02-18-2019, 11:18 PM
|
#181
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manhattanboy
Good to see SJ lose. But Vegas looks like they can be taken in the first round. Hmmm...
|
I'll take Vancouver, Colorado or Minnesota.
Fairly easy pickins as far as first round opponents go. I think the Flames and Sharks are pretty much destined to meet so long as either club doesn't hit an unexpected snag in round one.
That second WC team (if we finish first) will probably only be several games over .500.... Crazy low standard for the cutoff.
On an average year, you'd need to be a dozen games over or more.
Last edited by djsFlames; 02-18-2019 at 11:20 PM.
|
|
|
02-18-2019, 11:22 PM
|
#182
|
Franchise Player
|
Dallas and Chicago would make me nervous.
|
|
|
02-18-2019, 11:23 PM
|
#183
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theinfinitejar
You're giving the team who's net is off essentially a delayed penalty situation where the other team can't take advantage of a bad turnover or giveaway.
|
except you're not.
Even if they didn't whistle it down, Kane's goal would have never have counted with the net off the mooring.
Boston was allowed to take that possession because the net being off wasn't affecting that play...once possession changed, the play was blown dead
Kane's possession wouldn't have even happened if the play was blown dead at the time of the net being dislodged
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 02-18-2019 at 11:27 PM.
|
|
|
02-18-2019, 11:26 PM
|
#184
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Bay Area
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary
except you're not.
Even if they didn't whistle it down, Kane's goal would have never have counted with the net off the mooring.
|
But Kane's net is not off, and he's talking about the team whose net *is* off having the advantage. They could theoretically pull the goalie and have an extra attacker, because nothing gets scored on their net.
|
|
|
02-18-2019, 11:26 PM
|
#185
|
Resident Videologist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourMother
I'm pretty sure if you pull your goalie in OT, you get your "loser point" taken away if you lose. I don't think this has ever happened but I'm certain that is the repercussion.
|
Surely only if the other team scores into the empty net.
If the net is off, may as well pull your goalie.
|
|
|
02-18-2019, 11:31 PM
|
#186
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by the2bears
But Kane's net is not off, and he's talking about the team whose net *is* off having the advantage. They could theoretically pull the goalie and have an extra attacker, because nothing gets scored on their net.
|
the Boston net was off, but the play was happening in the other end, not affecting play at all.
pulling the goalie affects the play.
if calgary was in Boston's position, i'd damn well want the chance to happen because of that exact reason: the play wasn't being affected.
if the the play remained in the Boston end, the play would have been blown dead.
its a subjective call - the refs made that call and in the end, the results of the game were not affected.
if Boston scored, then, SJ might have an argument. But they didn't...
|
|
|
02-18-2019, 11:36 PM
|
#187
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manhattanboy
Dallas and Chicago would make me nervous.
|
Chicago has allowed 223 goals against this season, or 3.71 per game. Hard to be too concerned with that kind of porous defence/goltending.
Dallas.....yeah, we seem to have issues with solving Ben Bishop.
|
|
|
02-18-2019, 11:56 PM
|
#188
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: YYC
|
Sharks fans are so cocky. They think that if they had better goaltending then they'd be competing with Tampa for first in the league. Also going as far to say that they are the only team that can do any damage in the playoffs. My god they beat the flames in two flukey games and they think theyre tough s***
__________________
"Some may have more talent, but there is no excuse for anyone working harder than you"
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 12:18 AM
|
#190
|
Help, save, whatever.
|
Why didn't the ref who was right next to the net put the net back in position? He points to it for some reason and then just skates by it. He is already so close.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 12:22 AM
|
#191
|
Help, save, whatever.
|
Also McAvoy pushes the Sharks player into the net causing the net to come off. If anything the play should have been whistled to a stop right there. Horrible Reffing .
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 01:40 AM
|
#192
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SW Calgary
|
Kucherov is on pace for 135 points I think. The last time anyone had over 130 was Lemieux (161 points) and Jagr (149 points) in the mid 90's
Last edited by BlAcKNoVa; 02-19-2019 at 01:42 AM.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 02:28 AM
|
#193
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manhattanboy
Good to see SJ lose. But Vegas looks like they can be taken in the first round. Hmmm...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsFlames
I'll take Vancouver, Colorado or Minnesota.
Fairly easy pickins as far as first round opponents go. I think the Flames and Sharks are pretty much destined to meet so long as either club doesn't hit an unexpected snag in round one.
That second WC team (if we finish first) will probably only be several games over .500.... Crazy low standard for the cutoff.
On an average year, you'd need to be a dozen games over or more.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manhattanboy
Dallas and Chicago would make me nervous.
|
I'll put Arizona on the list to see play the Flames in round 1.
__________________
Remember this, TSN stands for Toronto's Sports Network!
MOD EDIT: Removed broken image link.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 04:35 AM
|
#194
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Nanaimo
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
The puck has to be conclusively and completely over the line. It might be in, but that does not look remotely conclusive to me.
*EDIT* I hate the Sharks. So much.
|
Well we know why you are a literature majour. You obviously couldn't do AV because your blind. At least books come in braille
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 06:17 AM
|
#195
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by combustiblefuel
Well we know why you are a literature majour. You obviously couldn't do AV because your blind. At least books come in braille
|
Haha, usually not a fan of personal attacks but this was funny.
But I do agree with TextCritic on this one.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Tsawwassen For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-19-2019, 10:19 AM
|
#197
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by theinfinitejar
If your net's off in OT you may as well pull your goalie then.
|
If you have time to do so, sure. Though you do run the risk of the referee being able to put the net back on both quickly and as a courtesy.
Ultimately, it was the Sharks who took Boston's net off, as the puck was moving up the ice. Blowing the whistle rewards Evander Kane for losing a puck battle. Letting play continue to its natural conclusion is the proper call there.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 12:44 PM
|
#198
|
Voted for Kodos
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
If you have time to do so, sure. Though you do run the risk of the referee being able to put the net back on both quickly and as a courtesy.
Ultimately, it was the Sharks who took Boston's net off, as the puck was moving up the ice. Blowing the whistle rewards Evander Kane for losing a puck battle. Letting play continue to its natural conclusion is the proper call there.
|
Yup, the ref might be able to quickly put the net back on, but it’s not always easy. 3 on 3 is fast, if he stops to put the net on, he might miss something important at the other end of the ice.
Since it’s clearly Kane who takes the net off (under NHL rules it doesn’t matter that he was pushed into the net or not), the ref is fine to let play continue until San Jose gains control of the puck, which he did. There is nothing controversial on this play.
On the late tying goal, Wagner hits the puck down with his stick up - but since he touches the puck again prior to the puck crossing the goal line, the standard to being too high is “above his shoulder”, not “above the crossbar”. Also, this extra touch does make this play non reviewable, according to the rules.
None of the officials had their hands up for “puck being played with a high stick”. On review, it looks possible (perhaps even likely) that it was above his shoulders, but IMO, it’s inconclusive at best.
So, the play was correctly not reviewable, and likely doesn’t get overturned even if it was. This play is only controversial because a judgement call had to be made on a close play, but it is in fact a close play that happened to not be called, and after the play is made, the refs were correct.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 01:54 PM
|
#199
|
In the Sin Bin
|
I think they completely got the high stick goal wrong, myself. That looked safely over his shoulders. But yeah, once the officials made the call, it wasn't reviewable.
|
|
|
02-19-2019, 02:05 PM
|
#200
|
Pent-up
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Plutanamo Bay.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PugnaciousIntern
Haha, usually not a fan of personal attacks but this was funny.
But I do agree with TextCritic on this one.
|
Especially with the choice of “your” and “majour” used in a Textcritic insult.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:06 PM.
|
|