Toggle sidebar

GDT: Around The League 24/25. Parity, blessed parity.

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
CantHaveTkachev said:
why not? whacking at a loose puck at the pads is "pushing" the puck in
Click to expand...
Let’s not play stupid, he clearly pushed his pad out of the way. Not that I really care as the flames can eat shit. If that play happened against us I would be pretty upset, can be damned sure if an oilers player did that it would be instantly called off.
 
TKB21 said:
Let’s not play stupid, he clearly pushed his pad out of the way. Not that I really care as the flames can eat shit. If that play happened against us I would be pretty upset, can be damned sure if an oilers player did that it would be instantly called off.
Click to expand...
Michkov scored a goal very similar to that against the Oilers in October and it counted....why wouldn't this one have counted?

www.nhl.com

Michkov gets first NHL goal with PPG | NHL.com

PHI@EDM: Michkov jams in a PPG for his first career goal
www.nhl.com www.nhl.com
 
The way goalie interference reviews are being handled is a cancer on the sport at this point.

I'd say it needs to go entirely, but you just know the moment that happens the clowns in stripes are going to start getting overzealous trying to catch interference on the ice and they'll start waiving random goals off outright.

It is what it is at this point, sadly. Whatever they do in its place will just end up being equally or more stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 Mins 4 Ftg, Oilhawks, bellagiobob and 1 other person
TB12 said:
Hrudey is the complete opposite of Louie on reviews. Just aggressively cheering for it to be no goal then soils his diaper when it counts. Biggest homer in the league.
Click to expand...
Did you see Hrudey's melt down after the game when the SN panel said it was a good goal? Saying he never wants to talk to those panel members ever again, hahaha. Hrudey's emotional investment in everything Lames on full display.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sanchez, oilers'72, TB12 and 1 other person
oobga said:
Did you see Hrudey's melt down after the game when the SN panel said it was a good goal? Saying he never wants to talk to those panel members ever again, hahaha. Hrudey's emotional investment in everything Lames on full display.
Click to expand...

My favourite part about Hrudey and the fLames is how some of their fans “brain trust” on CP actually think he’s an Oilers homer

And they wonder why they get called inbreds
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: yukoner88, K1984, oilers'72 and 3 others
TKB21 said:
Let’s not play stupid, he clearly pushed his pad out of the way. Not that I really care as the flames can eat shit. If that play happened against us I would be pretty upset, can be damned sure if an oilers player did that it would be instantly called off.
Click to expand...
meh. I thought the goal should've counted and it was the right call. Trouble with the rules is too much subject to interpretation. The rule is designed to prevent a goalie shoved into the net from being a goal. This was not a shoving motion, it was a whack at a loose puck that was near pad, that made contact with the puck first, and sent the puck in. If you note as well the puck went in to the side of pad, sneaking in, and not due to the pad being shoved in. It was just a whack at a loose puck and a goal, properly called.

K1984 said:
The way goalie interference reviews are being handled is a cancer on the sport at this point.

I'd say it needs to go entirely, but you just know the moment that happens the clowns in stripes are going to start getting overzealous trying to catch interference on the ice and they'll start waiving random goals off outright.

It is what it is at this point, sadly. Whatever they do in its place will just end up being equally or more stupid.
Click to expand...
One thing that needs to go is taking 6mins to make the call. Its so strange that they think if they look at something 68X it will somehow lead to better conclusion. it was a goal. I would need 2-3 angles to call that a goal, and NOT that it was shoving the pad in. If I was the Blues I would have hit the showers and claimed the W and f*** the NHL. Its absolutely ridiculous to sit there like dopes looking at a simple goal play that was totally visible from all angles for 6mins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oilers'72
Drivesaitl said:
meh. I thought the goal should've counted and it was the right call. Trouble with the rules is too much subject to interpretation. The rule is designed to prevent a goalie shoved into the net from being a goal. This was not a shoving motion, it was a whack at a loose puck that was near pad, that made contact with the puck first, and sent the puck in. If you note as well the puck went in to the side of pad, sneaking in, and not due to the pad being shoved in. It was just a whack at a loose puck and a goal, properly called.


One thing that needs to go is taking 6mins to make the call. Its so strange that they think if they look at something 68X it will somehow lead to better conclusion. it was a goal. I would need 2-3 angles to call that a goal, and NOT that it was shoving the pad in. If I was the Blues I would have hit the showers and claimed the W and f*** the NHL. Its absolutely ridiculous to sit there like dopes looking at a simple goal play that was totally visible from all angles for 6mins.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest problem with it is the inconsistency, which is bred by the referees on the ice making the call. Even off of that laughable challenge in the Oiler game last night, dumb and dumber wanted to look at it for 5 mins before calling the obvious, whereas maybe more competent officials make the obvious call right away. You get a dumb challenge like that and I think it causes some officials to look at it even more to find the interference that the challenging coach saw. Why? Well because they wouldn't challenge unless they saw something, so we need to see it too. Then they take their time to put the mental math together to justify the challenge.

The solution is to send all challenge decisions to Toronto where there are a small number of people making them. Think a rotating team of no more than 3 people. The fewer the number of opinions, the more consistent the calls will be IMO. Leaving it up to the Tom, Dick and Harry's of NHL officials just produces the result we have now.

Last night I was steaming at those two morons taking minutes to review a pretty obvious good goal when that clown in 2017 looked at the tying goal in Game 5 against the Ducks for all of about 10 seconds to call a good goal when it wasn't. The review is just an utter disaster that is so unnecessary. Consternation about missed goalie interference or offsides wasn't even a thing before the league decided to make it one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: oilers'72
K1984 said:
I think the biggest problem with it is the inconsistency, which is bred by the referees on the ice making the call. Even off of that laughable challenge in the Oiler game last night, dumb and dumber wanted to look at it for 5 mins before calling the obvious, whereas maybe more competent officials make the obvious call right away. You get a dumb challenge like that and I think it causes some officials to look at it even more to find the interference that the challenging coach saw. Why? Well because they wouldn't challenge unless they saw something, so we need to see it too.

The solution is to send all challenge decisions to Toronto where there are a small number of people making them. Think a rotating team of no more than 3 people. The fewer the number of opinions, the more consistent the calls will be IMO. Leaving it up to the Tom, Dick and Harry's of NHL officials just produces the result we have now.

Last night I was steaming at those two morons taking minutes to review a pretty obvious good goal when that clown in 2017 looked at the tying goal in Game 5 against the Ducks for all of about 10 seconds to call a good goal when it wasn't. The review is just an utter disaster that is so unnecessary. Consternation about missed goalie interference or offsides wasn't even a thing before the league decided to make it one.
Click to expand...
The biggest solution is having regulations that are not subject to judgement calls. The instant you add subjective stated rules opens the door for all the subjective calls. Should be more open and shut. Lets say even with the kicking motion interpretation. Could make it easier than that, either that any contact with skate or boot nullifies goal or just allow it. The whole thing about "kicking motion" is just one of the many wordings that lead directly to the calls being subjective because theres a line somewhere, and its not clearly defined. Technically any movement forward of a skate can either be called kicking motion or not, the goal allowed or not. The only thing the rule manages to weed out (sometimes) is instances when the puck is obviously booted in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheNumber4 and oilers'72
Drivesaitl said:
The biggest solution is having regulations that are not subject to judgement calls. The instant you add subjective stated rules opens the door for all the subjective calls. Should be more open and shut. Lets say even with the kicking motion interpretation. Could make it easier than that, either that any contact with skate or boot nullifies goal or just allow it. The whole thing about "kicking motion" is just one of the many wordings that lead directly to the calls being subjective because theres a line somewhere, and its not clearly defined. Technically any movement forward of a skate can either be called kicking motion or not, the goal allowed or not. The only thing the rule manages to weed out (sometimes) is instances when the puck is obviously booted in.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this only because they are already trying to go in that direction and it results in goals that should count, but don't because of the attempt at a black/white standard.

In the crease + goalie contact = no goal. The Perry goal that was called back early in the season was an example of this and there have been others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oilers'72
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom