Toggle sidebar

GDT: Ottawa Senators at Philadelphia Flyers - 1PM - TSN5/RDS2 - Moms I would like to.... have their sons win Edition

OD99

Registered User
Oct 13, 2012
5,182
4,391
God Says No said:
I was right.
Click to expand...
LOL. Wow, I feel bad for you that you need to be right about something like this, but you did warn me you would bookmark it, for some odd reason.

How did you come to this conclusion?

What happened today that makes you believe you are right? More specifically, what happened today to absolutely prove it?

1 game! LOL.
 
maclean

maclean

Registered User
Jan 4, 2014
8,985
2,926
bert said:
I mean it was a goal. It was the right call. Absolutely no reason the whistle should have blown.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that when the whistle blows, play stops. It's not like it's the first time a ref has blown the whistle because they lose sight of the puck when in theory it's still in play. Yes, this situation was abnormal in that those are usually goal-crease pile-ups, but we saw an example of that later in the game and the determining factor was that the puck was across the line before the whistle blew. To reiterate, yes, the referee should not have blown the whistle and yes it should otherwise have been a good goal, but as players are told - play to the whistle. You can't just overturn that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bileur and DrEasy
bert

bert

Registered User
Nov 11, 2002
37,576
23,895
Visit site
lang006 said:
It was a weird sequence. In theory yes it ended up the right call.

But problem is you cannot blow your whistle and then all of a sudden emphatically start signalling good goal.
Click to expand...
Not in theory the only reason the whistle blew was because soogard mismanaged the situation so aggregiously everyone thought he had the puck because they trusted an NHL goalie couldn't be that wrong. It was the right call the sens still won. Frankly I'm most worried about how bad Soogard is. How could he not feel that? How does he let out such a crazy rebound on what should have been a nothing shot. I'd really like to see them send him down and give one of the other goalies a shot. He's been absolutely terrible in his 2 games. He's all over the place, he can't track a puck. It's not NHL goaltending. Not even close.
 

BankStreetParade

Registered User
Jan 22, 2013
7,043
4,422
Ottawa
maclean said:
My understanding is that when the whistle blows, play stops. It's not like it's the first time a ref has blown the whistle because they lose sight of the puck when in theory it's still in play. Yes, this situation was abnormal in that those are usually goal-crease pile-ups, but we saw an example of that later in the game and the determining factor was that the puck was across the line before the whistle blew. To reiterate, yes, the referee should not have blown the whistle and yes it should otherwise have been a good goal, but as players are told - play to the whistle. You can't just overturn that...
Click to expand...
The problems only start when the referees don't apply the rules the same way every time. Come up with one standard and stick to it, it leaves almost no room for debate if all the players, coaches and fans know that the call will be made the same way every time. If it's a whistle that doesn't benefit you, you can be frustrated with your luck but you can't be upset with the referees if they call it with consistency.

Obviously what I'm describing is the part of refereeing that is the hardest to get around - human error. But, honestly, they don't do themselves any favours when their own standard is so variable.
 
Micklebot

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
56,709
34,507
maclean said:
My understanding is that when the whistle blows, play stops. It's not like it's the first time a ref has blown the whistle because they lose sight of the puck when in theory it's still in play. Yes, this situation was abnormal in that those are usually goal-crease pile-ups, but we saw an example of that later in the game and the determining factor was that the puck was across the line before the whistle blew. To reiterate, yes, the referee should not have blown the whistle and yes it should otherwise have been a good goal, but as players are told - play to the whistle. You can't just overturn that...
Click to expand...
They updated the rule a few years back to allow goals when it's a "continuation of the play" prior to the whistle, so if the puck is shot, then the whistle blows, they can allow the goal.

This particular play wasn't a case of the goalie or D giving up on the play because of the whistle, they already stopped tracking the puck, it should have been a goal with no whistle, the ref blowing the whistle in error made no difference in whether that puck was going in the net or not, they are able to and did review the replay to ensure the whistle didn't impact the play, so I personally feel this is a case of the rules getting the intention of the game right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lang006
Knave

Knave

Registered User
Mar 6, 2007
21,822
2,438
Ottawa
BankStreetParade said:
The problems only start when the referees don't apply the rules the same way every time. Come up with one standard and stick to it, it leaves almost no room for debate if all the players, coaches and fans know that the call will be made the same way every time. If it's a whistle that doesn't benefit you, you can be frustrated with your luck but you can't be upset with the referees if they call it with consistency.

Obviously what I'm describing is the part of refereeing that is the hardest to get around - human error. But, honestly, they don't do themselves any favours when their own standard is so variable.
Click to expand...

I think this is what is missed. People fixate on "okay technically the call was correct" not understanding it's the dozens of not-being-called instances that's the problem.

You saw it with that Raptors-Lakers game where things were pretty even in terms of calls and then when it looked like the Lakers were going to lose the game in the last 12 minutes suddenly the Raptors were getting called on everything to keep the game competitive for the Lakers who eventually did win. A lot of review after the fact from the NBA and from commentators was "technically this was a foul" on each call that benefited the Lakers. And nobody pointing out the elephant in the room - go through those 12 minutes and watch the Raptors. How many "technically that's a foul" were not called for the Raptors? That's the comparison that should be made and rarely is.

I hadn't heard of this new rule change but any time you invite extreme subjectivity it's going to invite bullshit... why not count a goal where the referee can't see the puck, the players and goalie are still fighting for it but it goes in the net first? Why is that still blown down routinely despite this rule review? Surely the referees can go review the play, see the puck is not covered, see everyone fighting for it and call it a good goal? It's a rule to give referees cover to make whatever call they feel like. It can be a continuation of play if they decide that. It can be intent to blow, play dead if they decide that. You can't argue it and win because the referee is given the power to simply decide when it's a goal and when it's not. What an awful rule change.
 
Last edited:
Micklebot

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
56,709
34,507
Knave said:
I think this is what is missed. People fixate on "okay technically the call was correct" not understanding it's the dozens of not-being-called instances that's the problem.

You saw it with that Raptors-Lakers game where things were pretty even in terms of calls and then when it looked like the Lakers were going to lose the game in the last 12 minutes suddenly the Raptors were getting called on everything to keep the game competitive for the Lakers who eventually did win. A lot of review after the fact from the NBA and from commentators was "technically this was a foul" on each call that benefited the Lakers. And nobody pointing out the elephant in the room - go through those 12 minutes and watch the Raptors. How many "technically that's a foul" were not called for the Raptors? That's the comparison that should be made and rarely is.

I hadn't heard of this new rule change but any time you invite extreme subjectivity it's going to invite bullshit... why not count a goal where the referee can't see the puck, the players and goalie are still fighting for it but it goes in the net first? Why is that still blown down routinely despite this rule review? Surely the referees can go review the play, see the puck is not covered, see everyone fighting for it and call it a good goal? It's a rule to give referees cover to make whatever call they feel like. It can be a continuation of play if they decide that. It can be intent to blow, play dead if they decide that. You can't argue it and win because the referee is given the power to simply decide when it's a goal and when it's not. What an awful rule change.
Click to expand...
The rule has been around for a while, the VGK benefited (in what imo was a far more controversial interpretation) during game 7 of the SCF, in that case, the puck was sitting in the blue ice when the whistle blew but a VGK was bearing down and shot it in immediately after. If only they'd had this rule in place for Pageau's not a goal against the habs back in the 2015 playoffs
.
 
Big Muddy

Big Muddy

Registered User
Dec 15, 2019
8,964
4,329
lang006 said:
It was a weird sequence. In theory yes it ended up the right call.

But problem is you cannot blow your whistle and then all of a sudden emphatically start signalling good goal.
Click to expand...
I think the problem was that after the whistle the players (especially the Senators) stopped playing and were all clustered around Sogaard at one side of the net making it easy for the Flyer dman to score.

But I see that event and the game in general as a character builder. They didn't give up. They regrouped in the 1st intermission, fought back, played their game and ultimately won that game. I think that could go into memory bank of the players and be useful the next time something like this occurs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lang006 and Alf Silfversson
Micklebot

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
56,709
34,507
Big Muddy said:
I think the problem was that after the whistle the players (especially the Senators) stopped playing and were all clustered around Sogaard at one side of the net making it easy for the Flyer dman to score.

But I see that event and the game in general as a character builder. They didn't give up. They regrouped in the 1st intermission, fought back, played their game and ultimately won that game. I think that could go into memory bank of the players and be useful the next time something like this occurs.
Click to expand...
By the time the whistle blew, the shot was already on it's way to the empty net, here's a snip of the shot being taken, and the ref hasn't yet brought the whistle to his mouth.

Capture.PNG



To me, this is exactly the situation the continuation of play rule was intended to correct, and it was applied correctly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BonHoonLayneCornell, lang006, Flamingo and 1 other person
Big Muddy

Big Muddy

Registered User
Dec 15, 2019
8,964
4,329
Micklebot said:
By the time the whistle blew, the shot was already on it's way to the empty net, here's a snip of the shot being taken, and the ref hasn't yet brought the whistle to his mouth.

View attachment 807997


To me, this is exactly the situation the continuation of play rule was intended to correct, and it was applied correctly.
Click to expand...
OK. I couldn't hear the whistle, but noticed the players were all standing around, so maybe they just stopped playing or whatever.

It was a goal, so doesn't matter much & not worth dwelling on. I think what I wrote about in the 2nd paragraph of my post was the more important point.
 
Sens of Anarchy

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
67,142
52,862
Micklebot said:
By the time the whistle blew, the shot was already on it's way to the empty net, here's a snip of the shot being taken, and the ref hasn't yet brought the whistle to his mouth.

View attachment 807997


To me, this is exactly the situation the continuation of play rule was intended to correct, and it was applied correctly.
Click to expand...
We've seen intent to blow the whistle call goals back too many times. Messed up play. No real reason to blow the whistle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lang006 and Flamingo
Joeyjoejoe

Joeyjoejoe

Registered User
Dec 18, 2015
6,496
9,444
Amazing couple of games. I am honestly astonished that this is the same team from a week or so ago. This is the first time in 5-6 years where they actually look like a professional hockey team out there with an NHL level system. Its f***ing beautiful.

A couple of things I noticed that have improved drastically and helped in their Dzone play is how quickly they breakout. Whenever there is pressure, they are zipping it around the boards and there is always someone there to receive or support along the boards. Even the 4th line is breaking out cleanly. It really has neutralized the other team's forechecks and helped us not get stuck on own zone. In previous system they tend to hold on to the puck for so long and waiting for the perfect outlet pass behind the net for the breakout. Now they are just zipping it across the boards.

Another thing is that we finally have forwards backchecking, which in return is disrupting the other team's counter attack, slowing the opponent down in the neutral zone, and making the dmen's job a lot easier. The dmen don't have to defend so many odd man rushes or teams coming down with crazy speed from the neutral zone. I have never seen Tkachuk below the goalie red line battling in the boards for the puck before. Its amazing to see.

The forecheck is now coming in with waves and having sustained pressure. When they dump the puck, they are actually doing it with a purpose and actually have support with players retrieving the puck, and not just giving it back to the other team. The forecheck has also been helped by the dmen being agressive at the blueline and helping keep the puck in, which is doable when the forwards are actually covering for the dmen when they decide to pressure.

One last thing I noticed is the productivity of the 4th line. Usually these type of players can only thrive when there is a system and structure with clear defined roles set out for them. This system now allows them to play a simple game, and they are being rewarded for it. There has been no change of personnel, they are the same players that are simply more productive right now. The old system of run and gun hockey, with people running around like headless chicken only benefited the skilled players because it was just shinny hockey, and just relied on skill to be productive. The lesser skilled players always need to be put into a simple system where its more organized, and everyone plays within their capabilities and the team system.

Also please, we have moved on as an organization for the need of Hamonic, for the love of god, the guy can barely play in the AHL at this point. Whoever gave this dude 2 years and an NTC need to be tried for warcrimes against humanity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LiseL, DrEasy, lang006 and 7 others
maclean

maclean

Registered User
Jan 4, 2014
8,985
2,926
Micklebot said:
They updated the rule a few years back to allow goals when it's a "continuation of the play" prior to the whistle, so if the puck is shot, then the whistle blows, they can allow the goal.

This particular play wasn't a case of the goalie or D giving up on the play because of the whistle, they already stopped tracking the puck, it should have been a goal with no whistle, the ref blowing the whistle in error made no difference in whether that puck was going in the net or not, they are able to and did review the replay to ensure the whistle didn't impact the play, so I personally feel this is a case of the rules getting the intention of the game right.
Click to expand...

Huh, OK, good to know. There's clearly a lot of unclarity around it. It quite thoroughly threw us off, mostly glad we manage to shake it off and come back, feel like whatever Martin said in that first intermission really pulled us back together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmix
Cosmix

Cosmix

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 24, 2011
19,205
7,199
Ottawa
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X