Johnny skating to get off the ice made me yell at the TV....woke up the dogs. Lazy POS.
Zero effort to break up plays. Hope he gets bag skated next practice.
I was sitting directly behind the bench and noticed this as well. More than once he turned his back to the play and kind of coasted to the bench. He didn’t seem to have any fire in the belly yesterday.
My complaint with the goalie interference call isn't that he didn't bump Hellebuyck. There clearly was some interference on the play, however slight.
The problem is when only one or two plays per game are reviewed, they're held to a different standard. In real-time, the refs probably miss that call 9 out of 10 times. So it's difficult for the players to know where the line is - if you play right at the line you end up having a goal called back every few games. But if you never risk the interference call you probably miss out on creating just as many goals.
When the player doesn't know what standard they'll be held to before a play starts, it puts them in a lose-lose situation.
Imagine in football if you could challenge for holding. There's holding every play! So do you stop holding and let your QB get sacked 10 times a game? Or do you keep holding, and get a touchdown or two called back every game?
Mangipane has really dropped off his last 2 games. He looked completely overwhelmed yesterday. Yes he was playing with Stajan & Lazar, but he also looked very bad against the Canes too when playing with Janko & Hathaway.
Against a big team like the Jets, probably would have been better to have Hrivik in, as Mangiapane was manhandled a few times. I'm still not quite sure where the team sees Mangiapane long term. He shouldn't be on the 4th line playing with scrubs but there are 3 better left wingers ahead of him. Do you move Tkachuk to Backlunds RW and move Bennett to their left and reunite Mangiapane-Janko-Hathaway?
__________________
Calgary Flames, PLEASE GO TO THE NET! AND SHOOT THE PUCK! GENERATING OFFENSE IS NOT DIFFICULT! SKATE HARD, SHOOT HARD, CRASH THE NET HARD!
I'm fully willing to support gulutzan if he can figure out how to keep this team from regressing into lazy hockey every time there's an extended rest. Again yesterday the team started the game slow. And and the Jets were similarly rested, so there's no excuse. They should be chomping at the bit to get back on the ice and extend their streak. Instead they looked disinterested.
Brouwer played well, though. Appears he's taken the criticism to heart. Should've been a multi point game for him.
My problem with the goalie interference call is this: it sets the precedence that if you're the defender between the your goalie and an opposing player, you're more likely to get a interference call if you exaggerate a bump by the opposing player.
That's neither the letter nor the spirit of the rule. If it wasn't Tkachuk I wonder if it is still called that way.
As for the goaltending interference call I thought it was a bit weak but really that's how it's supposed to be called. The only problem is they don't call it consistently. Luckily we didn't lose the game on that call.
I think you can argue we did lose the game on that call. If that goal counted and nothing else changed it would have been 2-1 at the end of regulation.
And it seemed to me watching that having the goal waived off hurt the Flames momentum. It wasn't a great effort before that, but after that it sort of seemed like they felt the refs were going to make sure they didn't win so why fight it.
I get that the goal being called back was a huge disappointment but the Jets were on the ice too and lets not discount their play. They were faster and more physical all game. Flames could barely complete passes and were constantly floating in their own zone seemingly incapable of a quick clear all the while inviting that forecheck.
I get that the goal being called back was a huge disappointment but the Jets were on the ice too and lets not discount their play. They were faster and more physical all game. Flames could barely complete passes and were constantly floating in their own zone seemingly incapable of a quick clear all the while inviting that forecheck.
This is true of the first period, but things evened out considerably through the rest of the game. I would say the Jets were a little better overall, but the way some people are speaking about yesterday's game one would think that the Flames were plower right into the ground, and that is not what happened.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
While technically MT hits the Jets defenseman that stopped short, and that defenseman brushes the goalie, that’s not even by rule automatic goalie interference.And by no means was MT intentionally causing interference, directly or indirectly. The contact has to also prevent the goalie from being able to make the save.
Here are the relevant sections of the actual rule:
Quote:
Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.
IMO, the video is pretty clear that Tkachuk initiates contact with the Jets' player, which causes him to have incidental contact with Hellybuck inside the crease. That knocked Hellybuck away from the middle of the net, and delayed him from pushing off to try to make a save on the rebound. Basically, all of the element needed to give rise to no goal.
If the sweaters were reversed, I'd be pissed if the goal were allowed to stand, so am not going to turn hypocrite and cry foul when it goes against the Flames, let alone claim it's part of a conspiracy to screw over the Flames (which some posters in the Game Thread did).
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mike F For This Useful Post:
Here are the relevant sections of the actual rule:
IMO, the video is pretty clear that Tkachuk initiates contact with the Jets' player, which causes him to have incidental contact with Hellybuck inside the crease. That knocked Hellybuck away from the middle of the net, and delayed him from pushing off to try to make a save on the rebound. Basically, all of the element needed to give rise to no goal.
If the sweaters were reversed, I'd be pissed if the goal were allowed to stand, so am not going to turn hypocrite and cry foul when it goes against the Flames, let alone claim it's part of a conspiracy to screw over the Flames (which some posters in the Game Thread did).
Except no it didn't. The contact was inconsequential, and Hellebuyck had already put himself out of position.
He would not have been able to get back into position, even if there were no contact. And the contact did not change that at all. Probably why Hellebuyck never said a word to the ref.
It is also highly debatable that Tkachuk 'pushed' him. Looked like two players fighting for space to me. Which is completely acceptable. And defensemen bump their goalies all the time, as a result.
Except no it didn't. The contact was inconsequential, and Hellebuyck had already put himself out of position.
He would not have been able to get back into position, even if there were no contact. And the contact did not change that at all. Probably why Hellebuyck never said a word to the ref.
It is also highly debatable that Tkachuk 'pushed' him. Looked like two players fighting for space to me. Which is completely acceptable. And defensemen bump their goalies all the time, as a result.
Go to 1:00 of that clip. It'd obvious that it's the contact from Tkachuk into the back of Hendricks that causes him to contact Hellybuck in the crease, and that contact causes Hellybuck to move to his left.
As for "He would not have been able to get back into position", (a) that's not part of the rule, and (b) Hellybuck just misses the rebound, so your assertion is nowhere near definitive.
Go to 1:00 of that clip. It'd obvious that it's the contact from Tkachuk into the back of Hendricks that causes him to contact Hellybuck in the crease, and that contact causes Hellybuck to move to his left.
As for "He would not have been able to get back into position", (a) that's not part of the rule, and (b) Hellybuck just misses the rebound, so your assertion is nowhere near definitive.
I stand by my statements.
Tkachuk did not 'push the defender into the goalie'. It was two players battling and the defenseman bumped the goalie.
And I'll say it again: if there were no contact, Hellebuyck still would not have been able to make the same. Therefore his ability to make the save was not interfered with.
Also, AC's example was a far more egregious 'push'
Defensemen bump into goalies all the time, if that isn't a goal, then there should be a LOT of goals waved off.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
The defending player contacted the goalie, in his crease, directly because of contact from behind by Tkachuk. If you're going to argue that brings it outside of the NHL's rule because it doesn't meet some overly literal definition of "pushed or shoved", you're pretty desperate to see this the Flames way.
And you have no way of saying definitively what would have happeed without the contact, as Hellybuck just missed the puck as is (and I notice you're no longer contending that the contact didn't cause him to move).
So I stand by my statement: If the sweaters were reversed, I (and I'd wager heavily you and all other Flames fans) would be pissed if the goal were allowed to stand, so am not going to turn hypocrite and cry foul when it goes against the Flames
The defending player contacted the goalie, in his crease, directly because of contact from behind by Tkachuk. If you're going to argue that brings it outside of the NHL's rule because it doesn't meet some overly literal definition of "pushed or shoved", you're pretty desperate to see this the Flames way.
And you have no way of saying definitively what would have happeed without the contact, as Hellybuck just missed the puck as is (and I notice you're no longer contending that the contact didn't cause him to move)...
Forget all of that. According to the rule, "Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."
I think Tkachuk's actions on Brouwer's goal are the very definition of "incidental contact" according to how the rule is written.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
The Flames didn't have any finish, but if they had, they would have scored 4 or 5. They got the Jets to turn the puck over and created dangerous counter-attacks, caught them on odd-man breaks much more than they were caught, and were by no means the worse team out there. It was pretty even - unless you come here, where the consensus is more than they should have been soundly thrashed.
I'd agree with that, but our top players were ghosts, like another poster said, we werent going to win-out the season, we played a rusty game after a long break, similar to the Jets, it was pretty even overall but not our best game.
Afternoon game after a long break was never going to be our best. We still got a point. Take the point and move along. The wheels are hardly falling off.
Albeit criticisms of the Powerplay are still valid.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
The defending player contacted the goalie, in his crease, directly because of contact from behind by Tkachuk. If you're going to argue that brings it outside of the NHL's rule because it doesn't meet some overly literal definition of "pushed or shoved", you're pretty desperate to see this the Flames way.
And you have no way of saying definitively what would have happeed without the contact, as Hellybuck just missed the puck as is (and I notice you're no longer contending that the contact didn't cause him to move).
So I stand by my statement: If the sweaters were reversed, I (and I'd wager heavily you and all other Flames fans) would be pissed if the goal were allowed to stand, so am not going to turn hypocrite and cry foul when it goes against the Flames
It's not desperate at all. The contact is incidental, unless the defenseman was pushed into the goalie by the attacking player. Which didn't happen.
