Toggle sidebar

Tidbits: Around the League: NHL News - 2022-23

  • 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
Status
Not open for further replies.
AKL said:
He's the one responsible for that though. That's as much his doing as it is Dean's.
Click to expand...
absolutely.

I get what he was doing picking up Steel- hoping for a late bloomer a la Tage Thompson for a guy who showed a ton of offense for a year in junior. I am fine with that, as long as he knows when it's time to take his losses and move on. It's not like there are is a lot of forward talent down in Iowa that he is blocking. The guy makes minimum salary, and cost us nothing- no harm done.

Jost(2M AAV) is another story. Seemed like one of his "rage trades"when Sturm wouldn't roll over during contract negotiations. Avs fans were practically dancing in the streets when they found out that Jost had been traded. I just don't see what the guy does, and i get REALLY tired of hearing what a great skater and great guy he is.
 
57special said:
absolutely.

I get what he was doing picking up Steel- hoping for a late bloomer a la Tage Thompson for a guy who showed a ton of offense for a year in junior. I am fine with that, as long as he knows when it's time to take his losses and move on. It's not like there are is a lot of forward talent down in Iowa that he is blocking. The guy makes minimum salary, and cost us nothing- no harm done.

Jost(2M AAV) is another story. Seemed like one of his "rage trades"when Sturm wouldn't roll over during contract negotiations. Avs fans were practically dancing in the streets when they found out that Jost had been traded. I just don't see what the guy does, and i get REALLY tired of hearing what a great skater and great guy he is.
Click to expand...

I don't really dislike Jost at all, but if there is a proper way to use him in this lineup, they haven't found it yet.

I'm curious what will happen with Steel. Pitlick had 11 points in 20 games with us before being waived, he was also more noticeable in good ways than Steel is. But like you said, it's not like we have anyone in Iowa beating down the door. I wouldn't mind Shaw staying full time and Steel/Jost/Shaw/Dewar can rotate on the fourth line, but there's no denying that it's probably never going to be a good fourth line if that's the case. I'm sure Guerin is looking for another Deslauriers type guy, even if that won't improve the hockey ability of that line at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN
Minnesota said:
Did Doob retire?

www.twincities.com

Former Wild goaltender Devan Dubnyk tries his hand at broadcasting

After making his debut during the playoffs, Dubnyk will be on NHL Tonight on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
www.twincities.com www.twincities.com
Click to expand...
It appears so. He only played 4 games last year, all in the AHL, and has no contract for this year. One of those "fade into history" retirements, without all the fanfare. Seems to be official as of... today? All the stories I'm finding are from today. I wish him luck in the booth!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN
57special said:
He could have easily been on this team, rather than Steel. We are dying for bottom six players with size, nvm C's with size. I do have to wonder about his choice of going to a team with suspect ownership. shortsighted, IMO.
Click to expand...
No he wouldn't. Guerin has made it a point to keep prospects at least a year in the minors. McBain also got to play with one of his former coaches.

It was a no brainer.
 
Kulikov with a nice wrap around goal for his first in ANA.

TOR is off to s rough start to the season. Losses to ANA (OT), SJS (OT), AZ, VGK. LA, and MTL in 10 games.
 
Fiala 9 points in 10 games. Getting close to a PPG, only two goals though.
 
Wabit said:


This is the weakest GI to overturn a goal I recall ever seeing.
Click to expand...

It's a weird one for sure, borderline even, but I can understand the logic the ref must have used.

The relevant part of the rule:

(1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s) but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

In this one, the goalie's ability to make a save is impeded by his defender getting pushed into him by an opposing player. The contact began in the crease, causing his blocker hand and stick to get levered into place, making it impossible for him to square up to the changing angle of the puck, which is why he throws his legs out and back in desperation. If he weren't being touched, he's far more likely to make that stop.

So really it comes down to the refs interpretation of the rule. Does "contact" mean direct contact between the attacking player and the goalie, or can it also mean contact caused directly by the opposing player's actions? It seems to me that the opposing player pushing the defender into his own goalie should be considered contact, otherwise what's to stop forwards from pushing defenders into their own goalies all the time? Even though it's not direct contact, it is intentional contact that impedes his ability to make the save. At least, that's my interpretation.


*edit* Just saw this addendum to that rule above, which should put it to rest:
If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.

This play was cut and dry goaltender interference.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN and Wild11MN
BagHead said:
It's a weird one for sure, borderline even, but I can understand the logic the ref must have used.

The relevant part of the rule:

(1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s) but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 38).

In this one, the goalie's ability to make a save is impeded by his defender getting pushed into him by an opposing player. The contact began in the crease, causing his blocker hand and stick to get levered into place, making it impossible for him to square up to the changing angle of the puck, which is why he throws his legs out and back in desperation. If he weren't being touched, he's far more likely to make that stop.

So really it comes down to the refs interpretation of the rule. Does "contact" mean direct contact between the attacking player and the goalie, or can it also mean contact caused directly by the opposing player's actions? It seems to me that the opposing player pushing the defender into his own goalie should be considered contact, otherwise what's to stop forwards from pushing defenders into their own goalies all the time? Even though it's not direct contact, it is intentional contact that impedes his ability to make the save. At least, that's my interpretation.


*edit* Just saw this addendum to that rule above, which should put it to rest:
If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.

This play was cut and dry goaltender interference.
Click to expand...

That is minor incidental contact not a push. The TOR player goes into his goalie on his own as the Ducks player is trying to leave the crease. The TOR player is also holding on to the Ducks players arm which causes him to go into the goalie.

There is no push, shove, or foul committed by the Ducks player. Bad positioning by the d-man should not be grounds for goalie interference.
 
Wabit said:
That is minor incidental contact not a push. The TOR player goes into his goalie on his own as the Ducks player is trying to leave the crease. The TOR player is also holding on to the Ducks players arm which causes him to go into the goalie.

There is no push, shove, or foul committed by the Ducks player. Bad positioning by the d-man should not be grounds for goalie interference.
Click to expand...
It's interesting how people see the same event differently. What I see is a Ducks player skating toward a goalie from behind, he gets tied up but. with his arms, shoves the defender toward his own goalie (~1.5sec). I see the defender grab on as he's pushed backward, which gains him enough leverage to come out even in the battle. At no point do I see a real attempt to avoid the goalie. At that point, it doesn't matter how minor the contact was, if it interferes with the goalie's ability to make a save, it's interference. I'd say this was more than minor contact, as it completely impeded his ability to stay square to the puck. (please don't confuse me saying "not minor" with "violent". It wasn't violent)

As far as intent, I don't know what any of the players were thinking (probably they weren't), but the above appears to have happened regardless. For the record, I'm someone who thinks NHL reffing needs major reform because it's inconsistent to the point that corruption would be (or is?) impossible to prove, and I also really don't care about either team, I'm just trying to make it clear why it got called back. It's not nearly as boneheaded a call as that tweet made it seem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN
Wabit said:


This is the weakest GI to overturn a goal I recall ever seeing.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's weak at all. The opposing player went into the crease on his own, then left, but was pushing the defender into the goalie, trapping his stick at the very least. Goalies need to be protected in the crease...simple as that.

I wish they went back to the old days, when no one but the puck carrier was allowed in the crease(unless pushed in). Would take the judgement out of it. Also don't mind the international rule, where they blow the whistle and have a FO outside the zone if someone is in the crease.
 
BagHead said:
It's interesting how people see the same event differently. What I see is a Ducks player skating toward a goalie from behind, he gets tied up but. with his arms, shoves the defender toward his own goalie (~1.5sec). I see the defender grab on as he's pushed backward, which gains him enough leverage to come out even in the battle. At no point do I see a real attempt to avoid the goalie. At that point, it doesn't matter how minor the contact was, if it interferes with the goalie's ability to make a save, it's interference. I'd say this was more than minor contact, as it completely impeded his ability to stay square to the puck. (please don't confuse me saying "not minor" with "violent". It wasn't violent)

As far as intent, I don't know what any of the players were thinking (probably they weren't), but the above appears to have happened regardless. For the record, I'm someone who thinks NHL reffing needs major reform because it's inconsistent to the point that corruption would be (or is?) impossible to prove, and I also really don't care about either team, I'm just trying to make it clear why it got called back. It's not nearly as boneheaded a call as that tweet made it seem.
Click to expand...

The Ducks player avoided the goalie. He stopped in the bluepaint and all of his movement after that were to get/stay out of the crease without touching the goalie.

The only contact would have been the goalies skate, but the goalie recovered from that. The stick getting caught up was due to the d-man holding though the crease.

It was just a bad puck luck goal going in off a d-man behind the play skate.
 
Wild11MN said:
The coach is already mad at him and the fans already realize he makes bone headed plays often. Nothing has changed
Click to expand...
Curious where you saw these reports about him and McLellan? I went through a few Kings threads but the HF Search function is broken so I stopped looking.

His goal on Saturday was awesome
 
Wabit said:
The Ducks player avoided the goalie. He stopped in the bluepaint and all of his movement after that were to get/stay out of the crease without touching the goalie.

The only contact would have been the goalies skate, but the goalie recovered from that. The stick getting caught up was due to the d-man holding though the crease.

It was just a bad puck luck goal going in off a d-man behind the play skate.
Click to expand...
This is what I meant by the "it's interesting..." line. You're seeing the same event play out differently to how I am. You see the defender pulling the Ducks player toward his own goalie, and I see the Ducks player pushing the defender toward his goalie. That's why I would call it GI, and you wouldn't, but either way it wouldn't be a boneheaded call. There's definitely grounds here for it to get called.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN
BagHead said:
This is what I meant by the "it's interesting..." line. You're seeing the same event play out differently to how I am. You see the defender pulling the Ducks player toward his own goalie, and I see the Ducks player pushing the defender toward his goalie. That's why I would call it GI, and you wouldn't, but either way it wouldn't be a boneheaded call. There's definitely grounds here for it to get called.
Click to expand...
Why would a defender be pulling the player into him self and the goalie? 99% of the time a defender is trying to push the player away from the goal, not pulling him into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TaLoN and BagHead
Jesus comma Brodin said:
Curious where you saw these reports about him and McLellan? I went through a few Kings threads but the HF Search function is broken so I stopped looking.

His goal on Saturday was awesome
Click to expand...
Yeah I read through one of their GDTs a few games ago and that seemed to be the thought behind this quote. Though maybe it was just fans overreacting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus comma Brodin
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom