Edmonton is No Good X: Up and Down Like a Toilet Seat

[Paulie Walnuts]

I am sure Elliote Freeman will have a segment on Saturday why the league needs to make changes to the rules to fit what McDavis wants.

[chummer]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I am sure Elliote Freeman will have a segment on Saturday why the league needs to make changes to the rules to fit what McDavis wants.

Friedman.

[Jiri Hrdina]

McDavid is annoying as sh** but if his comments help drive more consistency in how rules are called it's not a bad thing.

[getbak]

Here's a video of the play: https://www.sportsnet.ca/videos/nhl/...cdavid-offside

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

McDavid is annoying as sh** but if his comments help drive more consistency in how rules are called it's not a bad thing.

consistency, or Oilers favoritism?

don't think he cares about consistency .. he cares that he was "robbed" of a 2 point game

[jjgallow]

it's not like McDavid's going to stay in Edmonton

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by chummer

Friedman.

It will be dubbed over with Morgan Freeman's voice. Because whenever you're told to do something by Morgan Freeman you'd do it.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

consistency, or Oilers favoritism?

don't think he cares about consistency .. he cares that he was "robbed" of a 2 point game

Consistency. That's what everyone wants
He even referenced kicking goals, which could be in reference to Coleman's goal not counting.

People seem to agree the officiating needs to be more consistent but if it's McDavid saying it, then we disagree.
That's pretty much it right?

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

well i didn't see the interview until a minute ago

assumed it to be complaining on the part of strictly the oilers as usual, not a comment on clarity of calls league wide

kudos to him for telling the Coleman non kick like it was

when McDavid openly admits the Flames were spurned that says a lot

consistency is a big issue

they need to run a televised segment that breaks down these calls with examples to help clarify things for every one

too often it's left up to interpretation when there needs to be clear guidelines that eliminates that gray area as much as possible

I do think that on that play in particular, McDavid lost possession and it was the right call

it doesn't help that similar plays have gone the other way before though

[Jiri Hrdina]

Yeah I agree with most or all of that.
To me last year both the Coleman and Makar goals were bad calls.
But the broader issue is no one really knows which way a call is going to go. The intent of video review is to get the call right, but it seems like when it goes to review a lot of the time it feels like a coin flip.
Something is broken about that.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Yeah I agree with most or all of that.
To me last year both the Coleman and Makar goals were bad calls.
But the broader issue is no one really knows which way a call is going to go. The intent of video review is to get the call right, but it seems like when it goes to review a lot of the time it feels like a coin flip.
Something is broken about that.

I don't think the Makar goal was bad, I feel it's no different from dumping it in while a guy is offside then you tag the blue line and go back and grab the puck.

But again, it's more of an issue of possession vs non. McDavid didn't have possession, he lost it but was able to retrieve it. It would be considered "delayed" but he was still offside. Had he been determined to have possession, then it's a goal. Makar on the other hand, I do feel he had possession but he didn't touch the puck after it cross the blue line. That was a "delayed" offside until Nuke tagged. Totally different situation.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Hate to do this, but I do agree with McDavid that reffing in the NHL generally stinks lol

Yes, NHL reffing generally stinks. However, there was nothing wrong with the call last night - it was correct, and it was consistent with the Makar call/

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Edmonton media trying not to be a baby for 10 minutes challenge (impossible)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1603614658887553024

Um, yes. That is it exactly.

The rule is pretty stright-forward: if you have possession, you can't put yourself offside. However, if your stick is not on the puck, you don't have possession.

For the Makar goal, he did not have possession, so his team-mate was able to tag up before he touched the puck.

For the McDavid (non) goal, he did not have possession, so he put himself offside.

The rule is pretty black and white actually, and you have to be pretty biased to not see how the same call was made for both.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by chummer

Friedman.

If Fried Man keeps using CAL instead of CGY, then misspelling his name is fair game.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If Fried Man keeps using CAL instead of CGY, then misspelling his name is fair game.

Once the man is fried he is free.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

Once the man is fried he is free.

Fried man is never free.

I know this restaurant where you can get some fried man for half price, but trust me, you do not want to go there.

[FleeceGang]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Edmonton media trying not to be a baby for 10 minutes challenge (impossible)

https://twitter.com/user/status/1603614658887553024

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Um, yes. That is it exactly.

The rule is pretty stright-forward: if you have possession, you can't put yourself offside. However, if your stick is not on the puck, you don't have possession.

For the Makar goal, he did not have possession, so his team-mate was able to tag up before he touched the puck.

For the McDavid (non) goal, he did not have possession, so he put himself offside.

The rule is pretty black and white actually, and you have to be pretty biased to not see how the same call was made for both.

The same call can't be made for both because they are different situations. For Makar, it was a delayed offside. Meaning Makar, who had possession of the puck but is irrelevant in this situation, couldn't touch until his teammate had cleared the zone. Which is exactly what happened making it onside.

For McDavid the rule about possession was put in place so that you can't accidentally put yourself offside. Also, this rule does not require a player to be in contact with the puck to have possession. If it did, that would mean that a player stick handling down the ice would be in a constant state of having then losing possession because they take their stick off the puck to move their stick to the other side of the puck. This rule logic would make no sense. But since this situation concerns an individual as opposed to multiple they can not be viewed through the same lens.

I would argue that NHL screwed up the call last night as McDavid consciously moved the puck to get by the defender and didn't get caught up or impeded by O'Reilly until both Connor and the puck were in the zone. He wasn't necessarily touching the puck but 100% intended to do what he did with a clear plan of collecting the puck after the deke, in my mind this equals possession. Similar example would be a player undressing a D by putting the puck through their legs then going around to collect said puck. I would say that the attacking forward has possession through that encounter because the attacking player had intention behind his move and was in control of the play throughout.

Don't get me wrong, seeing the Oil blow a lead and lose after a called back goal was the highlight of my night. But after re-watching the clip, reading the rules, and listening to some "hockey experts" I have to agree the NHL mucked this one. McDavid was in control of the play/possessed the puck until the puck crossed the line then lost control halfway to the circles ergo onside.

Thank you for coming to my Tik Talk, as always E=NG.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Fried man is never free.

I know this restaurant where you can get some fried man for half price, but trust me, you do not want to go there.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FleeceGang

The same call can't be made for both because they are different situations. For Makar, it was a delayed offside. Meaning Makar, who had possession of the puck but is irrelevant in this situation, couldn't touch until his teammate had cleared the zone. Which is exactly what happened making it onside.

For McDavid the rule about possession was put in place so that you can't accidentally put yourself offside. Also, this rule does not require a player to be in contact with the puck to have possession. If it did, that would mean that a player stick handling down the ice would be in a constant state of having then losing possession because they take their stick off the puck to move their stick to the other side of the puck. This rule logic would make no sense. But since this situation concerns an individual as opposed to multiple they can not be viewed through the same lens.

I would argue that NHL screwed up the call last night as McDavid consciously moved the puck to get by the defender and didn't get caught up or impeded by O'Reilly until both Connor and the puck were in the zone. He wasn't necessarily touching the puck but 100% intended to do what he did with a clear plan of collecting the puck after the deke, in my mind this equals possession. Similar example would be a player undressing a D by putting the puck through their legs then going around to collect said puck. I would say that the attacking forward has possession through that encounter because the attacking player had intention behind his move and was in control of the play throughout.

Don't get me wrong, seeing the Oil blow a lead and lose after a called back goal was the highlight of my night. But after re-watching the clip, reading the rules, and listening to some "hockey experts" I have to agree the NHL mucked this one. McDavid was in control of the play/possessed the puck until the puck crossed the line then lost control halfway to the circles ergo onside.

Thank you for coming to my Tik Talk, as always E=NG.

They ARE the same call. And the McDavid call was correct.

Yes, with Makar, it was a delayed offside. But the reason they were not offside was that Makar was not in possession of the puck, as it was not on his stick. By the time Makar regained possession, his team-mate had tagged up.

With respect to McDavid, yes, if you are stickhandling, you remain in possession, even though the puck momentarily loses contact with the stick (again and again). However, that is not what happened last night. The puck came off McDavid's stick, and remained off, for at least 10 feet. During that time, he preceded the puck over the line. Clear interpretation of the rule there.

They are the same call, because in both cases, the fact that the puck was not on the player's stick resulted in the determination that there was no possession. And both calls were correct.

Finally, with respect to your 'Don't get me wrong, seeing the Oil blow a lead and lose after a called back goal was the highlight of my night' comment, I had to laugh because you have posted a grand total of 4 times, and have played the 'I hate the Oilers as much as the next guy' card twice. LOL

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Engine09

That commercial is vomit inducing. First for subjecting us to McDavid's weird face and awful, awkward personality, second for pushing even more gambling and third for further staining Wayne's image. It just sucks, it's terrible.

Oh sweet summer child...the toilet with Wayne's 'good image' in it was flushed long, long ago.