[PGT] Flames chow down on some Wings 5-3

[CaptainCrunch]

This come from behind thing is so completely different from the season under Hartley.


That team basically rope a doped until the third period and then pressed.


This team pretty much wins the territorial battles through the whole game and wears teams down. It to me is entirely sustainable.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Weird ATL comment by that Oiler fan.

In the west, Canucks are 9th in points, 11th in point percentage, negative goal differential, 2-3 in their last 5 including twice being shutout. Their last game they barely edged out a win against the worst team in the league, winning in OT against the Senators. Sportsclubstats gives them a 38% weighted chance to make the playoffs, less with 50/50.

Just such a weird team to pick as a "surefire" playoff team.

It's what happens in here though when things are going badly. The negativity on anything turns into massive hyperbole.

For this Oiler fan, they want to paint a doom and gloom picture for their team, and saying that both their most heated rivals are surefire playoff teams helps make things seem even more bleak.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This come from behind thing is so completely different from the season under Hartley.


That team basically rope a doped until the third period and then pressed.


This team pretty much wins the territorial battles through the whole game and wears teams down. It to me is entirely sustainable.

Agreed. While not ideal, this style of play IS sustainable. For the most part the Flames' dictate the pace, outplay the opposition, and put forth a good effort and don't quit. Hockey is also a game of luck and bounces, so when they go down 2-0 it's often attributed to a weak goaltender, weird deflection, or just plain ol' sniper shot. The '14-15 team didn't show up until there was 5 minutes left and then decided to turn it on. They routinely got outplayed. Their goaltending tandem bailed them out and stole quite a few games.

This season the team usually shows up from the start, and has much fewer passengers. Anyone who watches the team can see it's a completely different brand of hockey from '14-'15, let alone last season. I have no problem saying it was one of the luckiest teams I've ever seen play in the NHL my entire time watching hockey. The goal Brodie had vs Boston in OT where it bounced 3 times in the air before going in the net was a testament to the luck they had all season. As Oiler fan's like to say, that team had a horseshoe shoved so far up their ass.

As soon as I hear anybody say the Flames' style is unsustainable due to comeback wins, I know right away they aren't watching games and are simply going off box scores or highlights.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This come from behind thing is so completely different from the season under Hartley.


That team basically rope a doped until the third period and then pressed.


This team pretty much wins the territorial battles through the whole game and wears teams down. It to me is entirely sustainable.

This team has a vastly, vastly superior roster, to go along with the confidence that they can win on any given night.

And I think I went light on the vastly’s.

[Bingo]

I'm no referee, but I'm with others that have always thought a turned over stick is hooking on the attacking players stick and a call.

So when it happens on a clear cut breakaway it made sense to me that it was a penalty shot ... though he did get a shot away.

If that isn't the case there is certainly a gripe, but I was good with it live.

[Bingo]

I think the big question for me is Gaudreau and levels ... is December +1 a new player? I don't think he's a 2.0 PPG player going forward, but is he now a 1.5 guy the rest of the way?

The league is scoring more goals, and Gaudreau has gone 15 games with 30 points. That's not a tiny sample size.

[Tron_fdc]

I've been called on that play a few times in beer league. Yeah, it's not NHL but a lot of refs will call the hook the instant you turn your stick (blade) over. I've never been able to find the actual rule, but it's definitely a thing.

[ForeverFlameFan]

What Kylington should have done is go under and hit AA’s stick up rather than going down on it.

EDIT: never mind, he didn’t have time to do that. He already had to move his stick over AA’s head to do what he did.

[getbak]

This season, the Flames have won 7 games that they trailed after two periods.

5 of those games were in the first 15 games of the season. Since then, they've only had two games where they made a third period comeback to win, the Oilers game on November 17 and the Flyers game on December 12.

Of the seven comeback wins, there was only one game (November 1 vs Colorado) where they trailed by more than one goal after two periods. There was also one game where the other team scored in the third period before the Flames started the comeback (December 12 vs Philadelphia).


Being able to score one goal to tie a game shouldn't be considered a remarkable or unsustainable accomplishment by any standard.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I've been called on that play a few times in beer league. Yeah, it's not NHL but a lot of refs will call the hook the instant you turn your stick (blade) over. I've never been able to find the actual rule, but it's definitely a thing.

Hockey Canada says hooking can be done on a stick. So turning the blade over = penalty for us regular joes.

But the NHL is very clear in stating that play is not hooking.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm no referee, but I'm with others that have always thought a turned over stick is hooking on the attacking players stick and a call.

So when it happens on a clear cut breakaway it made sense to me that it was a penalty shot ... though he did get a shot away.

If that isn't the case there is certainly a gripe, but I was good with it live.

If we're talking about Detroit's penalty shot, my view is that if the referee has to take that long to come to a decision, it's probably not a penalty shot. But, the call was ultimately fair.

If we're talking about Gaudreau, then I have no idea what he has to do to actually get a penalty shot call as that was already the fourth or fifth time this year alone he's been fouled on a breakaway without a call.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm no referee, but I'm with others that have always thought a turned over stick is hooking on the attacking players stick and a call.

So when it happens on a clear cut breakaway it made sense to me that it was a penalty shot ... though he did get a shot away.

If that isn't the case there is certainly a gripe, but I was good with it live.

Getting the shot away also doesn’t matter (only in Hockey Canada’s rule book does it matter).

In the show, if your shot quality is reduced due to an infraction from behind, a penalty shot can be called.

Edit:

(iii) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded);

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by getbak

Being able to score one goal to tie a game shouldn't be considered a remarkable or unsustainable accomplishment by any standard.

You do have to appreciate the comment was made from a fan of the Oilers.

[Toonage]

To Resolute's point, the referee though about the call for a good 2-3 seconds which to me indicates one of two things

1. He was unsure of how to proceed
2. He doesn't know the rule

#2 would suggest why the Flames didn't get a call and would also aptly describe the job the officials did last night