Good morning, rise and shine with an early game. Hwy19man is busy today. We can all relax today, the only team in the western playoff race that is playing is the Canucks.
10:00 AM
at on NBC
and simulcast on
The Red Wings need this win as they are a little close to the Bruins and Senators.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Playing with a broken stick is not a criteria for review. The ref's call on the ice is final. He could have disallowed the goal and assessed a penalty.
It was a very quick series of events and he dropped the stick immediately when it fell apart. The ref had the perfect view of the play. It also looks like there was no immediate protest from any of the Blues on the ice either.
By the strict letter of the law, that probably should have been disallowed, but in the spirit of the game, I have no problem with it being allowed. It happened so quickly that he didn't really "play" with the broken stick.
If that same situation had occurred anywhere else on the ice or at any other time in the game and not resulted in a goal, it is not likely that he would have received a penalty for playing with a broken stick.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Which is ridiculous. Any situation where the goal is questionable should be challengeable. Otherwise why bother?
It's not reviewable so one would assume its unchallengeable. If it happened today and a coach could challenge it still couldn't be overturned if it was called a good goal on the ice
It's not reviewable so one would assume its unchallengeable. If it happened today and a coach could challenge it still couldn't be overturned if it was called a good goal on the ice
Then they need to make it reviewable. The important thing is to get the right call on the ice. What happens if this were to happen in game 7 of the SCF? With todays technology there is no reason not to get the right call.
That should be 100% reviewable by the coaches and should be able to be overturned. This is exactly why they are implementing this rule. If they don't allow a play like that to be overturned and challengable, then why implement it?
They want to get it right on the ice, that was bad.
__________________
"You're worried about the team not having enough heart. I'm worried about the team not having enough brains." HFOil fan, August 12th, 2020. E=NG
The question would be how far do you go on review?
What if it the play leading to it is offside, etc?
The scoring play in hockey is not as easily defined as in other sports.
The Lightning lead 4-1 after two periods. The Bruins are in another slump and Svedberg has taken over in goal.
It looked for the Bruins as Bergeron scored 33 seconds into the game but Tampa Bay made it 3-1 at the end of the first period.
The question would be how far do you go on review?
What if it the play leading to it is offside, etc?
The scoring play in hockey is not as easily defined as in other sports.
I was watching a game between BU and UNH on Friday and they were reviewing a goal. I had no idea why they were reviewing it at first, but it turned out they were reviewing if they entered the zone off-side. They still reviewed it even though they were in the zone for like 30 seconds and then scored.
So I do wonder if they will do that in the NHL. As far as the broken stick call goes, yes that should definitely be challengeable.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hockey For This Useful Post:
That should be 100% reviewable by the coaches and should be able to be overturned. This is exactly why they are implementing this rule. If they don't allow a play like that to be overturned and challengable, then why implement it?
They want to get it right on the ice, that was bad.
Mostly playing devils advocate here but its not as simple as saying that play should be reviewable, there are other factors that would have to be discussed.
By the rules its a penalty for playing with a broken stick, was Abdelkader's play worthy of a penalty? If you overturned it you would also have to assess a penalty. What if St. Louis scored on the resulting power play when really what Abdelkader did was still in the spirit of the game? Basically they would have to make the penalty more vague and or add in some form of intention at the discretion of the ref if you feel the goal should be overturned but Abdelkader shouldn't have been penalized which is not something the NHL has done recently.
Another situation is a players stick gets slashed early in the play but doesn't fall apart at the time of the slash, the player then takes a slap shot which results in the stick flying in two and the puck knuckle balling past the goalie. What happens if that play is challenged and is reviewed? The one team could argue the stick was already broken when the shot was taken, while the other could say the stick didn't break till the shot was taken which wouldn't be illegal.
This could be a situation where if the refs had a monitor in the timekeepers box they could review and discuss between the officiating team without going to Toronto it could work. However if it was reviewable by the command centre its likely that more often than not the call on the ice would stand because it would be hard to get enough evidence to overturn, in which case the review just creates a delay in the games which the NHL doesn't want.
By the rules its a penalty for playing with a broken stick, was Abdelkader's play worthy of a penalty? If you overturned it you would also have to assess a penalty.
No you would not. This is a false assumption. A review to determine whether a goal would have counted or not is not also a review of whether something was a penalty. The same standard applies to goaltender interference.
Per Elliotte Friedman, they're discussing whether to review "everything" in the last 2 minutes, as they do in the NFL. What that should be is a review of all goals within the last 5 minutes and overtime to make sure they should be goals. Some of those reviews will take ten seconds, but it's still worth doing.
Quote:
Another situation is a players stick gets slashed early in the play but doesn't fall apart at the time of the slash, the player then takes a slap shot which results in the stick flying in two and the puck knuckle balling past the goalie. What happens if that play is challenged and is reviewed? The one team could argue the stick was already broken when the shot was taken, while the other could say the stick didn't break till the shot was taken which wouldn't be illegal.
And the ref (or whoever is assessing the play) would then decide, looking at the footage, whether it was broken in his estimation and make a determination as to whether the goal should count, rather than having to do so in real time without the benefit of a bunch of different angles and slow motion. Why is this difficult?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
March 22, just four games.
at 
on 
NBC 
at 
on 
and 
at 
on
and Centre Ice in Canada
at 
on 
must show all Flames games nationally when they play on Saturdays, Mondays, and Wednesdays !!!
