Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
50 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

The Vegas crowd is awesome.  

I watched the Leaves lose, hoping the Knight can put away SJ tonight. 

These games have been awesome.  I hope the Pegulas are watching how fans in 16 cities are being rewarded.  We now have 8 straight years with no playoffs.  In a league with 31 total teams and 16 playoff teams that is hard to do.   

Still waiting on hockey heaven to arrive. Maybe 2-3 more years. 

Posted
7 hours ago, SwampD said:

How great is Anson Carter? Admitting that when he was in the league guys would have beers in the locker room.

I would imagine that they still do, right? Not during games, certainly, but I’d imagine afterwords. 

Also you’d probably really enjoy Spittin’ Chicklets. They do a lot of player interviews that are very candid. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
9 hours ago, SwampD said:

Pretty sure it was clean, too.

Defending player hadn't touched the puck yet though? (I only saw one replay.) However... it clearly looked like he hadn't touched the puck because he was bailing out.

Posted
15 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Defending player hadn't touched the puck yet though? (I only saw one replay.) However... it clearly looked like he hadn't touched the puck because he was bailing out.

Video of it is just a few posts back.  He clearly has the puck.  Clean and legal hit.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
1 hour ago, ... said:

Video of it is just a few posts back.  He clearly has the puck.  Clean and legal hit.

I don't see him touching the puck, upon further review.

Posted
57 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

I don't see him touching the puck, upon further review.

He "has" the puck.  As we know with the NHL, touching the puck isn't necessarily a prerequisite for possessing the puck. As an example, you don't need to physically push the puck with the stick over the blue line to enter the zone legally, so long as you are "in possession".

Posted
Just now, ... said:

He "has" the puck.  As we know with the NHL, touching the puck isn't necessarily a prerequisite for possessing the puck. As an example, you don't need to physically push the puck with the stick over the blue line to enter the zone legally, so long as you are "in possession".

He's not the last player to have touched the puck (unless my eyes are deceiving me). It's technically in the possession of his teammate. That said, I don't know what else McNabb was supposed to do, as every indication was that Donskoi was going to grab the puck. I don't see a ref ever calling that interference. Kind of a gray area in the rules.

Posted
2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

He's not the last player to have touched the puck (unless my eyes are deceiving me). It's technically in the possession of his teammate. That said, I don't know what else McNabb was supposed to do, as every indication was that Donskoi was going to grab the puck. I don't see a ref ever calling that interference. Kind of a gray area in the rules.

I don't think it's gray at all. That's not interference.

Posted
6 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I don't think it's gray at all. That's not interference.

PA's point is that if the Shark who was hit did not touch the puck he, technically, is not in possession and that the hit, technically, is interference. 

It definitely is a gray area because while the video shows the player moving his stick over the puck, he doesn't appear to touch it before being hit.  Technically, it should have been a penalty, but the gray area is whether he could have possessed or controlled the puck before being hit. He certainly could have and he was most likely intending to until he noticed McNabb bearing down on him.

As I pointed out, there were weird gray-area calls about possession and off-sides throughout the season where a player "with" the puck entered the zone although they hadn't touched it, one leg was on one side of the line, etc. etc.  You can also call goalie possession of the puck and whistles to stop play a pretty gray area, too.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

I think the answer is in this:

SECTION 7 – RESTRAINING FOULS NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE OFFICIAL RULES 2018-2019

A “pick” is the action of a player who checks an opponent who is not in possession of the puck and is unaware of the impending check/hit. A player who is aware of an impending hit, not deemed to be a legal “battle for the puck,” may not be interfered with by a player or goalkeeper delivering a “pick.” A player delivering a “pick” is one who moves into an opponent’s path without initially having body position, thereby taking him out of the play. When this is done, an interference penalty shall be assessed.

So, this would have been a legal "battle for the puck" .

Posted
22 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

So you think O'Reilly undergoing a fundamental personal transformation over just a couple months that changes how he affects his teammates is more likely than he just is the same guy with better teammates? I guess it's possible, but I don't see how that would be the default. After all, people on this very forum were crowing about how poorly the Blues started as some kind of evidence the O'Reilly cloud was a real phenomenon. Whoops. 

As I posted, when the Blues had turned it around.  ROR had no noticeable impact on the Blues and their turnaround.  ROR was the same player, in Buffalo, in STL when in last place, and now.  Dec. 1, Jordan Binnington made it to the league and from there on the Blues were a changed team.

The conversation regarding ROR has grown out of control, regardless of which side of the trade people are on.  It's like having a politics conversation at this point. 

ROR wasn't happy in Buffalo, he said that. ROR was traded, we know that. The Blues were the same team with ROR as they were without him the year before.  He merely fit into the team to make up for those who were gone (Stastny, etc.).

21 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

He's the same with better teammates... and goaltending. 

Yes.. this.

3 minutes ago, ... said:

I think the answer is in this:

SECTION 7 – RESTRAINING FOULS NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE OFFICIAL RULES 2018-2019

A “pick” is the action of a player who checks an opponent who is not in possession of the puck and is unaware of the impending check/hit. A player who is aware of an impending hit, not deemed to be a legal “battle for the puck,” may not be interfered with by a player or goalkeeper delivering a “pick.” A player delivering a “pick” is one who moves into an opponent’s path without initially having body position, thereby taking him out of the play. When this is done, an interference penalty shall be assessed.

So, this would have been a legal "battle for the puck" .

That may be it.  However, you are not required to touch the puck to be able to be legally hit.  If you are making a play on the puck and you happen to choose to not touch it or happen to miss it you are still legally able to be hit.  

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, LTS said:

As I posted, when the Blues had turned it around.  ROR had no noticeable impact on the Blues and their turnaround.  ROR was the same player, in Buffalo, in STL when in last place, and now.  Dec. 1, Jordan Binnington made it to the league and from there on the Blues were a changed team.

The conversation regarding ROR has grown out of control, regardless of which side of the trade people are on.  It's like having a politics conversation at this point. 

To be fair, I was never talking about his on-ice performance. If there were issues behind the scenes (and clearly there were because he didn't get traded because the GM was bored one day), my contention is that ROR may have made a concerted effort to be a different off-ice guy when he started playing for his third team.

Posted
11 minutes ago, LTS said:

That may be it.  However, you are not required to touch the puck to be able to be legally hit.  If you are making a play on the puck and you happen to choose to not touch it or happen to miss it you are still legally able to be hit.

Is that in the rulebook somewhere?

Posted
11 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Is that in the rulebook somewhere?

No.  There's no definition that I am aware of the defines legal "battle for the puck".  It's mentioned in the Interference section, but they don't define it (or I have not found it).  There's no other mention of "battle for the puck" in the entire rule book either.

 

 

Posted
39 minutes ago, LTS said:

No.  There's no definition that I am aware of the defines legal "battle for the puck".  It's mentioned in the Interference section, but they don't define it (or I have not found it).  There's no other mention of "battle for the puck" in the entire rule book either.

That's because the rule book sucks! I feel bad for any new fan who goes to that document to try and understand the call they just saw get made. What's charging? Who knows.

I see the point on "puck battle," but I don't think McNabb was engaged in such a thing.

Posted

I enjoyed the Boston/TO game and I think Boston will win the next one too.

Also kind of glad SJ won in double OT simply b/c it extends the series, which has been phenomenal.

Not sure who I will pull for though in Game 7.

 

Posted

Prediction time:  do we get four 7 game series for the first round?  

The Caps/Canes series is too close to call, IMHO.  That goes to game 7.

Dallas and Nashville?  Depends on which Nashville team we get tonight.  I don't want to make a prediction until after the first 10 minutes.

Posted
3 hours ago, Kruppstahl said:

I enjoyed the Boston/TO game and I think Boston will win the next one too.

Also kind of glad SJ won in double OT simply b/c it extends the series, which has been phenomenal.

Not sure who I will pull for though in Game 7.

 

I'm enjoying the Boston/Toronto series as well.  The sad part about it is that I really like the players on Toronto (except Kadri).  If it weren't for their obnoxious fans and being in our division, I might actually want them to win.  Tavares, Marner, and Matthews are all good dudes, and really talented.  I have to give Matthews some props as he's really stepped it up since Game 3.  I'm not sure why people think Matthews is a more "complete" player than Eichel though.  Their defensive game is about the same in my opinion.  But Matthews can really snipe with the best of them.

Posted
20 hours ago, SwampD said:

How great is Anson Carter? Admitting that when he was in the league guys would have beers in the locker room.

Scored a really cool goal in Canadian national team history, too. 

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, LTS said:

As I posted, when the Blues had turned it around.  ROR had no noticeable impact on the Blues and their turnaround.  ROR was the same player, in Buffalo, in STL when in last place, and now.  Dec. 1, Jordan Binnington made it to the league and from there on the Blues were a changed team.

The conversation regarding ROR has grown out of control, regardless of which side of the trade people are on.  It's like having a politics conversation at this point. 

ROR wasn't happy in Buffalo, he said that. ROR was traded, we know that. The Blues were the same team with ROR as they were without him the year before.  He merely fit into the team to make up for those who were gone (Stastny, etc.).

Yes.. this.

That may be it.  However, you are not required to touch the puck to be able to be legally hit.  If you are making a play on the puck and you happen to choose to not touch it or happen to miss it you are still legally able to be hit.  

 

He's a fundamental reason why they are a good team. We suck right now with Jack Eichel, but we better believe when we are finally good, he's going to be a big part of why. 

The Blues were bad in spite of ROR being really good, it's the same with Buffalo and Jack. 

Edited by Thorny
Posted
1 hour ago, Thorny said:

He's a fundamental reason why they are a good team. We suck right now with Jack Eichel, but we better believe when we are finally good, he's going to be a big part of why. 

The Blues were bad in spite of ROR being really good, it's the same with Buffalo and Jack. 

He is a fundamental component of that team.  But the drivers of the turnaround were Binnington (sp?) & Berube in that order.

Friggin' Binnington.  Messed up the O'Reilly trade worse than it initially appeared & MIGHT keep Dahlin from being a Calder finalist.

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...