Around the NHL – Part XL - Mod post page 249

[Row I Goon]

Does anyone in the west play D? Madness

 

[Tob]

McDavid seems like the kind of guy who sits down to take a shit

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Guarantee Game 2 won't look like this. Game 1 of Oilers and Flames was also like this.

The entire Oilers Flames series kind of looked like this.

 

[Brutananadilewski]

Does anyone in the west play D? Madness

D? I'm at the point asking myself what's the goalie for?

Can't be worse playing 6-5

 

[will1066]

The entire Oilers Flames series kind of looked like this.

After 15 sum goals in the first game, the remaining four games never reached more than 9 each

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

I can't even begin to understand that offsides call. That is the opposite of everything I thought I understood.

 

[Rangers in 7]

After scrolling through twitter for an hour I’m still baffled on the offside call.

Makar has possession, there is no doubt about it, pushing a puck forward with the intent to continue skating into the zone is possession. The puck is never on your stick 100 percent of the time, everytime you stick handle the puck is potentially coming off your stick for a split second. I mean hell they changed the rule so you could skate backwards into the zone because “possession” but you are telling me that because the puck came off makar’s stick for a spilt second that he was touching up. That is a bullshit call

@HatTrick Swayze

 

[The Crypto Guy]

After scrolling through twitter for an hour I’m still baffled on the offside call.

Makar has possession, there is no doubt about it, pushing a puck forward with the intent to continue skating into the zone is possession. The puck is never on your stick 100 percent of the time, everytime you stick handle the puck is potentially coming off your stick for a split second. I mean hell they changed the rule so you could skate backwards into the zone because “possession” but you are telling me that because the puck came off makar’s stick for a spilt second that he was touching up. That is a bullshit call

@HatTrick Swayze

Just a terrible terrible call. I feel bad for the Oilers. If that happened to us I would have punched a hole in my TV.

 

[Rangers in 7]

Just a terrible terrible call. I feel bad for the Oilers. If that happened to us I would have punched a hole in my TV.

Listening to people say well Makar purposely doesn’t touch it hurts my brain….he’s skating into the zone and pushes the puck millimeters off his stick

I’m still pissed about it mostly because there are idiots saying he doesn’t touch the puck

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Listening to people say well Makar purposely doesn’t touch it hurts my brain….he’s skating into the zone and pushes the puck millimeters off his stick

I’m still pissed about it mostly because there are idiots saying he doesn’t touch the puck

If that is how the rule is intended to be called, I don’t understand how every other offsides review I have ever witnessed has never scrutinized whether the puck is literally on a players stick before.

 

[Rangers in 7]

If that is how the rule is intended to be called, I don’t understand how every other offsides review I have ever witnessed has never scrutinized whether the puck is literally on a players stick before.

Basically what we are saying is every toe drag is losing possession…..I mean that is completely stupid

 

[Machinehead]

If I remember correctly @Machinehead has some charts showing how God tier fox it

Yes but to be fair, that chart was showing how much better he is than DeAngelo. Makar compares quite well. My opinion on them is that it's close enough that both fanbases are going to take their guy and it's kind of a fruitless argument.

 

[wolfgaze]

I'm in the U.S. and not close to the Canadian border - why does the ESPN+ service only give me the Canadian Sportsnet feeds for the 2nd and 3rd round playoff games???

 

[Crease]

I can't even begin to understand that offsides call. That is the opposite of everything I thought I understood.

NHL is getting too cute with the definition of “possession.” I hate it.

 

[Chytilmania]

Just a terrible terrible call. I feel bad for the Oilers. If that happened to us I would have punched a hole in my TV.

Awful call but glad it happened because now the hockey gods (and refs) will leave us alone Game 1.

Remember that one play when Laf knocked the net off, maybe Game 6? I immediately got nauseous thinking the refs were going to rule it a goal.

 

[GENESISPuck94]

I'm late to this party, that was offside. Textbook, braindead, offside and it wasn't even close. I've been watching and playing hockey for 30 years and that's routine offside that's called 250000.9% of the time.

What the actual F with this generation of NHL hockey.

The absolute dumpster fire, flaming heap of dog crap refs in the history of the sport.

 

[duhmetreE]

I'm late to this party, that was offside. Textbook, braindead, offside and it wasn't even close. I've been watching and playing hockey for 30 years and that's routine offside that's called 250000.9% of the time.

What the actual F with this generation of NHL hockey.

The absolute dumpster fire, flaming heap of dog crap refs in the history of the sport.View attachment 554668

that puck is still on the line in that picture IMO but it's the definition of possession that needs to be clarified.

He's stick handling into the zone with intent and possession. Saying, 'Well akcthucally he wasn't touching the puck at that exact moment while stick handling' is disingenuous and dumb.

He came into the zone, with possession and speed before the player tagged up. Context matters.

As someone said before... This would 100% be overturned if this was us scoring the goal.

 

[will1066]

There will be a reckoning with NHL officiating. Soon, perhaps. All this stuff is accumulative and there comes a point where there will be widespread pressure for officiating reform. Not one game goes by these days without something stupid or controversial happening related to the zebras and them having a hand in the outcome. f***ing zoo.

 

[Kane One]

The most baffling thing with that offside is that it happened to Buffalo TWICE this year within like a week.

The first one was called offside, and the NHL apologized to the team. So I guess this is the new interpretation of delayed offside?

Nope, like the next week, the same thing happened in a Ranger game when we faced them, and it was called on-side.

Or the first was called on-side and the second offside. Whichever it was, it’s a joke.

If the NHL wants to shove gambling down our throats, they need to assure people that the games are being called fairly.

 

[Kane One]

Just get rid of the blue line altogether.

The point of it was to prevent floating and to have players carry the puck. If they got rid of the offside for a two line pass, then get rid of this too.

 

[will1066]

Just get rid of the blue line altogether.

The point of it was to prevent floating and to have players carry the puck. If they got rid of the offside for a two line pass, then get rid of this too.

You can't get rid of the blue line. Otherwise, Trouba wouldn't know where to cough up the puck during a PP.

But seriously, don't get rid of the blue line. Just get rid of these stupid technicalities to the offside rules.

 

[GENESISPuck94]

that puck is still on the line in that picture IMO but it's the definition of possession that needs to be clarified.

He's stick handling into the zone with intent and possession. Saying, 'Well akcthucally he wasn't touching the puck at that exact moment while stick handling' is disingenuous and dumb.

He came into the zone, with possession and speed before the player tagged up. Context matters.

As someone said before... This would 100% be overturned if this was us scoring the goal.

Its so frustrating.

They called a goal off because "offsides" for us these playoffs, they didn't even have a camera angle to confirm it was offside. We couldn't see the player's skates.

The argument is "it's implied the player was offside". Ok well then why when the goalie is in the goal, literally his whole body is inside the goal with possession of the puck in his equipment, but we can't visually see the puck, is it called no goal, because there's no definitive visual evidence the puck is over the line... even though logic would dictate the puck is over the line. So if there can be a call with no visual evidence in one instance then how can there be in the other instance?

There's no consistency with rules in the NHL. They don't use logic.

I don't give a flying F about possession, if there's an offensive player over the line before the puck it's offside. Plain and simple. Black and white. No room for interpretation.

The Fn blue line goes from surface to infinity up in the sky and beyond. None of this "well his skate was up". Nah. How does the blue line magically act differently than the goal line? With the stupid logic they had that the blueline only exists on the surface than 99.99% of goals in NHL history shouldn't count with the goal line acting the same way.

More logic: then no line counts because they're all BELOW the surface and everything that happens is above the lines.

NHL is so stupid. All the lines and marks should act the same. They all project upward infinitely.

Offside and icing are the most cut and dry black and white rules in hockey. There's NO interpretation for either rule. Yet these refs continually f*** up the most BASIC calls in the sport... at the highest level of the sport... in the most critical matches in the sport.

If you and I were that bad at our jobs we would be homeless.

With MLB going automated AI with some things, the NHL needs to consider it for some things.

Just get rid of the blue line altogether.

The point of it was to prevent floating and to have players carry the puck. If they got rid of the offside for a two line pass, then get rid of this too.

No way, please. Ice hockey would turn into beach roller hockey. All structure would be gone, it would be a joke.

 

[will1066]

Also, the networks employ Don "Donut" Koharski and Dave Jackson as officiating analysts, and they need something to do, right?

 

[LokiDog]

that puck is still on the line in that picture IMO but it's the definition of possession that needs to be clarified.

He's stick handling into the zone with intent and possession. Saying, 'Well akcthucally he wasn't touching the puck at that exact moment while stick handling' is disingenuous and dumb.

He came into the zone, with possession and speed before the player tagged up. Context matters.

As someone said before... This would 100% be overturned if this was us scoring the goal.

It’s actually infuriating how disingenuous it is. I like the Avs and Makar, but it’s funny how the only people who are parsing the wording of a commonly understood and simple rule as if they were lawyers now are Avs fans or Makar fan boys. If it was anyone but their team, or but Makar, for the hero worshippers out there, they would probably be screaming no goal the loudest.

 

[RangerFanInMKE]

Also, the networks employ Don "Donut" Koharski and Dave Jackson as officiating analysts, and they need something to do, right?

Jim Schoenfield was the greatest.

"HAVE ANOTHER DONUT"