This league kind of sucks..

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Created a CBA that includes a salary cap too improve competitive balance.
Propped up the Canadian teams with revenue sharing.
Brought a team back to Winnipeg.

He also helped with the currency issue, that occurred many years ago.'

That alone would have sunk the Flames


"In Canada the problem was different but just as heartbreaking. Entering the nineties Canadian teams were able to pay players in Canadian dollars but due to the declining value of the currency and the increase of player salaries teams could not keep up. Every Canadian team struggle financially not just Winnipeg and Quebec. The Edmonton Oilers, Ottawa Senators, Calgary Flames and Vancouver Canucks were all struggling. If it wasn’t for the the Canadian Assistance Plan, which Gary Bettman helped create, they may have been moved as well."

[PepsiFree]

I’m just used to that sort of stuff at this point, so it doesn’t bother me. That said, I don’t buy it being the “right call.” It’s pretty clearly a technicality and a bit of a stretch that really goes against the spirit of the rule, same as the kicking motion rule.

It’s probably an issue with the way the entire NHL rulebook is interpreted, honestly. If you look at why these rules exist in the first place, it’s pretty obvious what the spirit of the rules are and what they’re actually trying to avoid.

Did it touch his hand? Yes. What was he trying to do with it? Stop it for himself. He’s not even looking at Oesterle and, if he wanted to knock it towards him, wouldn’t have tried to catch it instead. So, was it an intentional hand pass? No.

If you look at high sticking, intent doesn’t matter. So you could point to that and say “because intent doesn’t matter, it’s a good call.” Which would be fine.

But then you look at things like cross checks, which are also illegal, but “intent” is not even a factor. Guys can cross check on purpose without penalty, or cross check with intent to injure without suspension.

Same with hitting to the head. “Intent” seems to be a huge factor in determining any kind of punishment. Why not treat it the same as high sticking or hand passes? If you make contact with the head, you’re done, plain and simple.

I think that’s the problem overall, is that every rule is different, and every rule is enforced under different criteria. Sometimes intent matters, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes the punishment is dependent on entirely bizarre conditions (extra penalty if a high stick draws blood?? what?). That would be difficult enough, but then you have rules that are also enforced differently based on what appears to be the situation they occur in (playoffs vs regular season, high profile teams vs low profile teams, star players vs plugs) and it just builds on the mess that the rulebook is in the first place.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just wait until a Stanley Cup OT goal is scored and then gets called back, or doesn't, because of something like what happened tonight.

1999 called and wants it's storyline back, thanks.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

Anyone saying "its the right call" is correct, but you're missing the point.

What point is that? That it's a lousy way to call back a goal? I think few disagree with you there. It doesn't change the fact that the NHL made the right call and at the end of the day it's all that matters. It's why it's pointless to continue to complain today.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What point is that? That it's a lousy way to call back a goal? I think few disagree with you there. It doesn't change the fact that the NHL made the right call and at the end of the day it's all that matters. It's why it's pointless to continue to complain today.

What makes it “the right call,” though? It’s a valid call, based on the rule as written, but letting the goal stand would have been a valid call as well.

Everything we discuss is pointless, so I’m not sure why that matters. The rules are interpreted differently all the time.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What point is that? That it's a lousy way to call back a goal? I think few disagree with you there. It doesn't change the fact that the NHL made the right call and at the end of the day it's all that matters. It's why it's pointless to continue to complain today.

Why do you keep saying that? It isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And it may not even be that. I think refs aren't calling the rule correctly; they're treating it like offside. The rule does not say "if contact with glove, play stops." Read the rule.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What point is that? That it's a lousy way to call back a goal? I think few disagree with you there. It doesn't change the fact that the NHL made the right call and at the end of the day it's all that matters. It's why it's pointless to continue to complain today.

I still don't think it was the right call. The puck wasn't deflected off of Coleman's hand so as to give his team an advantage. It went to the ice in a spot where there was no advantage to either team.

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What point is that? That it's a lousy way to call back a goal? I think few disagree with you there. It doesn't change the fact that the NHL made the right call and at the end of the day it's all that matters. It's why it's pointless to continue to complain today.

What do you mean it's pointless? this is a discussion board and a place for fans to discuss/vent/complain if they want to.

Nobody is expecting Gary Bettman to read this thread and instigate a rule change.

People can discuss...and that's ok.

[PepsiFree]

Further on the “intent” thing, another aspect I find funny is how goals are actually determined in deflection.

If it goes in without deflection, Hanifin scored the goal.

If it hits the skate of an unaware opposing player, Hanifin scored the goal.

If it hits the skate of an unaware Coleman, Coleman scored the goal.

If it hits the skate of an aware Coleman who purposely places his skate in the path of the puck, Coleman scored the goal.

If it hits the skate of an unaware Coleman who moves his skate toward the net at the same time, it’s might be Coleman’s goal, but it might be determined no goal.

If it hits the skate of an aware Coleman who moves his skate… blah blah blah, no goal.

So, if Hanifin shoots the puck and it hits another player, there is one situation where it’s his goal, two situations where it’s another player’s goal, one situation where it doesn’t count, and one situation where it may be another player’s goal or may not count. That seems like it could make sense, but when you realize that all five situations differ by the tiniest of variables that occur within about one second of time, you realize how many variables can go into just a single goal.

Now, if you take that and apply that same understanding and consideration of variables to something like a “hand pass,” it’s pretty hard to argue that there was one “right” call.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Barn Burner guys also point out it may have touched a leafs stick just before reaching Osterle at the point. Camera angles provided on the broadcast don't give a clear angle but the leafs player was swatting at it.

And if there was contact, it would negate any pompous "its the rule, shut down the discussion" takes here.

It should've been inconclusive (to overturn the play). But also the leafs' sand should've run out on them.

[skcli]

None of the sports in the world will review a goal after so much time has lapsed between the goal and the play. The on ice officials did not make the call then it should not be called at all.

NHL is a joke. No wonder it is losing fans all over.

[Captain Otto]

NHL official: "In an effort to increase scoring and excitement, we've implemented things to decrease scoring and suck the excitement out of the game. You're welcome."

Sent from my SM-S918W using Tapatalk

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

NHL needs to nail down this window to challenge. That was way too long in any case.

Also the whole using a time out to extend said window. Since when is this a thing?

We should be looking at 60 seconds to voice an objection, no matter the team. That includes the precious Leafs.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I still don't think it was the right call. The puck wasn't deflected off of Coleman's hand so as to give his team an advantage. It went to the ice in a spot where there was no advantage to either team.

79.1 Hand Pass - A player shall be permitted to stop or “bat” a puck in the air with his open hand, or push it along the ice with his hand, and the play shall not be stopped unless, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, he has directed the puck to a teammate, or has allowed his team to gain an advantage, and subsequently possession and control of the puck is obtained by a player of the offending team, either directly or deflected off any player or official.

The bolded pretty well leaves discretion to the officials. In their opinion he deflected the puck to a teammate and the Flames gained an advantage. Whether we agree or not it doesn't really change that the ruling made was well within the NHL guideline.

[stemit14]

Can someone clarify if the leafs used their time out to get more time to review before challenging? I always thought if you used your time out you lost the ability to challenge.

If I’m correct on that rule and they didn’t use their time out, it seemed like they were given a lot of time before challenging the call.

[Baaarrden]

Originally Posted by stemit14

Can someone clarify if the leafs used their time out to get more time to review before challenging? I always thought if you used your time out you lost the ability to challenge.

If I’m correct on that rule and they didn’t use their time out, it seemed like they were given a lot of time before challenging the call.

I don't believe they did. I think it was a TV timeout after the goal that gave them enough time to review it.

Edit: Nevermind, stand corrected.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

NHL needs to nail down this window to challenge. That was way too long in any case.

Also the whole using a time out to extend said window. Since when is this a thing?

We should be looking at 60 seconds to voice an objection, no matter the team. That includes the precious Leafs.

Previous leafs have nothing to do with it. They can do that under the rule, and it seemed like a smart use of a time out. The trade off is, they lose their time out.

I don't see an issue with it.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Baaarrden

I don't believe they did. I think it was a TV timeout after the goal that gave them enough time to review it.

Incorrect. They called the time out.

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Previous leafs have nothing to do with it. They can do that under the rule, and it seemed like a smart use of a time out. The trade off is, they lose their time out.

I don't see an issue with it.

I don't fault the Leafs for taking advantage of an ambiguous rule, Flames would have done the same. My issue is that this is happening in the first place.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dino7c

blatant trip leads to a goal, ref kicks the puck in the net

no problem, sorry guy...them's the breaks

glanced off a glove 5 mins ago, not on Gary's watch

the league is going to get what they deserve when the cup winning goal is called back 10 mins later and they have to sweep up the confetti and be charged with inciting a riot when the stadium is torn apart

This is what bugs me the most.

The inconsistency about what can be looked at vs not.

You can't review penalties that lead directly to goals but can review a random glance off a glove with limited direct impact.

NHL always manages to overcomplicate everything.