Around the League 36-But Who's Counting...

[Stickpucker]

I wonder if Winnipeg would take him back. We need some future considerations

On the trade board they were willing to give up a 3rd for him without any prying.

 

[CandyCanes]

I remember us being heavily rumored to land Andrei Kuzmenko. It’s too bad that didn’t work out. He’s got 16pts in 19 games for the Nucks.

If the Nucks are still out of it, I could see us pursuing him again at the trade deadline. He will be a hot commodity though for how cheap his contract is.

 

[Svechhammer]

I remember us being heavily rumored to land Andrei Kuzmenko. It’s too bad that didn’t work out. He’s got 16pts in 19 games for the Nucks.

If the Nucks are still out of it, I could see us pursuing him again at the trade deadline. He will be a hot commodity though for how cheap his contract is.

Current trend, I'm not sure we can wait til the deadline to make a move.

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

I wonder if Winnipeg would take him back. We need some future considerations

Would be good to replace the ones we sent to Vegas.

I remember us being heavily rumored to land Andrei Kuzmenko. It’s too bad that didn’t work out. He’s got 16pts in 19 games for the Nucks.

If the Nucks are still out of it, I could see us pursuing him again at the trade deadline. He will be a hot commodity though for how cheap his contract is.

I don’t think we were ever serious contenders. It was always down to Edmonton or Vancouver.

 

[chaz4hockey]

Current trend, I'm not sure we can wait til the deadline to make a move.

Agree...we are trending towards a 13th-16th first round draft pick with a challenging travel 6 game road trip coming up (East Coast-MidWest-West Coast-East Coast).

 

[WreckingCrew]

Hellebyuck sold that bigtime, but how the refs missed his helmet being off is a mystery.

I dunno, that last view his head got wrenched pretty good and sandwiched into the post

 

[MadeUpName]

I dunno, that last view his head got wrenched pretty good and sandwiched into the post

If it wasn't Jamie Benn or his ilk then I would lean more towards embellishment

Benn and his like know what they are doing. If they take a shove near the crease then they know that gives them a license to "accidently" run a goalie.

Regardless of that issue - this is one of the most ridiculous reviews that I have ever seen. It is 1000% a safety issue. If Robertson's shot had struck Hellebuyck in the head while he laid on the ice, killed him and then bounced into the net then it would be an OT winner based on this review.

 

[LakeLivin]

If it wasn't Jamie Benn or his ilk then I would lean more towards embellishment

Benn and his like know what they are doing. If they take a shove near the crease then they know that gives them a license to "accidently" run a goalie.

Regardless of that issue - this is one of the most ridiculous reviews that I have ever seen. It is 1000% a safety issue. If Robertson's shot had struck Hellebuyck in the head while he laid on the ice, killed him and then bounced into the net then it would be an OT winner based on this review.

Clearly the refs should have blown the play dead when Hellebuyck's helmet came off. But given that they didn't, doesn't the challenge/ review come down to whether they considered it goalie interference, not that play should have been stopped for safety reasons? You can't challenge that the play should have been blown dead for various reasons, can you? Seems like the concept is similar to the play where Cam Ward got the puck stuck in his skate and carried into the net resulting in a goal. Clearly the play should have been stopped before he skated the puck into his goal, but it wasn't and the resulting goal wasn't challengable / reviewable.

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

You can't challenge that the play should have been blown dead for various reasons, can you?

You kind of can, but I'm not 100% clear on what is and isn't challengeable. Rule 38.2 says this:

SECTION 5 – OFFICIALS
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE OFFICIAL RULES 2021-2022
64
correct. If a review is not conclusive and/or there is any doubt
whatsoever as to whether the call on the ice was correct, the original
call on the ice will be confirmed.
38.2 Situations Subject to Coach’s Challenge – A team may only
request a Coach’s Challenge to review the following scenarios:

...
(b) Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Offensive Zone
Leading to a Goal – A play that results in a “GOAL” call on the
ice where the defending team claims that the play should have
been stopped by reason of any play occurring in the offensive
zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage caused by the
attacking team but did not;

I think that covers stuff like hand passes, high sticks, and putting the puck into the netting, but since it specifies a stoppage caused by the attacking team, I don't know if you could challenge a missed stoppage because your own goaltender lost his bucket.

 

[MadeUpName]

Clearly the refs should have blown the play dead when Hellebuyck's helmet came off. But given that they didn't, doesn't the challenge/ review come down to whether they considered it goalie interference, not that play should have been stopped for safety reasons? You can't challenge that the play should have been blown dead for various reasons, can you? Seems like the concept is similar to the play where Cam Ward got the puck stuck in his skate and carried into the net resulting in a goal. Clearly the play should have been stopped before he skated the puck into his goal, but it wasn't and the resulting goal wasn't challengable / reviewable.

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the NHL added "missed stoppage of play" to reviewable calls this year.

Toronto had a goal waved off because of a missed hand pass 60 seconds before a goal this year. To me this seems like an obvious case of a missed stoppage of play.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You kind of can, but I'm not 100% clear on what is and isn't challengeable. Rule 38.2 says this:




I think that covers stuff like hand passes, high sticks, and putting the puck into the netting, but since it specifies a stoppage caused by the attacking team, I don't know if you could challenge a missed stoppage because your own goaltender lost his bucket.

To me that rule would allow the Jets to challenge based on the fact that contact from a Stars player knocked off the goalie’s helmet, which is an automatic stoppage.

If we’re telling goalies they have to stand up and take shots without a mask, and if they can’t then it’s a valid goal and not reviewable, then I don’t know what we’re doing here.

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

To me that rule would allow the Jets to challenge based on the fact that contact from a Stars player knocked off the goalie’s helmet, which is an automatic stoppage.

If we’re telling goalies they have to stand up and take shots without a mask, and if they can’t then it’s a valid goal and not reviewable, then I don’t know what we’re doing here.

Oh, I totally agree with you, but trying to decipher the Byzantine rule book the nhl puts out is a whole other can of worms.

Of course, the DoPS is run by mister make hockey violent again, so what are we even doing here?

 

[Blueline Bomber]

To me that rule would allow the Jets to challenge based on the fact that contact from a Stars player knocked off the goalie’s helmet, which is an automatic stoppage.

If we’re telling goalies they have to stand up and take shots without a mask, and if they can’t then it’s a valid goal and not reviewable, then I don’t know what we’re doing here.

The explanation from the officials after talking with the war room was that "The Jets player caused the collision with the goaltender, therefore we have a good goal."

I assumed they'd just apply that same logic to that rule. Yes, a Stars player knocked off the helmet, but he was forced to by a Jets player.

I'm not saying that's the right decision or that I agree with it, but that's how I'd see them rule it

 

[LakeLivin]

You kind of can, but I'm not 100% clear on what is and isn't challengeable. Rule 38.2 says this:




I think that covers stuff like hand passes, high sticks, and putting the puck into the netting, but since it specifies a stoppage caused by the attacking team, I don't know if you could challenge a missed stoppage because your own goaltender lost his bucket.

(b) Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Offensive Zone Leading to a Goal – A play that results in a “GOAL” call on the
ice where the defending team claims that the play should have been stopped by reason of any play occurring in the offensive
zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage caused by the attacking team but did not;

Seems like "caused by the attacking team" is the key to how they interpreted that play. If they thought Benn caused Hellebyuck to lose his helmet that would be a clear case of goalie interference. To rule that out they must have determined that Benn wasn't responsible for the collision because he was pushed into Hellebyuck. In order to overturn the goal via the clause ". . . should have resulted in a play stoppage caused by the attacking team but did not" they'd have reverse that ruling as to who caused the collision.

Don't get me wrong, it was an egregious error by the officials to not blow the play dead. But given the way the rule is written I can see the logic behind the ruling on the appeal, even if I think the "fair" thing would have been to overturn the goal.

edit: BB covered it while I was typing, lol.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Regardless of who causes the collision, it’s completely absurd to rule that the play was supposed to continue with a helmetless goalie.

If the goalie is maskless, the play should stop, period. The goalie should not be put into a position of thinking “hmmm it seems like my teammate may have been responsible for this, I should stand in the net and try to stop this slapshot in case the review doesn’t go my way”.

 

[Unsustainable]

Only 2 min for that…

 

[MadeUpName]

Regardless of who causes the collision, it’s completely absurd to rule that the play was supposed to continue with a helmetless goalie.

If the goalie is maskless, the play should stop, period. The goalie should not be put into a position of thinking “hmmm it seems like my teammate may have been responsible for this, I should stand in the net and try to stop this slapshot in case the review doesn’t go my way”.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious with any counter argument

The only way the goalie can make a play on this "goal" is to literally put his life in danger moments after a head-injury. That isn't sports.

 

[WreckingCrew]

Only 2 min for that…

What's worse is that it was a retaliation jab...because HE was holding the other guy and got pissed?

 

[LakeLivin]

Regardless of who causes the collision, it’s completely absurd to rule that the play was supposed to continue with a helmetless goalie.

If the goalie is maskless, the play should stop, period. The goalie should not be put into a position of thinking “hmmm it seems like my teammate may have been responsible for this, I should stand in the net and try to stop this slapshot in case the review doesn’t go my way”.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious with any counter argument

The only way the goalie can make a play on this "goal" is to literally put his life in danger moments after a head-injury. That isn't sports.

I don't think anyone would argue that the play should have continued. It was an egregious error for the officials to not blow the play dead.

The question is, given that they screwed up and didn't stop play, what are they allowed to do on review given the rules as written?

They need to change the rules to cover a situation like this one. I can't imagine that anyone thinks it's acceptable to expect a goalie to play without a mask. But I can see why the league doesn't want officials to independently apply extemporaneous rulings that are outside of the current rule book. Even if in certain situations that would seem to be the "fairest" thing to us fans.

 

[CanesUltimate11]

Only 2 min for that…

That’s a paddlin

 

[HisIceness]

Rangers blew a 3-0 lead today

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

Rangers blew a 3-0 lead today

Rangers havent been good. Panarin has turned into a turnover machine. Kreider, Shesterkin and Trouba arent all world this season. Their youth hasnt stepped up, outside of miller. You hate to see it.

The Tkachuk trade has seemed to ruin both teams involved although Calgary looks worse in the long term.

STL was down 4-1 to Florida and won in OT.

 

[chaz4hockey]

TDA gets pounded:

 

[SvechneJerk]

Rangers havent been good. Panarin has turned into a turnover machine. Kreider, Shesterkin and Trouba arent all world this season. Their youth hasnt stepped up, outside of miller. You hate to see it.

The Tkachuk trade has seemed to ruin both teams involved although Calgary looks worse in the long term.

STL was down 4-1 to Florida and won in OT.

It's crazy to see how Ranger fans have turned on both Lafreniere & Kravtsov, especially Kravtsov. While I know that VK has dealt with injury (I think), there are some that are ready to just dump him. And starting to use the term "bust" about Laf.

 

[CanesUltimate11]

TDA gets pounded:

Not sure I’d call that getting pounded, only landed one real shot that I could see. Absolutely ragged dolled though. Almost like what Chara would do to a guy he really didn’t want to mess up.

It's crazy to see how Ranger fans have turned on both Lafreniere & Kravtsov, especially Kravtsov. While I know that VK has dealt with injury (I think), there are some that are ready to just dump him. And starting to use the term "bust" about Laf.

Should we start a main board thread asking if the Rangers could go back would they still draft them (and Kakko)?