WCQF: Edmonton Oilers (PAC 2) vs LA Kings (PAC 3) (Oilers win 4-1)

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by stang

Yes its a leap. They could have easily worded the rule " A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who INTENTIONALLY bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net."

However they don't. The rule says if you bat the puck into the net its not a goal. The NHL uses the word "intent" or intentionally" a lot in their rulebook. So its not like they don't like the word.

Pretty clear rule. No goal.

Even if the rule did say "intentionally" now you're trying to say that a player in front of the net lifting his hands to tip a puck didn't intentionally try to deflect the puck in the net. Give your head a shake.

1. The rule is very clear and you are making the leap to "intent" all on your own.
2. You are also trying to argue that a player in front of the net trying to tip a shot isn't trying to deflect it into the goal.

I am not even sure you're serious with this argument it’s so absurd.

You are correct that “intent” is not mentioned in this rule. However I disagree about the clarity of the rule, because it does not define the term “bat”. I think we can all agree that a deflection occurs when a puck that is in motion contacts something that causes it to change direction and/or speed. Whether what the puck contacts is itself in motion is irrelevant with respect to whether a deflection has occurred. If a “bat” is different from a deflection, the only way this is possible without the rule contradicting itself is if the action defined as “bat” initiates the motion of the puck rather than modifying its previous course and/or speed.

The point is, this rule is not clear, and it is easy to see why different people would interpret it differently. It would be interesting to see an analysis of all of the controversial calls in the playoffs involving the Oilers to see what percentage of those calls went in the Oilers’ favour. From my admittedly subjective recollection, it seems to me that a significantly greater number of controversial calls have gone in the Oilers’ favour.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by dino7c

IDK I thought it had to be intentionally directed in...guy isn't even facing the net the puck hits him. To me it's a one goal game in a game where basically everything went right for the Oilers. Not all doom and gloom for me, the Oilers were lucky they got the Kings...I think this is going to be a series and I don't see either of these teams taking down the big boys.

Everything went right for the Oilers?

Kings scored two off skate deflections, and their final goal was the result of Ceci's stick exploding.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

You are correct that “intent” is not mentioned in this rule. However I disagree about the clarity of the rule, because it does not define the term “bat”. I think we can all agree that a deflection occurs when a puck that is in motion contacts something that causes it to change direction and/or speed. Whether what the puck contacts is itself in motion is irrelevant with respect to whether a deflection has occurred. If a “bat” is different from a deflection, the only way this is possible without the rule contradicting itself is if the action defined as “bat” initiates the motion of the puck rather than modifying its previous course and/or speed.

The point is, this rule is not clear, and it is easy to see why different people would interpret it differently. It would be interesting to see an analysis of all of the controversial calls in the playoffs involving the Oilers to see what percentage of those calls went in the Oilers’ favour. From my subjective recollection (but not a factual analysis) it seems to me that far more controversial calls have gone in the Oilers’ favour.

Ok well you guys "interpret" the rules how you want.

Seems pretty clear that it shouldn't have been a goal by the exact wording.

Here you go if you don't know the definition of what bat means
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bat

[dieHARDflameZ]

Oilers are garbage. End of story.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Stang, would it shock you to believe that the fan base of a teams biggest rival may not be objective in how they view a call. Most posters here are great to converse with and I respect their opinions, but there are those who take the Edmonton is no good thing to completely illogical conclusions.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Stang, would it shock you to believe that the fan base of a teams biggest rival may not be objective in how they view a call. Most posters here are great to converse with and I respect their opinions, but there are those who take the Edmonton is no good thing to completely illogical conclusions.

Shocks me not at all. Just some of its pretty dumb.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by stang

Shocks me not at all. Just some of its pretty dumb.

It's

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by stang

Doesn’t say anything about intent in the rule at all.

You added that.

Edit:
However of course it was intentional. He was trying to deflect the shot into the net. He wasn’t standing there at the side of the net and it accidently banked of his hand and in. Give me a break.

Haha, and “When the
puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be
allowed.”

I don’t see any batting of the puck. He was moving his hand and stick to meet the trajectory of the shot. It was a clean deflection off the glove down to the ice. He didn’t bat the puck into the net.

The refs didn’t even announce a valid rule when calling the goal off.

[McG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

The refs didn’t even announce a valid rule when calling the goal off.

That’s Ron Maclean’s job to explain how the rule was devised when glen sather’s mom was making dresses in whitecourt when a customer asked for a batten of fabric and she misunderstood and thought bat it in would be a rule that would favour the Oilers one day. Incidentally, this was also the same year in cabbagetown where Connor McDavid led the league in assists while also Leon Draisatl watched hockey, just like “Wayne and Mark and Paul and Grant”. Ever since snow fell, you could find, in Ron’s old stomping grounds of red deer, literally ice. And “tops off” Ron on his yacht in the Caribbean.

And that’s why refs “won’t be battin an eye on the batten or bat in, as we now call it.”

Please tell me you used Ron Maclean’s voice when reading that and when you got to the end, just like real life, you had no idea what he just said or why.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by stang

Ok well you guys "interpret" the rules how you want.

Seems pretty clear that it shouldn't have been a goal by the exact wording.

Here you go if you don't know the definition of what bat means
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bat

Condescending tone aside, all I got from your posted link was that to "bat" (as a verb) is to strike something as with a bat. Is this what happened in the play in question?

It seems to me that the rule defines two types of plays that can occur when a puck strikes a glove, either the puck can be deflected, or it can be batted. I merely defined "deflection" (as an event in which a puck in motion strikes another object, the result of which is a change in the direction and/or speed of the puck's movement), and opined that for the purpose of the interpretation of this rule, each contact of the puck by a glove with must be ruled as either a deflection or as a batting motion if the puck subsequently enters the net. Are you arguing with my definition of the term "deflection"?

[McG]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

Condescending tone aside, all I got from your posted link was that to "bat" (as a verb) is to strike something as with a bat. Is this what happened in the play in question?

It seems to me that the rule defines two types of plays that can occur when a puck strikes a glove, either the puck can be deflected, or it can be batted. I merely defined "deflection" (as an event in which a puck in motion strikes another object, the result of which is a change in the direction and/or speed of the puck's movement), and opined that for the purpose of the interpretation of this rule, each contact of the puck by a glove with must be ruled as either a deflection or as a batting motion if the puck subsequently enters the net. Are you arguing with my definition of the term "deflection"?

Colin Campbell and the nhl situation room (what a terrible name by the way) determined that he caught the puck, wound up, and threw a 100 mph fastball into the net. No goal!

[Your Calgary Flames!]

Originally Posted by stang

Shocks me not at all. Just some of its pretty dumb.

Really? This is the first time you realize this on a Calgary Flames board talking about Edmonton. Maybe you are being dumb.

[CsInMyBlood]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Stang, would it shock you to believe that the fan base of a teams biggest rival may not be objective in how they view a call. Most posters here are great to converse with and I respect their opinions, but there are those who take the Edmonton is no good thing to completely illogical conclusions.

The Canucks suck.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Not a lot of adversity for the Stink in game one.

The refs always disappoint me in round one. At least make these hype mongers work for their calls / don't hand them out like candy.

Not that LA showed up very well to begin with. Might have been a worse start from them than either of the last two years.

[midniteowl]

I didn't watch the game, did the Oilers dominated the Kings? The score seemed lopsided, but Kings had a goal called back, and Oilers scored an empty netter. Talbot's SV% was .864 and Skinner was only a hair better with .892. I still think it's gonna be a long series.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

I didn't watch the game, did the Oilers dominated the Kings? The score seemed lopsided, but Kings had a goal called back, and Oilers scored an empty netter.

Oilers completely dominated and the Kings scored on every scoring chance they had.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Stang, would it shock you to believe that the fan base of a teams biggest rival may not be objective in how they view a call. Most posters here are great to converse with and I respect their opinions, but there are those who take the Edmonton is no good thing to completely illogical conclusions.

Yeah, I would never in a million years actually read Flames fans discussing a ruling or anything on this forum seriously. It's literally the Edmonton is no good thread.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by stang

Shocks me not at all. Just some of its pretty dumb.

Like disappearing when you team sucks for the first month?

as for the goal it has been hotly debated outside of Calgary and Calgary puck with people on both sides...it was an iffy callback to say the least especially overturning the call on the ice. I was watching ESPN today and they were 50/50 on goal or no goal.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, I would never in a million years actually read Flames fans discussing a ruling or anything on this forum seriously. It's literally the Edmonton is no good thread.

It's the series thread

[united]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

I didn't watch the game, did the Oilers dominated the Kings? The score seemed lopsided, but Kings had a goal called back, and Oilers scored an empty netter. Talbot's SV% was .864 and Skinner was only a hair better with .892. I still think it's gonna be a long series.

5-on-5 adjusted expected goals from a few sources:
56.9% EDM - Evolving Hockey
56.4% EDM - Natural Stattrick
54.0% EDM - Hockey Viz
51.4% EDM - MoneyPuck

Actual 5-on-5 goals 4-3 LAK. All in all, pretty close affair that the Oilers deserved to win, but the high-leverage moments went the Oilers' way skewing things as you noted: twice as many powerplays as the Kings (just wait for the uproar if/when this goes the other way) and a 50/50 goal review going their way.

McDavid absolutely killed the Kings with 5 all-situations assists (4 primary) and >70% expected goals at 5-on-5. Raisaitl with his specialty 2 powerplay points and a team-worst <20% expected goals at 5-on-5. One-man team.