[PGT] Flames lose 3-2 to Blackhawks

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by Brick

I thought that all goals were reviewed. There shouldn't have even needed to be a challenge. There was obvious goaltender interference. The officials need to do a better job. What a shame that this game was decided by a bad goal.

This
Perfect as example how the refs did not treat that goal equally. When the Hawks almost scored when the puck almost crossed the line. The refs automatically on their own decision reviewed that possible goal. Without Quenneville even having to challenge it.
The refs should have equally reviewed the GWG but instead the Flames had to challenge it but as we found out they had no ability to challenge it anyways because of the called time out earlier.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

This
Perfect as example how the refs did not treat that goal equally. When the Hawks almost scored when the puck almost crossed the line. The refs automatically on their own decision reviewed that possible goal. Without Quenneville even having to challenge it.
The refs should have equally reviewed the GWG but instead the Flames had to challenge it but as we found out they had no ability to challenge it anyways because of the called time out earlier.

Goaltender interference can't be challenged in the same way a puck close to the goal line can be.

Only a coaches challenge can be used to challenge a goalie interference play.

[Ryan Coke]

Did anybody see the opening video at the dome? It looked like they took a bunch of the gifs from a PGT here after a win, and put it to music. Pretty funny.

Game was good, Flames played well, ending sucked.

[Jetfire]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Rule change suggestion:

If you don't have a timeout remaining, losing a challenge means your team gets a minor penalty.

I like this idea a lot.

[Machiavelli]

From the way the game was going I thought for sure the Flames would take it. Alas, not meant to be (thanks for nothing, powerplay)

Monahan seems rejuvenated playing a more hard-nosed style. Looks good on him.

I'm done with Vey; can they call someone else up, or is Versteeg back soon? Why is he on the PP?

Despite the bad third goal, I'd probably go back to Johnson on Sunday

Brodie was alright, much more comfortable with the puck in the offensive zone. However, in his own end he still seems off

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

I'm done with Vey; can they call someone else up, or is Versteeg back soon? Why is he on the PP?

Despite the bad third goal, I'd probably go back to Johnson on Sunday

I don't have a huge issue with Vey up with the team right now, but am still trying to figure out the rational behind him being on the PP. I'd try someone else there next game.

As for the goalies, I feel more comfortable with Johnson right now, but at the same time you can't let Elliott sit on the bench for too long. If I was a betting man I'd say Elliott is starting next. Feels great to have a very capable backup/1b goalie, though.

[AC]

Tough to say Vey has worked on the PP so far. But who has I suppose?

I'm guessing the rationale has to do with his success on the powerplay for Vancouver:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlThCCDgBrU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk2DUGrKc7M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM0fMq0Kzzk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H4fHCxtwsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KaNk9kCHUI

But again, hasn't worked yet... I'd probably prefer to see Shinkaruk in. Though I did like what I saw from Vey even strength moreso tonight than in previous games.

[thefoss1957]

I saw the replay on the disputed goal...my impressions, contact with Johnson was incidental to start with, as the Flames' D-man was riding Hossa's back, by the time Hossa and the Flames' D-man (Brodie?) were in the crease, so was the puck...then Hossa, with the puck in the crease, took a couple of whacks at it...the puck was in the crease, and the previously quoted rule seemed to apply...I thought Hossa whiffed twice at the puck, once high, once, low. I thought Panarin should get credit for the goal.

Then the replays had a montage of Crawford's late efforts...your guys didn't quit, after the bad break. Call it a Crawford stolen game, again.

Lastly, I'd like to see a rule change where a penalty with less than 2minutes remaining be a penalty shot. Not that I thought Anisimov's late trip looked blatant or intentional, but, it WAS a trip, and it did deny a bad angle attempt as the puck was being scrambled for.

I'll watch the game in its entirety in the morning...I'll call it a bit of a lucky road win for my guys, for now.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Lastly, I'd like to see a rule change where a penalty with less than 2minutes remaining be a penalty shot. Not that I thought Anisimov's late trip looked blatant or intentional, but, it WAS a trip, and it did deny a bad angle attempt as the puck was being scrambled for.

I get what you're saying, but the problem is it would be just brutal to have that happen when a puck is unintentionally shot over the glass. A penalty during the game, but in no way should be a penalty shot.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

Lastly, I'd like to see a rule change where a penalty with less than 2minutes remaining be a penalty shot. Not that I thought Anisimov's late trip looked blatant or intentional, but, it WAS a trip, and it did deny a bad angle attempt as the puck was being scrambled for.

I think the NHL could work on something like this, you can certainly see the rationale out of the game today. Calgary already had the goalie pulled, so a delayed penalty helps nothing. In order to take advantage of the call, the Flames have to give up possession, leading to a faceoff, which the other team could win, effectively ending the game.

There really isn't much incentive currently to not hook, tackle, interfere, etc, in certainly the last 15 seconds or more, maybe up to 30.

The rule I'd write might be something like this:

In the last 30 seconds of regulation, when a team leading the game takes a penalty, the other team has the option to have the offending player take a penalty as normal, or, at their discretion, have any of their players take a penalty shot."

I think the exact time remaining where that would kick in could be further discussed, and maybe you even have a second tier, say anything under 10 seconds, if the penalty shot is unsuccessful, the offending team still takes a minor penalty.

Theoretically, under current rules, a team that's leading could have all of the players on the ice just tackle all of the opposition players, and as long as none of them touched the puck, the game could end before any penalties could be enforced.

[chockfullofgoodness]

Originally Posted by thefoss1957

I saw the replay on the disputed goal...my impressions, contact with Johnson was incidental to start with, as the Flames' D-man was riding Hossa's back, by the time Hossa and the Flames' D-man (Brodie?) were in the crease, so was the puck...then Hossa, with the puck in the crease, took a couple of whacks at it...the puck was in the crease, and the previously quoted rule seemed to apply...I thought Hossa whiffed twice at the puck, once high, once, low. I thought Panarin should get credit for the goal.

Then the replays had a montage of Crawford's late efforts...your guys didn't quit, after the bad break. Call it a Crawford stolen game, again.

Lastly, I'd like to see a rule change where a penalty with less than 2minutes remaining be a penalty shot. Not that I thought Anisimov's late trip looked blatant or intentional, but, it WAS a trip, and it did deny a bad angle attempt as the puck was being scrambled for.

I'll watch the game in its entirety in the morning...I'll call it a bit of a lucky road win for my guys, for now.

Way too extreme.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Rule change suggestion:

If you don't have a timeout remaining, losing a challenge means your team gets a minor penalty.

That is absolutely solid and needs to be sent to the right people to get this into the rules committee discussion.

[djsFlames]

Aw man, what the hell?

I saw it was 2-2 a ways into the third and Monahan and Bennett found the net and thought for sure they'd at least squeeze a point out of the Blackhawks. That result just plain sucks. Hate to hear that the go ahead goal was questionable. That irks me..

Ugh Hawks already have a huge lead in the standings. Why not just play for the 3 points. We need them....

Oh well..... keep pushing right. At least they made a game of it.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I get what you're saying, but the problem is it would be just brutal to have that happen when a puck is unintentionally shot over the glass. A penalty during the game, but in no way should be a penalty shot.

Yeah. A penalty shot is too drastic.

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a team have to kill off a full 2 minute penalty regardless of time remaining in the game though.

Trip a guy with 10 seconds left while up in a 3-2 game? Be prepared to kill a penalty for an extra 1:50 after regular time expires.

[thefoss1957]

I understand that a PS seems harsh...but, I hearken back to last year's playoffs, where, I believe it was Dallas, in a 1st round game, simply bludgeoned and tackled for 15 full seconds, to secure a win, it seemed a premeditated tactic...tonight, clearly, an 8 second penalty, without guaranteed possession, due to a faceoff, seemed pointless as punishment for the trip.

[LockedOut]

Why has GG stopped using Ferland on the PP? I'd use him over Vey and Chiasson any time of day.

[wwkayaker]

I stopped looking at this forum during the game and I found that I enjoyed the game far more than when I was reading posts.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Yeah. A penalty shot is too drastic.

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a team have to kill off a full 2 minute penalty regardless of time remaining in the game though.

Trip a guy with 10 seconds left while up in a 3-2 game? Be prepared to kill a penalty for an extra 1:50 after regular time expires.

I've long been a proponent of having all players serve the full 2 minutes. OT or not. Never understood why players have to serve a full 5, but not a full 2. But I digress.

[Barnet Flame]

A heartbreaking loss, but if we play like that for most of the season, I will be very happy.

I just do not understand why the one challenge you get is tied to a timeout and why 'goals' that are clearly dubious don't even get an automatic cursory review.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Rule change suggestion:

If you don't have a timeout remaining, losing a challenge means your team gets a minor penalty.

In general, good idea. In this instance, the goal was good. Well legal anyway.
Way too much wailing and moaning about officiating here. Not you, just in general.
Flames 0/5 on powerfully and Hawks 1/1.