GDT: Merged GAME 17 | Sens Rally in Raleigh | Sat Nov 16 2024, 7PM | SN1, TVAS 2

[Micklebot]

I think I understand what this poster is saying. Even if you accept that the refs made bad calls, could the Senators make up a 3 goal differential through some combination of scoring goals on their PPs and preventing goals while on their PKs? I’m saying three goals as there was an empty net goal. Maybe its only a 2 goal differential, as one of the Cane goals was scored from a really bad angle behind the line. So, that goal was preventable and under the Senator’s control.

So, it seems reasonable enough that they could overcome a 2 goal differential. I would say good teams do this a few times each season and would hope that the Senators will be able to do this as well.

Nobody was suggesting that we couldn't have just played better to overcome the bad calls that lead to a 3 goal swing though, of course teams can overcome a bad call or a bad bounce or even several and win the game.

The claim though was that if not for a pair of brutally bad calls, that game was tied going into the third, a period which we were the better team despite not being able to close the gap.

We could have gotten a point out of that game playing the way we did if the refs were competent. Maybe we still lose, maybe we win, who knows. The only thing we do know is the three goal swing the refs handed the canes was one we could not overcome without playing better than we did.

Saying we didn't play well enough to win that game regardless of the bad calls is just as unsubstantiated as saying we would have won without them, since without them it's a tie game.

 

[LiseL]

They were never going maintain that level of play and the Bruins and Leafs didn’t show up anyway. This team buckles to high tempo teams and the Canes are the definition of that.

I wish the coaching staff would adjust the team's style of play when warranted. Green said Carolina plays they way the Sens want to play, but they're not there yet. Should play more of a trap game against these types of teams: clog up the neutral zone, be very physical and wait for opportunities. Also, when the Sens are behind, they have trouble scoring. Clutch, they are not.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Nobody was suggesting that we couldn't have just played better to overcome the bad calls that lead to a 3 goal swing though, of course teams can overcome a bad call or a bad bounce or even several and win the game.

The claim though was that if not for a pair of brutally bad calls, that game was tied going into the third, a period which we were the better team despite not being able to close the gap.

We could have gotten a point out of that game playing the way we did if the refs were competent. Maybe we still lose, maybe we win, who knows. The only thing we do know is the three goal swing the refs handed the canes was one we could not overcome without playing better than we did.

Saying we didn't play well enough to win that game regardless of the bad calls is just as unsubstantiated as saying we would have won without them, since without them it's a tie game.

If Forsberg stopped that preventable goal from a shot behind the line, it might have been a 2 goal differential.

Lots of things can affect the outcome of a game. In this game specifically (and other games in general), the list would include:

a. The goalie making an extra stop as mentioned above.

b. Senators scoring more on their PP opportunities.

c. Senators preventing goals on their PKs

d. Any combination of a., b., and c.

e. The ref making fewer (or no) bad calls.

It didn’t seem like anyone was saying there weren’t bad calls, or that the bad calls had zero impact. Maybe I had to go way back (many pages further back) to see that though.

One thing I found a little disappointing is that we didn’t capitalize on our PP opportunities. Our PP has been good this year, but last night we had problems getting into the o-zone. But, Canes are good at making that difficult to do. I think the Canes goalie played pretty well as well.

We’ve had problems winning against the Canes in the past iirc correctly. They are a good team, so we have to bring our A game to win. Maybe we’ll win in the next tilt against them. But, in the meantime, we need to win our games against lesser opponents as well.

 

[Micklebot]

If Forsberg stopped that preventable goal from a shot behind the line, it might have been a 2 goal differential.

Lots of things can affect the outcome of a game. In this game specifically (and other games in general), the list would include:

a. The goalie making an extra stop as mentioned above.

b. Senators scoring more on their PP opportunities.

c. Senators preventing goals on their PKs

d. Any combination of a., b., and c.

e. The ref making fewer (or no) bad calls.

It didn’t seem like anyone was saying there weren’t bad calls, or that the bad calls had zero impact. Maybe I had to go way back (many pages further back) to see that though.

One thing I found a little disappointing is that we didn’t capitalize on our PP opportunities. Our PP has been good this year, but last night we had problems getting into the o-zone. But, Canes are good at making that difficult to do. I think the Canes goalie played pretty well as well.

We’ve had problems winning against the Canes in the past iirc correctly. They are a good team, so we have to bring our A game to win. Maybe we’ll win in the next tilt against them. But, in the meantime, we need to win our games against lesser opponents as well.

The whole original point was that refs altered the outcome though, telling me we could have just played better and the refs making egregiously bad calls wouldn't have mattered doesn't change the fact that those terrible calls did matter, and that's really the only point that was being made, those calls mattered and did affect the outcome, at least up to the start of the third, there's really no telling how the game would have played out in the third had they not botched those calls.

Saying we didn't play well enough anyway (debatable, as the underlying numbers suggest we were at worst pretty evenly matched after the first goal) so those botched call are irrelevant ignores the fact that a) without them, it's a tie game, and b) teams often win games they are outplayed in.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

The whole original point was that refs altered the outcome though, telling me we could have just played better and the refs making egregiously bad calls wouldn't have mattered doesn't change the fact that those terrible calls did matter, and that's really the only point that was being made, those calls mattered and did affect the outcome, at least up to the start of the third, there's really no telling how the game would have played out in the third had they not botched those calls.

Saying we didn't play well enough anyway (debatable, as the underlying numbers suggest we were at worst pretty evenly matched after the first goal) so those botched call are irrelevant ignores the fact that a) without them, it's a tie game, and b) teams often win games they are outplayed in.

I didn’t see any statements like the bad calls wouldn’t have mattered.

What I did see were statements like (I’m quoting that poster) “There were some bad calls but I don’t think we can blame everything ……”. In another post, the poster said “I agree there were bad calls”. In another post, this was stated: "Its not just what a ref does, but its also what we do and what our opponent does that affects the outcome”.

It looks to me like the poster was saying there were multiple reasons for the loss including bad calls.

 

[Micklebot]

I didn’t see any statements like the bad calls wouldn’t have mattered.

What I did see were statements like (I’m quoting that poster) “There were some bad calls but I don’t think we can blame everything ……”. In another post, the poster said “I agree there were bad calls”. In another post, this was stated: "Its not just what a ref does, but its also what we do and what our opponent does that affects the outcome”.

It looks to me like the poster was saying there were multiple reasons for the loss including bad calls.

You notably stop your first quote before "and the outcome", seems to alter the sentiment a bit no?

 

[Big Muddy]

x

 

[HoweHullOrr]

You notably stop your first quote before "and the outcome", seems to alter the sentiment a bit no?

OK. After a lot of searching, I did finally manage to find the post from that poster that you claim I altered in an attempt to change the meaning of the post. Here it is: "There were some bad calls, but I don’t think we can blame everything and the outcome on them”. I don’t think that says what you think it says and it's not a smoking gun. The blame “everything” (heavy emphasis on the word everything) part is saying there are more factors at work that affected the outcome than just the bad ref calls. YOU seem to making the point that the bad calls determined the outcome, but the poster you were debating with and whom I’m quoting isn't making that point.

I think there’s several posts and statements being made that make it clear that the poster thought there were multiple factors that contributed to the loss and the poster did not specifically exclude the ref’s calls. It sure looks like the poster is consistent. In addition to the ones I’ve already posted, here’s some other statements from that poster.

"I think a team needs to do enough on its own to win versus a game boiling down to refs and bad calls to determine the results”. To me that poster is suggesting there are multiple factors at work and not just everything boiling down to bad ref calls.

Here’s another post from that poster: "Its not just what a ref does, but its also what we do and what our opponent does that affects the outcome. More Senator goals would have helped the Senators cause immensely. From what I observed, the Canes were the better team, and played a strong game defensively. I agree that there were some bad ref calls, but not sure that was enough to swing the game in our favour against a good team that played well."

The last sentence from that post actually doesn’t make sense. I think what the poster meant was: "but not sure that was enough to generate a loss”. Once again, the poster is stating multiple factors contributing to the loss and includes bad ref calls as one of those factors.

In another thread, the poster stated: "Refs made some bad calls, but we’ll probably have to score (more) goals to win games."

So, I have found lots of things the poster said that stated there were multiple factors involved in the loss & not just bad ref calls. I didn’t really appreciate what you insinuated I did either tbh.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Oof, that sounds ridiculous, he didn't whistle the call until after the goal? It wasn't from a coach's challenge or anything? Still kind of in disbelief they cut that right out of the highlights, too, because the highlights were full of long stretches of game play, it wasn't like there wasn't room for it.

I'm not sure if you can challenge that call as a coach. I doubt it, or else coaches would be challenging half the calls made.

I think the problem was it all happened within a second or two of the goal being scored while Stu was rushing nearly full speed to the net. Like bang bang fast. Event to the point watching the replays on slow mo from different angles and it's still hard to figure out exactly what happened (whether the stick was hit or dropped).

To me, the guy reaching out with one hand on his stick had less than a 0.01% chance of stopping Stu from hitting a half open net in that circumstance. Losing his stick did not give Ottawa a goal, or even a better chance at a goal. Stu had him beat either way. So even if we claim he hit the defenders stick, it wasn't the cause of the goal, and shouldn't have been called back (or penalized). But I'm not a ref, so.......

 

[Micklebot]

OK. After a lot of searching, I did finally manage to find the post from that poster that you claim I altered in an attempt to change the meaning of the post. Here it is: "There were some bad calls, but I don’t think we can blame everything and the outcome on them”. I don’t think that says what you think it says and it's not a smoking gun. The blame “everything” (heavy emphasis on the word everything) part is saying there are more factors at work that affected the outcome than just the bad ref calls. YOU seem to making the point that the bad calls determined the outcome, but the poster you were debating with and whom I’m quoting isn't making that point.

I think there’s several posts and statements being made that make it clear that the poster thought there were multiple factors that contributed to the loss and the poster did not specifically exclude the ref’s calls. It sure looks like the poster is consistent. In addition to the ones I’ve already posted, here’s some other statements from that poster.

"I think a team needs to do enough on its own to win versus a game boiling down to refs and bad calls to determine the results”. To me that poster is suggesting there are multiple factors at work and not just everything boiling down to bad ref calls.

Here’s another post from that poster: "Its not just what a ref does, but its also what we do and what our opponent does that affects the outcome. More Senator goals would have helped the Senators cause immensely. From what I observed, the Canes were the better team, and played a strong game defensively. I agree that there were some bad ref calls, but not sure that was enough to swing the game in our favour against a good team that played well."

The last sentence from that post actually doesn’t make sense. I think what the poster meant was: "but not sure that was enough to generate a loss”. Once again, the poster is stating multiple factors contributing to the loss and includes bad ref calls as one of those factors.

In another thread, the poster stated: "Refs made some bad calls, but we’ll probably have to score (more) goals to win games."

So, I have found lots of things the poster said that stated there were multiple factors involved in the loss & not just bad ref calls. I didn’t really appreciate what you insinuated I did either tbh.

This is missing the point, of course multiple factors contribute to a loss, the game is 60 mins not 3 moments in time, we could have scored more goals, we could have made more saves, but this is like saying the sky is blue or water is wet,.

The reality that people pointing to the officiating where trying to illustrate is that those calls turned a tied get into a game out of reach, the canes also could have done more to make that game not turn on some poor calls, albeit in their favour, but they didn't. Officiating changed what would have been a 1-1 game, into a 3-0 game, saying well we could have just killed that 5v3 that never should have existed, or scored a pp goal to make up for the blown disallowed goal doesn't negate that.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

This is missing the point, of course multiple factors contribute to a loss, the game is 60 mins not 3 moments in time, we could have scored more goals, we could have made more saves, but this is like saying the sky is blue or water is wet,.

The reality that people pointing to the officiating where trying to illustrate is that those calls turned a tied get into a game out of reach, the canes also could have done more to make that game not turn on some poor calls, albeit in their favour, but they didn't. Officiating changed what would have been a 1-1 game, into a 3-0 game, saying well we could have just killed that 5v3 that never should have existed, or scored a pp goal to make up for the blown disallowed goal doesn't negate that.

Are you counting the bad angle goal that was scored on Forsberg as part of the 3 - 0 score? That was on Forsberg, not the officials. So given that, it would have been 2 - 0. That didn’t seem like a game that is “out of reach” to the other poster (and me), but I suppose people could have other opinions. Anyhow, I think I’ve typed more on this subject and these posts than I have on anything else in the past. So, I’ll move on to other things now.