[PGT] Flames lose to Leafs 5-4 (OTL)

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by CFO

I'd argue weegar has been the larger dissapointment.

No chemistry with him and Tanev. He looked solid with Zadorov the pairings have to change.

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by Young Guns

Not the problem but something needs to change on that top line. Zero chemistry between the three. Shoot, swap Kadri and Lindholm again to try and find something. Or go back to Ruzicka, Lindholm and Toffoli.

Backlund and Lindholm rank 92nd in the league in even strength points. Ruzicka is 3rd on the team out of the top 100. I agree something needs to change most players having ok starts are getting points on the pp.

They need more 5 on 5 production. 3rd line looks good. Mix up the top 2 lines is badly needed

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

There was consistency: the "continuous play" rule (if I understand it correctly) requires that IF the whistle is blown (or intention to blow) and IF the puck goes into the net without any further assistance...it's a goal. Last night's refs obviously did not know that rule and the Situation Room called it.

In Columbus, supposedly after the whistle (except the one I heard was after the play!) there was shoving and gloving and whatever else...so not "continuous play".

The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals… include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).
– Rule 38.4 (ix)

The situation in Columbus WAS a continuous play - the shot went in to the goalie, came loose, and was essentially pushed, carried in by the defenseman and goalie.

Continuous play doesn't mean that the puck has to 'keep going', it can also mean that the activity that is currently affecting the puck continues.

If an attacking player comes in and makes a play on the puck, that would not be continuous play, but for the defenseman and goalie trying to keep the puck out, it is.

Also, as I said - if you don't rule it a goal, you have to rule it a penalty shot for putting his hand on the puck.

[Rejean31]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

His careless stick put them down seconds into OT and cost them a point. Simple as that.

I think if any player took that penalty people would be saying to control your stick

9 out of 10 refs in the NHL wouldn’t even make that call. The only reason it was made was because it was the Leafs on Saturday night on HNIC. Oh and the fact that both refs in the game were from Ontario.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Rejean31

9 out of 10 refs in the NHL wouldn’t even make that call. The only reason it was made was because it was the Leafs on Saturday night on HNIC. Oh and the fact that both refs in the game were from Ontario.

both refs called it

[Rejean31]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

both refs called it

Yes and as I said both are from Ontario.

[Paulie Walnuts]

The refs decided prior to the game they would call every little infraction if that's the case you need to call it against both teams.

Did we take a lot of penalties? Yes
Did Toronto? Yes but they didn't call it because of bias.

The NHL is a joke with officiating and has been for an while. The refs need to face discipline plain and simple. Gary Bettman has allowed those clowns to ruin the league for a long time and something needs to change. Nba and nfl have the refs available after games and the NHL doesn't so something is up.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by chedder

Interesting so I tried to look up. From what I could find this is the rule:

NHL Rulebook Text
“A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players must be in control and responsible for their sticks. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal wind up or follow through of a shooting motion, or accidental contact on the opposing center who is bent over during the course of a face-off. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal wind up or follow through and any contact with an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.”

So a centre can be bent over and hit in face and no penalty but not the same for wingers?

Edit. I just watched the replay and the Leaf player was standing essentially straight up, not bent over and attempting to skate away when Huberdeau's stick hit him. Penalty every day of the week.

I'm fine with it being called a penalty, my point was that the guy came down to the stick.

You don't see that, which is fine.

Here's a screen capture ... looks bent over to me.

[Rejean31]

Well and something else I learned from last nights game is if your in close to the goalie and he’s making a poke check just skate into and fall over his stick because apparently that is a penalty too.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The situation in Columbus WAS a continuous play - the shot went in to the goalie, came loose, and was essentially pushed, carried in by the defenseman and goalie.

Continuous play doesn't mean that the puck has to 'keep going', it can also mean that the activity that is currently affecting the puck continues.

If an attacking player comes in and makes a play on the puck, that would not be continuous play, but for the defenseman and goalie trying to keep the puck out, it is.

Also, as I said - if you don't rule it a goal, you have to rule it a penalty shot for putting his hand on the puck.

Faulty analysis IMO - the relevant part is here:
i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play

In the Hanifin goal nobody touched the puck before, during or after the whistle. Whether it blew or not, the puck was going in.

In the Columbus game - let's assume the whistle happened "quickly" (which is not what I heard)...but after the whistle, as you said it was pushed in by D or G. NOT continuous play.

If the whistle was late...that's a different argument and the ref would say "intent to blow" was prior...see above argument for not continuous play.

Hair-splitting for sure.

[tvp2003]

Re: Columbus no-goal — I’d have to see the replay again but (i) I didn’t think the whistle blew first as it seemed to come after players were already in the net (including the puck based on the overhead replay), and (ii) the only thing that prevented the puck from going in initially was the defenceman putting his hand on the puck while it was in the crease. Which is a goal IIRC.

The puck eventually crossed the goal line but if you use the Hanifin reasoning, I don’t think it was due to a Flames player swatting at it, it was the momentum of the goalie/defender unable to keep it from trickling in.

Both times should have been goals IMO based on this “continuous play” rule.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you look at last season and the first third of this season the teams that they have struggled against the most when it comes to driving play is

1. Carolina
2. Toronto
3. Tampa
4. Minnesota
5. Winnipeg

Teams where they've run the show

1. St. Louis
2. Vancouver
3. Columbus
4. Chicago
5. Arizona

10. Montreal

Just not getting the results, but out playing Montreal five on five

Thanks for that. That does confirm my recollection of the Flames outplaying them but not getting what really matters. Since the 2021 season, at least.

[CSharp]

This team's defensive zone coverage sucks! Guys like Tanev, Weager, and especially Hanifin has gotta be ashamed! Tanev keeps shooting the puck down the middle in his own zones. Hanifin can't defend worth of crap cuz he either chasing someone or leaves them unchecked.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Rejean31

Well and something else I learned from last nights game is if your in close to the goalie and he’s making a poke check just skate into and fall over his stick because apparently that is a penalty too.

Lol

[Rejean31]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Lol

There’s an intelligent response.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Rejean31

Well and something else I learned from last nights game is if your in close to the goalie and he’s making a poke check just skate into and fall over his stick because apparently that is a penalty too.

I was thinking, if it happened the other way around, Flames player will be called goaltender interference.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Rejean31

There’s an intelligent response.

I'm laughing because I agree

so many posters on edge since Friday..

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Rejean31

Well and something else I learned from last nights game is if your in close to the goalie and he’s making a poke check just skate into and fall over his stick because apparently that is a penalty too.

I mean that's was one of the calls I didn't have a problem. That's been a pretty common cal for the better part of the last 2 decades. After he missed a poke check . You could tell he went for the legs.

Sometimes you get away with it sometimes you don't

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Re: Columbus no-goal — I’d have to see the replay again but (i) I didn’t think the whistle blew first as it seemed to come after players were already in the net (including the puck based on the overhead replay), and (ii) the only thing that prevented the puck from going in initially was the defenceman putting his hand on the puck while it was in the crease. Which is a goal IIRC.

Yah - that's a different rule and I don't disagree - but I suspect that the Ref said his "intent to blow" (LOL) was BEFORE the puck/hand/nonsense so play stopped at that moment. Don't like it but suspect that's why the quick review and no goal call. (Really - just explaining to the Sit Room when his intent was?)

Originally Posted by tvp2003

The puck eventually crossed the goal line but if you use the Hanifin reasoning, I don’t think it was due to a Flames player swatting at it, it was the momentum of the goalie/defender unable to keep it from trickling in.

Both times should have been goals IMO based on this “continuous play” rule.

I don't think the continuous play rule regards "who" touches the puck after the whistle...just that if it ISN'T touched it's considered a continuous play (ie a bit like the buzzer-beaters in the NBA...the shot is already in the air....and goes in).

Weird rule, because in the NHL if the shot doesn't cross the line prior to the end of the period it's a no goal...but it's a goal if the whistle blows instead.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm fine with it being called a penalty, my point was that the guy came down to the stick.



You don't see that, which is fine.



Here's a screen capture ... looks bent over to me.

I'll concede he was bent at the waist, but so is everyone in that shot. I don't think he came down to the stick. The stick went up to his face as he was turning to go to the play. Huberdeau's stick is pretty close to shoulder height in that screen shot.

Anyway, my point, and opinion is it was a careless infraction that could have been avoided. One that will always get called when 2 refs are right there on the opening face-off. I don't agree that 9 out of 10 refs would let that go.