GDT: G69: Bruins @ Wild 1pm CT, 7pm Sweden, 8pm Lapa (BSN)

[DigitalBoldy]

Shout out Bally for using the twat Jack Edwards' calls for the highlights.

 

[TaLoN]

There’s clear rules for lots of elements of the game, being able to review every single one of them would be great for the game!

Not very many defined by a line on the playing surface...

 

[Spurgeon]

Not very many defined by a line on the playing surface...

They should be able to review whether a player got to the red line for icing calls.

In fact, if a goal was scored on the proceeding offensive zone face off, then the team should be able to challenge at that point too.

 

[DigitalBoldy]

 

[TaLoN]

They should be able to review whether a player got to the red line for icing calls

That would defeat the purpose of icing calls with a quick faceoff. A review can't defeat the purpose of the rule.

Reviewing offside doesn't doesn't defeat the purpose of the offside rule.

 

[Spurgeon]

That would defeat the purpose of icing calls with a quick faceoff. A review can't defeat the purpose of the rule.

Reviewing offside doesn't doesn't defeat the purpose of the offside rule.

I’m not following at all.

The red line is clear and binary. If the player didn’t meet the red line and they subsequently score, then they should be able to go back and enforce the icing if the offending team scored.

 

[MNNumbers]

I’m not following at all.

The red line is clear and binary.

Icing carries a "no defensive player change" provision. So, the intent of the rule is that the puck goes back to the attacking end, AND the attacking team gets the advantage of attacking against tired players. If you review that, you give the defenders a rest.

NOTE: This is not mt thought, but it is Talon's.

 

[TaLoN]

I’m not following at all.

Icing rule exists, to ensure the defending team icing the puck can't get rest and change lines prior to the defensive zone faceoff to discourage using that as a tactic instead of trying to cleanly exit the defensive zone and down the ice.

The rule is as such, even foregoing scheduled commercial breaks during stoppages, to ensure the defense doesn't get said rest.

It's the purpose of the rule to prevent teams from tossing the puck down the ice instead of... you know... playing actual defense.

 

[Spurgeon]

Icing rule exists, to ensure the defending team icing the puck can't get rest and change lines prior to the defensive zone faceoff to discourage using that as a tactic instead of trying to cleanly exit the defensive zone and down the ice.

The rule is a such, even foregoing scheduled commercial breaks during stoppages, to ensure the defense doesn't get said rest.

It's the purpose of the rule to prevent teams from tossing the puck down the ice instead of... you know... playing actual defense.

What about the opposite? Player doesn’t get to red line and before reaching the red line, they dump it and they subsequently score.

Linesmen often allow this to go uncalled if it’s close enough.

 

[TaLoN]

What about the opposite? Player doesn’t get to red line before reaching the red line and they subsequently score.

Linesmen often allow this to go uncalled if it’s close enough.

Again. The purpose of the rule takes precedent. You cannot defeat the purpose of the rule.

 

[DigitalBoldy]

Here I was thinking this was the game thread, not the NHL rules and provisions thread.

 

[Spurgeon]

Again. The purpose of the rule takes precedent. You cannot defeat the purpose of the rule.

The purpose of the red line is to enforce icings.

Here I was thinking this was the game thread, not the NHL rules and provisions thread.

This is what the NHL wants

 

[TaLoN]

This is what the NHL wants

The NHL wants to get calls right

 

[TaLoN]

The purpose of the red line is to enforce icings.

Yes, and the purpose of icing is to ensure actual defense is played. Thus the purpose of the redline is the same.

 

[Spurgeon]

The NHL wants to get calls right

Then they should allow teams to challenge whether a team got to the red line before dumping the puck.

They should allow all penalties to be reviewed.

You can’t get every call right.

 

[TaLoN]

PP

 

[Spurgeon]

Yes, and the purpose of icing is to ensure actual defense is played. Thus the purpose of the redline is the same.

So a team can benefit from not fully reaching the red line, but the blue line is where the buck stops.

 

[DigitalBoldy]

Please, for the love of god, score here.

 

[Soldier13Fox]

Sunny!

 

[Southern Minny]

$hit made that look easy! Where has the efficiency been? lol

 

[DigitalBoldy]

Unit 2, best unit

 

[TaLoN]

Then they should allow teams to challenge whether a team got to the red line before dumping the puck.

They should allow all penalties to be reviewed.

You can’t get every call right.

You can't get every call right, but you can with offside, as review backs the purpose of the rule very easily.

Review would completely defeat the purpose of the icing rule, thus the Review only encourages icing, not discourages it like the rule intends.

Sundqvist!

 

[57special]

Walker has been decent, in a low key way.

Made a couple of smart plays, has drawn a couple of penalties. Would love to see his game if he put on a few lbs.

 

[TaLoN]

So a team can benefit from not fully reaching the red line, but the blue line is where the buck stops.

The redline exists for icing calls only, there is no offside at the redline. Hasn't been for a decade

2 line passes were made legal

 

[Spurgeon]

You can't get every call right, but you can with offside, as review backs the purpose of the rule very easily.

Review would completely defeat the purpose of the icing rule, thus the Review only encourages icing, not discourages it like the rule intends.

Sundqvist!

How does allowing a team to challenge whether an offending team reached the red line prior to scoring, encourage icing?

I’m talking about the offending team icing the puck before fully reaching the red line, it going uncalled, and the offending team subsequently scoring.

The redline exists for icing calls only, there is no offside at the redline. Hasn't been for a decade

2 line passes were made legal

I’m not talking about 2 line passes.