[OOT] March 22, just four games.

[FireGilbert]

I'm agreeing with getbak, why shouldn't that goal count? He didn't bunt the puck with only a shaft or pick up a stick blade to score. It was Abdelkader's trying to make a scoring play and in the process of that his stick happened to break. I know if you slow down the video then by the strict definition of the rule it is a penalty, however at game speed things happen too fast and it should be allowed.

Think about the scenario where a player tried to one time a shot close to the net but in the process of shooting their stick breaks. If you slow down the replay you would see the stick break before shooting the puck. Should this be a penalty and if the puck happened to dribble in should the goal be disallowed? No, the player was trying to make a hockey play and their stick happened to break.

[OutOfTheCube]

It would make me very happy to see the Bruins choke away the last playoff spot to Ottawa. That stupid team needs a reality check.

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.

Then they would have to change the rule to include that, making the rule more vague is what I'm saying, Refs would have to assess intent in playing with a broken stick and in most cases if the intent is there a penalty is going to be called already.

Also is there really a reason why the goal shouldn't have counted beyond theres a rule that says you can't play with a broken stick? 9 times out of 10 his stick stays intact and he still scores. Its not quite the same as goaltender interference

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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?

Well this is a part of the whole review discussion, who does the reviewing and who has the final say? Do they let the refs get a monitor and a chance to take a second look or does everything go through the command centre where they have more technology and better views? Does there have to be enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice or is it up to the discretion of the reviewer? If there does have to be enough evidence to overturn it how often are they just going to stick with the call on the ice? If its more often then not from a business standpoint the NHL wouldn't want it to be a reviewable play because it creates an unnecessary slow down.

If it was as easy as hey every play should be reviewable and coach's should be able to challenge it would already be that way.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

It would make me very happy to see the Bruins choke away the last playoff spot to Ottawa. That stupid team needs a reality check.

Yep that would be hilarious if Boston missed the playoffs. They have already choked it away though with Ottawa only 1 point back with 2 games in hand. At this point they likely have a better chance at catching Washington than keeping pace with the Sens.

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.


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 problem with this play (in the ability for it to be reviewed) is that there is no rule explicitly saying a goal with a broken stick shall not count. The reason its should not be a goal is for two reasons. 1st, player playing with a broken stick is a penalty under 10.3, so the ref would then be calling a delayed penalty on Detroit.

Then when the puck goes in it will not count because according to the rule book no goal shall count if there is a delayed penalty and the puck entered the net from any reason other than the defending team touching it last. Since Detroit would have touched it last the goal shouldn't have counted.

The problem with this play is that even with the review they are thinking of implementing I'm pretty sure they don't want to use review to give penalties after the fact. If the ref doesn't call a penalty on the play during the play, there is nothing explicitly illegal about the way the puck entered the net.

[Hockey]

Epic dive from Mike Smith after his own player clipped him.

[hwy19man]

The scoring is happening quickly in the Ducks-Rangers game, it is 3-2 Rangers at the end of the first period. Corey Perry has both of the Ducks goals and Andersen has been pulled after the third goal.

[activeStick]

Choke job by the Bruins down the stretch

[JohnnyT]

Originally Posted by J epworth

The problem with this play (in the ability for it to be reviewed) is that there is no rule explicitly saying a goal with a broken stick shall not count. The reason its should not be a goal is for two reasons. 1st, player playing with a broken stick is a penalty under 10.3, so the ref would then be calling a delayed penalty on Detroit.

Then when the puck goes in it will not count because according to the rule book no goal shall count if there is a delayed penalty and the puck entered the net from any reason other than the defending team touching it last. Since Detroit would have touched it last the goal shouldn't have counted.

The problem with this play is that even with the review they are thinking of implementing I'm pretty sure they don't want to use review to give penalties after the fact. If the ref doesn't call a penalty on the play during the play, there is nothing explicitly illegal about the way the puck entered the net.

This, because then question becomes how far back do you go before the goal was scored to see if the was a penalty before the puck crossed the line

[AC]

1-1 Coyotes/Canucks after one.

Hoping for a miracle!

[Roof-Daddy]

Rarely is there an occasion where I'd be upset about a canucks loss, and tonight isn't one of them.

At this point though, I've given up on hoping for Jets/Canucks/Wild losses and I'm just focusing on hoping the Kings falter down the stretch.

Hopefully it will be less frustrating that way, because those other three teams are infuriating lately.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by AC

1-1 Coyotes/Canucks after one.

Hoping for a miracle!

Looks like it would take one and probably mainly from Mike Smith; the Canucks are on pace for about 50 shots and they've hit four posts.

[hwy19man]

Stepan has scored twice, 5-2 Rangers after two periods.

[Meers]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Looks like it would take one and probably mainly from Mike Smith; the Canucks are on pace for about 50 shots and they've hit four posts.

Yeah, but they were on pace for 60 shots against the Blue Jackets and look what happened.

I expect the Yotes to win.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Andersen got yanked again in the Anaheim game. Are they going to want to ride Gibson in the playoffs?

[AC]

OEL takes a flying crosscheck at Burrows who got him earlier in the shift, except Burrows ducked under it... only for Doan to crosscheck Burrows in the face. Burrows is bleeding.

That is just terrible...

[foshizzle11]

Well, I play a sport that many on here likely know nothing or very little about. At the internaional and professional level for field hockey, they implemented video review. Each team is granted one review that they can use at any time they like for any infraction. Now if what they are correct (ie something needed to be overturned because the wrong decision was made on the field), then they get to keep their ability to have another review in the same game.

If they are incorrect and the play stands as the call on the field, then they cannot use video review again. This has made a huge difference in how things are handled, there is a strategy to it for the players and coaches. It is usually the captain that makes the call to the ref basically as soon as play stops.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing something like this implemented in the NHL. I think it would make coaches/captains really think twice before calling for a review of a play if there is a chance they are wrong. The players and coaches need to know the rules really well in order to take advantage, that is the key. If you think something should be overturned and it isn't, it is usually a silly rule, that people don't know or an old rule that likely needs to be changed.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this goes next season.

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by AC

OEL takes a flying crosscheck at Burrows who got him earlier in the shift, except Burrows ducked under it... only for Doan to crosscheck Burrows in the face. Burrows is bleeding.

That is just terrible...

Just saw that play, no call. Wow, I am surprised neither got one, OEL landed on him too and looked to give him a bit of a shot at that point.

[FireGilbert]

Come on Yotes, you can do it!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

What a save by Mike Smith.