the opposing team, play shall be stopped. For the purpose of

deflected pucks, this only applies when the puck was originally

propelled down the ice by the offending team.

 

For the purpose of this rule, the point of last contact with the puck

by the team in possession shall be used to determine whether icing

has occurred or not. As such, the team in possession must “gain the

line” in order for the icing to be nullified. “Gaining the line” shall mean

that the puck, while on the player’s stick (not the player’s skate) must

make contact with the center red line in order to nullify a potential

icing.

 

For the purpose of interpretation of the rule, there are two

judgments required for "icing the puck". The Linesman must first

determine that the puck will cross the goal line. Once the Linesman

determines that the puck will cross the goal line, icing is completed

upon the determination as to which player (attacking or defending)

would first touch the puck. This decision by the Linesman will be made

by no later than the instant the first player reaches the end zone faceoff

dots with the player's skate being the determining factor. Should

the puck be shot down the ice in such a manner that it travels around

the boards and/or back towards the end zone face-off dots, the same

procedure shall be in effect in that the Linesman shall determine

within a similar distance as to who will have touched the puck first.

For clarification, the determining factor is which player would first

touch the puck, not which player would first reach the end zone faceoff

dots.

 

If the race for the puck is too close to determine by the time the

first player reaches the end zone face-off dots, icing shall be called.

That's what it says in the year rule book, Jim. ;) Edited December 14, 2016 by Taro T

[JujuFish]

Apparently this was Eichel's 6th multi-goal game, one more than McDavid (though Eichel does have 88 GP to McDavid's 77).

[Randall Flagg]

Interesting stuff on the icings. And I do agree with Swamp that they were being pretty consistently hard on it last night, harder than usual. And as usual in the NHL, that's going to change from game to game and players will have no idea what they can and can't do.

Unrelated, but this is a neat photo after Jack's goal, posted by the Sabres on twitter/facebook etc:

I've seen the guy hitting the glass from the second row in other Eichel goal celebration photos, kind of funny. Love the variety of emotions shown.

[Stoner]

That's what it says in the year rule book, Jim. ;)

It would be clearer if they got rid of the second "would."

 

For clarification, the determining factor is which player would first

touch the puck, not which player would first reaches the end zone faceoff

dots.

 

Anywho, for all practical purposes, though, unless the attacking player is clearly in the lead at the dots, it's going to be icing. I don't see how you can ask the linesmen to handicap who is going to be the first to the puck. McClavicle and Franson notwithstanding.

 

I think we used to have a rules thread. Interesting stuff. The rule book writers over time make it interesting.

Interesting stuff on the icings. And I do agree with Swamp that they were being pretty consistently hard on it last night, harder than usual. And as usual in the NHL, that's going to change from game to game and players will have no idea what they can and can't do.

 

Unrelated, but this is a neat photo after Jack's goal, posted by the Sabres on twitter/facebook etc:

I've seen the guy hitting the glass from the second row in other Eichel goal celebration photos, kind of funny. Love the variety of emotions shown.

Love it. Wish someone would write a story on the old woman. She has been there for a 's age.

 

Did you put this in the scrapbook?

FTLOG... shorthand for raccoon.

[Randall Flagg]

It would be clearer if they got rid of the second "would."

 

For clarification, the determining factor is which player would first

touch the puck, not which player would first reaches the end zone faceoff

dots.

 

Anywho, for all practical purposes, though, unless the attacking player is clearly in the lead at the dots, it's going to be icing. I don't see how you can ask the linesmen to handicap who is going to be the first to the puck. McClavicle and Franson notwithstanding.

 

I think we used to have a rules thread. Interesting stuff. The rule book writers over time make it interesting.

Love it. Wish someone would write a story on the old woman. She has been there for a ######'s age.

 

Did you put this in the scrapbook?

FTLOG... shorthand for raccoon.

Yeah I will, I'm going to get going on that thread again once I get home tomorrow (or Friday depending on this storm) 

[Stoner]

Yeah I will, I'm going to get going on that thread again once I get home tomorrow (or Friday depending on this storm) 

Is glass pounding dude wearing a hockey glove beer holder?

[Randall Flagg]

Is glass pounding dude wearing a hockey glove beer holder?

Looks like it.

[bunomatic]

Love the old blue haired gal . If n I was 35 years older I tell ya.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Is glass pounding dude wearing a hockey glove beer holder?

 

He looks like Enroth and his *date* is chz ... I tell ya ...

[spndnchz]

He looks like Enroth and his *date* is chz ... I tell ya ...

 

:flirt:

[Sabres Fan in NS]

:flirt:

 

So, I am right, right?

[sodbuster]

He looks like Enroth and his *date* is chz ... I tell ya ...

Apparently Enroth was at the game in Rochester last night.

[WildCard]

Apparently Enroth was at the game in Rochester last night.

Scouting his next game no doubt