Playoff Hockey Thread part 2.

[Buttons85]

Maatta was turdly most nights in the Sens series too.

Yeah, he has looked pretty bad in the playoffs as a whole. Pretty sure he was skating in quicksand on Bobby Ryan's OT goal in ECF Game 1.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

So that 1st period had me fuming, but the worst part is knowing that one day when (if) the Sabres get this far there will still be jacked up calls and no-calls like last night.

I was joking about this series being like "the Jordan rules" from the NBA 20 years ago, and then three minutes later Crosby gets away with blatant interference on Ekholm.

It's like the NHL doesn't even care about how obvious it is.

 

[TheMistyStranger]

I watched the first 45 seconds of the nhl.com highlights and shut it off. I hate the pens so much.

 

[oldgoalie]

Doc Emrick is sooo bad.

"...when the net will be empty in front of where Pekka Rinne is standing."

WTF?

I cannot stand Emrick. I would rather listen to Kenny Albert than listen to Doc's screechy voice. Frankly, the whole NBC crew sucks.

 

[LaxSabre]

 

[LaxSabre]

 

[Montag DP]

Regarding the offside call, I don't understand why the rule has been interpreted to mean the skate cannot be in the air.

83.1
Off-side
- Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck into the attacking zone.

The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of the blue line involved in the play.

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick. However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.

I don't see anything there about the skate having to be on the ice, just that it must be on the player's own side of the blue line or in contact with it. Also, the player is only considered offside when both skates are completely past the leading edge of the blue line, according to the rule book. A skate in the air and over the line or behind the line is not past the leading edge.

IMO, the skate in the air thing doesn't make much sense, and it can be very hard to determine anyway.

 

[LaxSabre]

 

[joshjull]

Regarding the offside call, I don't understand why the rule has been interpreted to mean the skate cannot be in the air.

I don't see anything there about the skate having to be on the ice, just that it must be on the player's own side of the blue line or in contact with it. Also, the player is only considered offside when both skates are completely past the leading edge of the blue line, according to the rule book. A skate in the air and over the line or behind the line is not past the leading edge.

IMO, the skate in the air thing doesn't make much sense, and it can be very hard to determine anyway.

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick.

"In contact with" his side of the line would be safely assumed as meaning touching the ice.

 

[Montag DP]

"In contact with" his side of the line would be safely assumed as meaning touching the ice.

Read it again:

A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or on his own side of the line...

The "or" signifies that contact is only necessary with the line, not the ice on the player's own side of the line.

Anyway, the rule is not clearly written at all with regard to contact with the ice. If that is required, it should say so specifically. For example, this would be a much better wording, if that is the intent:

"A player is off-side when neither skate is in contact with the blue line or the ice on his own side of the blue line involved in the play."

 

[joshjull]

Read it again:

The "or" signifies that contact is only necessary with the line, not the ice on the player's own side of the line.

Anyway, the rule is not clearly written at all with regard to contact with the ice. If that is required, it should say so specifically.

I don't need to read it again. Its always been interpreted to mean contact with either the line or your side of the ice. You can parse it all you want but that's how its been called forever and how its been interpreted. The "or" isn't about the contact but about where the contact can be.

 

[sabrebuild]

I don't need to read it again. Its always been interpreted to mean contact with either the line or your side of the ice. You can parse it all you want but that's how its been called forever and how its been interpreted. The "or" isn't about the contact but about where the contact can be.

So by that logic if a player was to jump in the air as they attempted to cross the blue line are they over as soon as their skates leave the ice near the blue line?

I'm with Montag.

 

[Montag DP]

I don't need to read it again. Its always been interpreted to mean contact with either the line or your side of the ice.

No kidding. That's been my point all along -- that the rule as written doesn't support the interpretation. You can parse it all you want but you won't be able to find a clear statement that the skate cannot be in the air in the actual rule. I was hoping someone could clarify why that has been the interpretation, not to just restate the interpretation and basically say "that's the way it is."

Regarding the offside call, I don't understand why the rule has been interpreted to mean the skate cannot be in the air.

 

[joshjull]

So by that logic if a player was to jump in the air as they attempted to cross the blue line are they over as soon as their skates leave the ice near the blue line?

I'm with Montag.

I'm with the reality of how its been interpreted and called.

 

[zenthusiast]

That is to say, you're with the reality that doesn't fit the rule

 

[joshjull]

No kidding. That's been my point all along -- that the rule as written doesn't support the interpretation. You can parse it all you want but you won't be able to find a clear statement that the skate cannot be in the air in the actual rule. I was hoping someone could clarify why that has been the interpretation, not to just restate the interpretation and basically say "that's the way it is."

I agree its poorly worded and I finally better see where your coming from. My bad on that. But I can also see how its interpreted the way it is. I would like to see the NHL go to a virtual blueline that goes from the ice to the roof on reviews so this is never an issue. Which would obviously need a change in interpretation. But they don't look like they are going to budge.

 

[Montag DP]

I agree its poorly worded and I finally better see where your coming from. My bad on that. But I can also see how its interpreted the way it is.

One possibility is that it has always been called that way, even before the rule was officially written down (or written down in its current form), and that the writing of it didn't do a good job of capturing that aspect.

I would like to see the NHL go to a virtual blueline that goes from the ice to the roof on reviews so this is never an issue. Which would obviously need a change in interpretation. But they don't look like they are going to budge.

I agree. I don't personally see the point in requiring the skate to be touching the ice in the first place. Plus, it can be very hard to determine whether the skate is actually touching the ice.

 

[Sabretooth]

people not liking the way the off-sides rule is enforced is leading to a lot of pedantic silliness and rules-lawyering and loophole searching in order to undermine. It's not that difficult to understand. If you can't skate over the line like this...

...and be onsides until your back foot crosses the line in the air then it should be easy to understand why when you're straddling the line and lift your back foot it would put you offsides if the puck hasn't entered the zone yet.

I'd rather just see the challenge go away. Offsides was never meant to be called this tightly, and any blown calls aren't likely to be any more egregious than the 900 other infractions that aren't called a game.

 

[Montag DP]

people not liking the way the off-sides rule is enforced is leading to a lot of pedantic silliness and rules-lawyering and loophole searching in order to undermine. It's not that difficult to understand. If you can't skate over the line like this...

I think everyone understands how it's called. The question is why. Case in point:

when you're straddling the line and lift your back foot it would put you offsides if the puck hasn't entered the zone yet.

It's dumb that lifting your back foot puts you offside when the rest of your body is still in the same position. Yet the requirement that the skate must touch the ice makes for this kind of silly result.

I'd rather just see the challenge go away. Offsides was never meant to be called this tightly, and any blown calls aren't likely to be any more egregious than the 900 other infractions that aren't called a game.

Agreed. At the very least, limit the offside challenge to goals scored on the rush. It's so arbitrary that refs can go back minutes to review something completely inconsequential like a player lifting his back skate before entering the zone, but they won't review anything else before the goal except for goaltender interference.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I think everyone understands how it's called. The question is why. Case in point:

It's dumb that lifting your back foot puts you offside when the rest of your body is still in the same position. Yet the requirement that the skate must touch the ice makes for this kind of silly result.

Agreed. At the very least, limit the offside challenge to goals scored on the rush. It's so arbitrary that refs can go back minutes to review something completely inconsequential like a player lifting his back skate before entering the zone, but they won't review anything else before the goal except for goaltender interference.

I think there's a point to be made that if lifting your foot isnt offsides then a flying camel shouldnt be either. I'm of the opinion that a player in a full lunge with only his toe still on the blue line is as in violation of the spirit of offsides as a guy in the zone a step ahead of the play. I didn't think it warranted this much attention prior to the review, still don't now. Its such a ticky-tac squabble that hardly seems worth the time. Why of all things the NHL decided that this rule was the one they needed to focus on and 'get right' is beyond me. Then again most of NHL managerial decisions are beyond me.

 

[Montag DP]

What's a flying camel?

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

How do you score 4 goals on 11 shots. ELEVEN. WHAT.

 

[Reddawg]

What's a flying camel?

It's what Snoopy's doghouse turned into when he would fight the Red Baron.

 

[oldgoalie]

It's what Snoopy's doghouse turned into when he would fight the Red Baron.

A Sopwith Camel, but a flying one, nonetheless.

 

[Sabre Dance]

How do you score 4 goals on 11 shots. ELEVEN. WHAT.

Ask the people that say Sullivan is a great coach. I would love to know if Pittsburgh has the worst post season possession stats of any cup team?