GDT: cane rags

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Maybe RBA thinks the pp is executing well because it's doing what coaches want ?

Logic follows if the pp is doing what you want and not successful over a long period of time....

From 19-20 through 21-22 (3 seasons), the Canes had the 5th best PP% in the entire NHL.

There's no question that they struggled in the playoffs though. They struggled some at the end of last year and are clearly struggling this year, but for the better part of the last 3 seasons, the PP has been successful.

Personnel has also changed so maybe the approach hasn't adapted enough to account for the personnel changes? Not sure.

I still think the team, early on, has gone out of its way to get Burns involved and maybe that's impacting the overall success? or maybe I'm imagining that.

 

[Stickpucker]

Forget all the kerfuffle about the pp...I won't name names but this game was lost when a certain someone neglected to mention Ron Hainsey.

 

[Stickpucker]

We should save his vengeance for the Rongomen any schlub off the streets can put down some extinct cats.

 

[Ole Gil]

From 19-20 through 21-22 (3 seasons), the Canes had the 5th best PP% in the entire NHL.

There's no question that they struggled in the playoffs though. They struggled some at the end of last year and are clearly struggling this year, but for the better part of the last 3 seasons, the PP has been successful.

Personnel has also changed so maybe the approach hasn't adapted enough to account for the personnel changes? Not sure.

I still think the team, early on, has gone out of its way to get Burns involved and maybe that's impacting the overall success? or maybe I'm imagining that.

There's so little parity in the NHL now, I don't know how much any regular season stats mean now.

Is beating Montreal 9-2 instead of 3-1 any indication of how you'll do vs. Tampa in the playoffs?

Someone posted on the main boards about ppg players not necessarily being stars anymore. And I think there's something to that, with the way players/teams are padding their stats against the bottom 10 teams.

That's what we've seen with the Canes. PK/PP dominate regular season. But they don't get to play against Columbus in the playoffs. It's Boston/NYR/Tampa special teams they have to deal with. And it doesn't seem to be working against any of them.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

There's so little parity in the NHL now, I don't know how much any regular season stats mean now.

Is beating Montreal 9-2 instead of 3-1 any indication of how you'll do vs. Tampa in the playoffs?

Someone posted on the main boards about ppg players not necessarily being stars anymore. And I think there's something to that, with the way players/teams are padding their stats against the bottom 10 teams.

That's what we've seen with the Canes. PK/PP dominate regular season. But they don't get to play against Columbus in the playoffs. It's Boston/NYR/Tampa special teams they have to deal with. And it doesn't seem to be working against any of them.

That's a fair point and I agree. As I stated, they've struggled in the playoffs and are struggling this season so hopefully something can be done.

Unfortunately, I personally think a big part of it is that we don't have an elite talent on the team like some of the other top teams. Maybe Pacioretty adds enough talent to provide the necessary improvement?

I mentioned this before but STL has seemingly had success on the PP without elite talent and won a cup. I'd like to know what they've done system wise to be successful compared to the Canes. Do we approach it too much like a 5v5 (ie..we'll outwork you)? I haven't seen enough of other teams with non-elite talent and good PPs to really be able to compare.

Other team's PK has been better partially because they've had elite goaltending and Carolina has had average goaltending. That's not all of it, but it's a big piece of it. Vasilevsky and Shesterkin are great equalizers when it comes to the PK.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I think the streak ended because of my failure to recognize that this was a chance for vengeance immediately, no amount of editing after the fact could make up for it. Therefore I nominate @MrazeksVengeance to pick up the GDTs with a proper amount of vengeance.

The streak ended because "What" wasn't #1 in the poll.

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

The streak ended because "What" wasn't #1 in the poll.

Why'd I have to put that damned king of the hill reference in there that got us all distracted (and probably the team too as we know they read HF26)

 

[raynman]

Why'd I have to put that damned king of the hill reference in there that got us all distracted (and probably the team too as we know they read HF26)

 

[Identity404]

Gonna disagree with a lot of this. My stance on officiating has always been “If it’s a penalty, it’s a penalty” No matter the time, the score, whathaveyou, if they call it and it’s reasonable on replay, then I’ve got no issue with it.

Likewise, the Martinook penalty. He broke his stick, he attempted to play the puck, that’s a penalty. Just because the official appeared to recognize the stick was broken before Martinook did doesn’t make it any less of one.

If the NHL called every penalty by the book, almost all of the game would be special teams play. There are always a lot more missed calls than bad calls. I don't want that in the game.

Generally the refs are pretty consistent in calling penalties when the outcome prevents or allows a good scoring chance or puts a players safety at concern, even late in the game.

The Martinook penalty fit none of that criteria. By calling it, the ref is the only one impacting the outcome of the game, which is non-sense.

The NHL rulebook is super vague in regards to a broken stick in a first place.

Broken Stick – Player - A broken stick is one which, in the opinion of the Referee, is unfit for normal play. A player without a stick may participate in the game. A player whose stick is broken may participate in the game provided he drops the broken stick. A minor penalty shall be imposed for an infraction of this rule.

So Martinook did drop his stick, but did he participate in the game during that 1-2 second period from when the stick was broken to when it was dropped?

What constitutes participating in the game... it's not defined.

So if you are calling it by the book, then you could technically call a player for a penalty every-time a stick is broken, because you are still participating in the game by being on the ice the microsecond after the stick was broken, right?

If you apply any logic to the rule, you would argue that Martinook didn't really make an attempt to play the puck, the puck just happened to be near his stick at the time it broke, and he quickly dropped his stick when he realized it was broken.

Hockey USA's rule is much clearer, and allows for a "reasonable time to be aware that the stick is broken". Thus not a penalty in Martinook's case, because most people would call that 1-2 second period between the stick breaking and him dropping it reasonable.

 

[raynman]

If the NHL called every penalty by the book, almost all of the game would be special teams play. There are always a lot more missed calls than bad calls. I don't want that in the game.

Generally the refs are pretty consistent in calling penalties when the outcome prevents or allows a good scoring chance or puts a players safety at concern, even late in the game.

The Martinook penalty fit none of that criteria. By calling it, the ref is the only one impacting the outcome of the game, which is non-sense.

The NHL rulebook is super vague in regards to a broken stick in a first place.



So Martinook did drop his stick, but did he participate in the game during that 1-2 second period from when the stick was broken to when it was dropped?

What constitutes participating in the game... it's not defined.

So if you are calling it by the book, then you could technically call a player for a penalty every-time a stick is broken, because you are still participating in the game by being on the ice the microsecond after the stick was broken by being on the ice, right?

If you apply any logic to the rule, you would argue that Martinook didn't really make an attempt to play the puck, the puck just happened to be near his stick at the time it broke, and he quickly dropped his stick when he realized it was broken.

Hockey USA's rule is much clearer, and allows for a "reasonable time to be aware that the stick is broken". Thus not a penalty in Martinook's case, because most people would call that 1-2 second period between the stick breaking and him dropping it reasonable.

I think it goes back to refs giving the players a bit of leeway in a situation like that. It was obvious Martinook didn’t know his stick was broken by the way he dropped it immediately once he was going for the puck. Seemingly was a rookie ref though so I won’t give him too much shit for something like that.

 

[chaz4hockey]

I think it goes back to refs giving the players a bit of leeway in a situation like that. It was obvious Martinook didn’t know his stick was broken by the way he dropped it immediately once he was going for the puck. Seemingly was a rookie ref though so I won’t give him too much shit for something like that.

Seemingly was a rookie ref though so I won’t give him too much shit for something like that.

Hopefully, the NHL has a mentorship program that will provide feedback on how he called the game and the idiocy of the penalty at that time.

 

[bleedgreen]

It’s pretty standard you call that penalty the second someone brings it back into play and makes a move on the puck. From other angles it was likely very obvious it was broke the instant it happened. You’re supposed to drop it immediately. I’ve seen it called at many levels with players who didn’t realize it was broke. It’s a safety issue that they are pressured to call in a hyper vigilant way. I’m not surprised it was called to be honest, even if it feels unfair. The second he motioned to the puck with it, he was available to have it called. Was it tight? Yes. Will someone else do the same thing and not get called? Get more leeway? Probably. It was a fair call though, he moved to the puck with a broken stick.

 

[Identity404]

It’s pretty standard you call that penalty the second someone brings it back into play and makes a move on the puck. From other angles it was likely very obvious it was broke the instant it happened. You’re supposed to drop it immediately. I’ve seen it called at many levels with players who didn’t realize it was broke. It’s a safety issue that they are pressured to call in a hyper vigilant way. I’m not surprised it was called to be honest, even if it feels unfair. The second he motioned to the puck with it, he was available to have it called. Was it tight? Yes. Will someone else do the same thing and not get called? Get more leeway? Probably. It was a fair call though, he moved to the puck with a broken stick.

The stick was broken during his move to play the puck against the boards. His stick doesn't even touch the puck after it was broken, and it was broken and dropped in almost one single motion. I don't know how you defend that as a good call unless you are just trying to be contrarian.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

The stick was broken during his move to play the puck against the boards. His stick doesn't even touch the puck after it was broken, and it was broken and dropped in almost one single motion. I don't know how you defend that as a good call unless you are just trying to be contrarian.

View attachment 630265

I think his stick broke when he hit the boards. Then he brings it out in front (around 4 seconds in that clip) and attempts to play the puck. He drops it immediately after noticing it's broken, but he still attempted to play the puck with a broken stick.

 

[WreckingCrew]

There's so little parity in the NHL now, I don't know how much any regular season stats mean now.

Is beating Montreal 9-2 instead of 3-1 any indication of how you'll do vs. Tampa in the playoffs?

Someone posted on the main boards about ppg players not necessarily being stars anymore. And I think there's something to that, with the way players/teams are padding their stats against the bottom 10 teams.

That's what we've seen with the Canes. PK/PP dominate regular season. But they don't get to play against Columbus in the playoffs. It's Boston/NYR/Tampa special teams they have to deal with. And it doesn't seem to be working against any of them.

*laughs nervously in Canes*
Seriously, have we ever actually lit-up a bottom 10 team? This year it's a 1 goal win (or even a loss)...hell the past few years we struggle mightily against those teams. We had Philly down 6-2 only to shit ourselves and nearly blow it at 6-5.

It’s pretty standard you call that penalty the second someone brings it back into play and makes a move on the puck. From other angles it was likely very obvious it was broke the instant it happened. You’re supposed to drop it immediately. I’ve seen it called at many levels with players who didn’t realize it was broke. It’s a safety issue that they are pressured to call in a hyper vigilant way. I’m not surprised it was called to be honest, even if it feels unfair. The second he motioned to the puck with it, he was available to have it called. Was it tight? Yes. Will someone else do the same thing and not get called? Get more leeway? Probably. It was a fair call though, he moved to the puck with a broken stick.

It's a player safety thing to not play with a broken stick, and he dropped it mid-poke when he saw it was broken, that should be the end of it. We don't penalize a player who snaps his stick on the ice as he's making a slapshot BEFORE it clips the puck...then it shouldn't be penalized here either. I've seen broken sticks held for longer before a player noticed, you have to give them a chance to notice (unless it's several seconds and they're just clueless). He wasn't looking at his stick when it broke, he was looking the other way where the puck went, and when he got his stick back in his field-of-view, he saw it & dropped it, without ever playing the puck. Even Rags fans watching the video agree it was a terrible call.

 

[bleedgreen]

The stick was broken during his move to play the puck against the boards. His stick doesn't even touch the puck after it was broken, and it was broken and dropped in almost one single motion. I don't know how you defend that as a good call unless you are just trying to be contrarian.

View attachment 630265

The stick breaks the second he digs it into the boards, it was clear on the one I watched. I’m not being contrarian, he made a play on the puck with a broken stick. It doesn’t have to touch the puck? Why does that matter? I might’ve called it myself, as lower levels of hockey are much stricter on that sort of thing.

 

[Identity404]

I think his stick broke when he hit the boards. Then he brings it out in front (around 4 seconds in that clip) and attempts to play the puck. He drops it immediately after noticing it's broken, but he still attempted to play the puck with a broken stick.

Yeah, after watching it a few more times you're right... but it's difficult to pick up on, and it's clear Martinook didn't know it was broken until it snapped when he made a swipe towards the puck.

 

[bleedgreen]

*laughs nervously in Canes*
Seriously, have we ever actually lit-up a bottom 10 team? This year it's a 1 goal win (or even a loss)...hell the past few years we struggle mightily against those teams. We had Philly down 6-2 only to shit ourselves and nearly blow it at 6-5.


It's a player safety thing to not play with a broken stick, and he dropped it mid-poke when he saw it was broken, that should be the end of it. We don't penalize a player who snaps his stick on the ice as he's making a slapshot BEFORE it clips the puck...then it shouldn't be penalized here either. I've seen broken sticks held for longer before a player noticed, you have to give them a chance to notice (unless it's several seconds and they're just clueless). He wasn't looking at his stick when it broke, he was looking the other way where the puck went, and when he got his stick back in his field-of-view, he saw it & dropped it, without ever playing the puck.

It doesn’t really matter if he saw it or dropped it when he realized it, or doesn’t touch the puck. People have skated away and never noticed their stick was broke, and they still get called for it at all other levels. Coming from that world it’s not a surprising call. I don’t know what to say, it made sense when I watched the replay. He hit the boards with it, it broke, he unknowingly swung it towards the puck and then dropped it when he realized it right before touching the puck. The second he swung it the way of the puck instead of dropping it he was available for the call.

 

[Identity404]

The stick breaks the second he digs it into the boards, it was clear on the one I watched. I’m not being contrarian, he made a play on the puck with a broken stick. It doesn’t have to touch the puck? Why does that matter? I might’ve called it myself, as lower levels of hockey are much stricter on that sort of thing.

I think common sense should dictate that a player should be given some leeway to realize that the stick was even broken, and whether or not they made a conscious effort to play with a broken stick. USA Hockey rule book even explicitly states this.

Rule 605 | Broken Stick​

(Note) A broken stick is one that, in the opinion of the Referee, is unfit for normal play.
(a) Any player whose stick is broken must drop his stick prior to participating in the play. A player or goalkeeper shall be allowed reasonable time to be aware that the stick is broken. A minor penalty for an equipment violation shall be assessed for participating in play with a broken stick.
(b) A replacement stick for any player who is no longer in possession of a stick may only be obtained from the player’s bench or from a teammate on the ice. A minor penalty for an equipment violation shall be assessed to a player who receives a replacement stick illegally, unless the team is assessed a bench minor penalty under Rule 601(b.4) Throwing Articles into the Playing Area. In this instance, the player receiving the thrown stick shall not be penalized.
(c) A goalkeeper whose stick is broken may not go to the players’ bench for a replacement during a stoppage of play, but must receive his stick from a teammate. For an infraction of this rule a minor penalty for delay of game shall be assessed to the goalkeeper.

I would assume if you are reffing in the US, you would go by the USA Hockey rulebook?

 

[MrazeksVengeance]

I think the streak ended because of my failure to recognize that this was a chance for vengeance immediately, no amount of editing after the fact could make up for it. Therefore I nominate @MrazeksVengeance to pick up the GDTs with a proper amount of vengeance.

YOU COULD SAY THAT SUCH A DEFEAT WAS FORETOLD. THAT IT WAS FATED.

Truth is… DESTINY CAN FU^K ITSELF.
ALL THERE IS GREATER WILL TO BEAT THE OTHER(S) TO A BLOODY PULP.

FOR THE SAKE OF SISTERLY RIVALRY I NAME @skipnjump MY SECOND FOR THE NEXT GDT.

 

[bleedgreen]

I think common sense should dictate that a player should be given some leeway to realize that the stick was even broken, and whether or not they made a conscious effort to play with a broken stick. USA Hockey rule book even explicitly states this.



I would assume if you are reffing in the US, you would go by the USA Hockey rulebook?

It’s really nice when common sense applies, but unfortunately often has little to do with it. I have reffed by USA hockey rules, many individual rink rule books, “NHL style minus the hitting”, I’ve even been told to just try to use common sense! I’m glad I don’t ref anymore.

Even at the NHL level there’s grey areas and subjectivity that doesn’t fit in the book. The point of emphasis for all of them in terms of this play is whether or not the player engages with the play with the broken stick. If he was skating away but hadn’t dropped it yet, realized it late then dropped it he probably gets away with it. Refs at all levels and rule books are trained to hone in on motion toward the play/puck and to call it automatically and immediately regardless of what’s going on with the players mentality. In the NHL I could see leeway being given but I’m never surprised when it’s automatically called, especially with the new generation of refs.

IMO USA hockey would call it more consistently in a harsh manner even with the ref having “leeway” to take into account how intentional it is because honestly there’s more on the line than for an NHL ref. It’s kids safety. Screaming parents chase you down in the parking lots. Uneducated coaches lose their minds on obvious tripping calls. At those levels you want to call it the same way every time and when you can use safety as your reason for calling it you take advantage of that. As a ref with kids you’d scream “drop it!” the second you saw the stick bend funny but even if the kid didn’t have time to realize it then went and played the puck…..the assumption would be that you call it because you have to be consistent and everyone has seen that play get called on another occasion. Explaining to a throng of pitchforks that you have leeway ain’t gonna go well.

Hockey is a funny sport that way. You can have a rule written very clearly and still get interpretations.

 

[bleedgreen]

*laughs nervously in Canes*
Seriously, have we ever actually lit-up a bottom 10 team? This year it's a 1 goal win (or even a loss)...hell the past few years we struggle mightily against those teams. We had Philly down 6-2 only to shit ourselves and nearly blow it at 6-5.


It's a player safety thing to not play with a broken stick, and he dropped it mid-poke when he saw it was broken, that should be the end of it. We don't penalize a player who snaps his stick on the ice as he's making a slapshot BEFORE it clips the puck...then it shouldn't be penalized here either. I've seen broken sticks held for longer before a player noticed, you have to give them a chance to notice (unless it's several seconds and they're just clueless). He wasn't looking at his stick when it broke, he was looking the other way where the puck went, and when he got his stick back in his field-of-view, he saw it & dropped it, without ever playing the puck. Even Rags fans watching the video agree it was a terrible call.

Like I said, making a play on the puck makes you available for the call….whether or not it makes “common sense”. I really don’t care if the other teams fans agree. It’s a tough call. I’m not even agreeing with it, just saying I wasn’t surprised it was called and that if I was still reffing I might’ve called it too….but I would’ve been reffing younger players with that emphasis on safety. Doesn’t really matter though.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I love that the broken stick call is the focus as if we weren't still down 1 with 3 min left. We didn't have the juice, we weren't coming back in that game either way IMO.

 

[Identity404]

What really blows me away is that the guy who made this call yesterday only started reffing (in any capacity) last year.

I would have thought the entry bar to the NHL would be a bit higher.

 

[bleedgreen]

I love that the broken stick call is the focus as if we weren't still down 1 with 3 min left. We didn't have the juice, we weren't coming back in that game either way IMO.

Lol that was the point I meant to make before I let myself get involved. If we’re in that position in the first place we deserve to lose. The call doesn’t matter. The refs didn’t decide that one.