[PGT] Flames nab first W in MSG since 2008, defeats NYR 4-1

[pepper24]

Good job on Hathaway getting 2 goals last night, the last one a complete snipe.

[Travis Munroe]

While we want to see Rittich start the next game, I have no reason to question anything Peters has done this year so if he does go back to Smith, I am fine with it. Peters has a much better grasp on the team than any of us and if he goes to Smith then I assume there was a good reason why. Rittich might have a swollen foot/toe from that one save, Smith might have great stats after sitting a game, etc.... Until given a reason to not trust Peters, any decision he makes is going to be saved of criticism from me at this point.

[Travis Munroe]

As others have noted, Bennett didn't see as much ice after his penalty but man, he hasn't completely shaken the monkey off his back but I am confident his hard work will do so soon. It was a tough penalty to take as you saw the ranger turn at the last second in what was otherwise a routine hit. He rings one off the post/cross bar and despite a couple goals, also has a couple non allowed early in this season. I really believe he is going to break out around the mid point this season and work his way up the lineup!

On the note of penalties, the Bennett one was questionable as I feel the refs sometimes let a non bone crunching hit go if it is right up against the boards and the player turns his back to the guy. The Hathaway penalty for holding was hilarious and the way Anderson being jumped was handled was also the wrong call imo.

[Erick Estrada]

I would be shocked if Smith doesn't start against Montreal. As much as Peters has shown he will put anyone in the pressbox or staple to the bench, handling goaltenders is a little more tricky. I'm the opposite of a Smith apologist but less than ten games into the season I'm not sure it's time to be sending Smith the message that he's losing his grip on the starter role.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

As others have noted, Bennett didn't see as much ice after his penalty but man, he hasn't completely shaken the monkey off his back but I am confident his hard work will do so soon. It was a tough penalty to take as you saw the ranger turn at the last second in what was otherwise a routine hit. He rings one off the post/cross bar and despite a couple goals, also has a couple non allowed early in this season. I really believe he is going to break out around the mid point this season and work his way up the lineup!

On the note of penalties, the Bennett one was questionable as I feel the refs sometimes let a non bone crunching hit go if it is right up against the boards and the player turns his back to the guy. The Hathaway penalty for holding was hilarious and the way Anderson being jumped was handled was also the wrong call imo.

How should the Andersson calls have gone?

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

How should the Andersson calls have gone?

In my opinion, double minor (roughing and delay of game for dropping the gloves) and the slashing was properly called. I say double minor as according to the rule book, he probably could have been called as an instigator. With it being in the final 5 mins that is a game suspension and the coach would get a fine. So the double minor would be the refs being lenient.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Robbob

In my opinion, double minor (roughing and delay of game for dropping the gloves) and the slashing was properly called. I say double minor as according to the rule book, he probably could have been called as an instigator. With it being in the final 5 mins that is a game suspension and the coach would get a fine. So the double minor would be the refs being lenient.

If there's no fight, I don't think they will give an instigator. The rule book refers to an "altercation" but then goes on to give every example as including a fighting major. And it's under "fisticuffs".

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=25010

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Vansmack

Looks to me like he is trailing Linus Ullmark in both categories.

On the score app leaders, Ullmark isn’t there, perhaps he’s not technically qualified because his minutes played are slightly too low? He’s played about 6 periods, whereas Rittich has played about 7.

The sample sizes at this point for whether a player is qualified for stats is extremely small obviously.

Ullmark has given up 1 goal in 2 games started.
Rittich has given up 3 goals in 2 games started, plus a period of relief.

Either way, Rittich has been great so far.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If there's no fight, I don't think they will give an instigator. The rule book refers to an "altercation" but then goes on to give every example as including a fighting major. And it's under "fisticuffs".

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=25010

Here is Rule 56 Fisticuffs

An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.

The aggressor in an altercation shall be the player who continues to throw punches in an attempt to inflict punishment on his opponent who is in a defenseless position or who is an unwilling combatant. A player must be deemed the aggressor when he continues throwing and landing punches in a further attempt to inflict punishment and/or injury on his opponent who is no longer in a position to defend himself.

An altercation is a situation involving two players, with at least one to be penalized.

i did the bolding and underlining. The criteria is all there and we have seen it called one way before. I remember a Flames vs Caps game where Bourque got a 9 minutes and Beagle nothing. Ended up a 9 minute PP for the caps.

The criteria fits for it to be called the ref just gave him an out because if they called it, it would have been a suspension.

[Jore]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

While we want to see Rittich start the next game, I have no reason to question anything Peters has done this year so if he does go back to Smith, I am fine with it. Peters has a much better grasp on the team than any of us and if he goes to Smith then I assume there was a good reason why. Rittich might have a swollen foot/toe from that one save, Smith might have great stats after sitting a game, etc.... Until given a reason to not trust Peters, any decision he makes is going to be saved of criticism from me at this point.

There’s been very little to complain about peters so far, but do you think, following your ‘peters knows much better than us’ take, he was also right to start smith against St. Louis after everyone pointed out how awful smith has been following shutouts, and smith proceeded, indeed, to be awful following a shutout and lost us the game?

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

How should the Andersson calls have gone?

Just about any other way...

All that shows up on the score sheet is a slashing call. A goal was scored therefore it shouldn't have been a penalty at all. In reality, it is a double minor without question (correct me if I am wrong but the penalty still shows on the score sheet even if a goal is scored removing time served?).

Rasmus didn't drop his gloves so I see it as being jumped after a clean hit, he turtled with gloves on while the other guy tossed his gloves.

There is no reason the game should be stopped (which it would have had Hathaway not have scored) because a player made a textbook hit that by all accounts wasn't really even that big. The ref found a slash, it delayed the game, it was 1 guy jumping another who didn't want to fight and all in the last 5 minutes. A single 2 minute call is not the right answer.

[Rjcsjc62]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Just about any other way...

All that shows up on the score sheet is a slashing call. A goal was scored therefore it shouldn't have been a penalty at all. In reality, it is a double minor without question (correct me if I am wrong but the penalty still shows on the score sheet even if a goal is scored removing time served?).

Rasmus didn't drop his gloves so I see it as being jumped after a clean hit, he turtled with gloves on while the other guy tossed his gloves.

There is no reason the game should be stopped (which it would have had Hathaway not have scored) because a player made a textbook hit that by all accounts wasn't really even that big. The ref found a slash, it delayed the game, it was 1 guy jumping another who didn't want to fight and all in the last 5 minutes. A single 2 minute call is not the right answer.

If a goal is scored on a delayed penalty, I dont think it ends up on the goal sheet (not sure). I mean I cant think of the PA address ever announcing the penalty in that case...

However, the slash by Zuccarello, was long after the goal. While Rasmus gets up and celebrates, he slashes Gio, and you can see the ref was looking right at him, and pointed to him after the slash. So the slash should of counted.

I agree a penalty should have been called on Rasmus being jumped tho.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by ASP#26525

I love that hat, have asked my friend to pick one up for me when she visit Shanghai in the New Year.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Yes, but I was also taught to take your hat off indoors, and to let your hair dry before putting a hat on

He's no longer an 18yo Calder candidate; man's been one of the best for some time now. Dressing like it wouldn't hurt's all I'm saying

[You Need a Thneed]

You can see the refs arm up in the air while Hathaway is skating in. So there was a delayed penalty. The goal by Hathaway nullifies that. The Slashing penalty appears to be after the play, when giordano was slashed.

However, Skjei drops his gloves immediately, he should definitely get an instigator and a fighting major, and the automatic suspension that comes with the instigator. Again, fighting majors do not have to be given to both teams, the can just be given to one player (I.e the Bourque example above). One could argue that Skjei could get another penalty - holding or interference, because Andersson didn’t have the puck as was being grabbed.

[btimbit]

Or also




Burns dresses like a hipster
Subban dresses like a pimp from the 50's

Let Gaudreau wear a damn toque like most other NHLers do. How did this even get brought up, what a stupid thing to post about

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Here is Rule 56 Fisticuffs



i did the bolding and underlining. The criteria is all there and we have seen it called one way before. I remember a Flames vs Caps game where Bourque got a 9 minutes and Beagle nothing. Ended up a 9 minute PP for the caps.

The criteria fits for it to be called the ref just gave him an out because if they called it, it would have been a suspension.

But there needs to be an "altercation" which they seem to implicitly define as a fight. In other words, just dropping your gloves first doesn't get you an instigator unless you then get into an "altercation". It will get you an unsportsmanlike without a fight.

[burn_this_city]

Burns is dressed like a Chechen warlord there.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Burns is dressed like a Chechen warlord there.

He has transformers in his backpack.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Of all the things wrong with this look, the toque with a suit is at the bottom of the list.