| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
goon
Rookie
Canada
113 Posts |
 Posted - 05/01/2006 : 09:32:47
|
Looks like a few players will be hitting the links this week. Dallas was dominated by the Avalanche in what is the biggest upset so far. Even though 3 games went to OT, The Avs were by far the better team.
The Rangers got swept by the Devils who are on a 15 game winning streak. The Preds couldn't handle the Sharks without Vokoun, and the Lightning couldn't handle the offensive power of the Senators. Isn't Tortorella a chump? Way to treat your goalie buddy. Its not Grahame's fault the team decided to go with a number 2 goalie in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Ripley
PickupHockey Pro
USA
365 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 17:52:29
|
| T-Bay really struggled. Grahame is a good goalie, they just need to let him play more frequently (stop swapping out with burke so often) Couple guys didn't show up for them either (ie: Modin). I feel bad for them because they had last year stolen away from them. But I guess as players they brought that on themselves. |
 |
|
|
bablaboushka
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2417 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2006 : 21:51:27
|
Now Detroit loses after what should have not been a goal (Edmonton's third by Hemsky). Horcoff knocked the puck down with a high stick, and regardless of whether or not Hemsky kicked it in, he shouldn't have been allowed to touch the puck. Oh well, who knows what might have happened?
In the middle of the Calgary/Anaheim game now (2nd int -> 1-1 tie). Anaheim was gipped of a goal by Selanne, PLUS they got a penalty on the play. It was sickeningly obvious how long after the goal that Lupul slightly bumped Kiprusoff, no reason for that to have been called back. With one period to go in the game, I hope the Ducks don't end up losing after this terrible call. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 00:17:22
|
Ya that was definitely a goal and a beauty at that! But it shouldn't have been a powerplay in the first place. That interference call was pathetic. It should have been a diving call on Anaheim. It was about as embarassing for the NHL as the missed goal! On to game 7. It's going to be intense.
As for the Edmonton goal it didn't look like a kick to me. But I think you're right about the high stick.
Having said all that, I'm glad the NHL is reffed by people who make mistakes rather than robots or constant video replay.
Battle of Alberta here we come! |
|
|
|
bablaboushka
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2417 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 07:28:18
|
I won't even deny that the call to set up that powerplay was a little weak, but what penalties weren't? A lot of weak ones were called, and some obvious ones weren't but I guess that comes with the new rules. I'm just glad Anaheim won, otherwise there would have been some serious fingerpointing (even though I'm sure Carlyle would have class about it, and not cry like Mactavish does).
The only thing that I found stupid about those two goals is how the refs "couldn't review" what were the real determining factors in why the goals should/shouldn't have been. I think it's really stupid how in cases like these, just because of some silly rule, that a ref can't make the right call. Why, after seeing that Horcoff knocked the puck down with a high-stick, could the ref not have disallowed it (after review I mean)? One of the guys for CBC said that if Horcoff tipped it down for a pass, it could be overturned but if he tipped it down to deflect a shot it couldn't, how ridiculous is that? Of course there are many other reasons why Detroit lost other than this one, but if Detroit could have maintained the 3-2 lead they had at the time, what says they wouldn't have won that game and maybe, just maybe won the series? But we don't know because of some stupid rule.
In the Selanne goal, the ref wasn't allowed to review because he called a penalty or something.... THAT'S ABSURD! Why do we let some technicality like that judge that what is a goal shouldn't be (or vice-versa)? I think the NHL should be allowed to do like the NFL where the "booth" can challenge the call on the "field" for goals. It might sound silly, but I don't think that just because some rule is in a book somewhere that outcomes of games should differ from what they should actually be. |
|
|
|
Jack Kayden 66
Top Prospect
Canada
61 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 09:51:55
|
I agree with you. The fact that they are reviewing a goal but only looking for the kicking motion and ignoring whether or not it was a high stick is crazy. Why is it that some things can be reviewed while others can't. NFL style is the best - coach must challenge the call - any call whether it is a high stick or a kick and if he's wrong he gets a penalty, or loses his time out, or something.
What good is video review if you can't use it to its full extent? |
|
|
|
Goose
Top Prospect
Canada
29 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 15:21:28
|
Then how far back do they go? What if there was an infraction in the neutral zone on the same play? Or what if there was an infraction missed on the play before that set up a face off in one team's zone and the other team scores? The point is, where do you draw the line. The NHL has decided to draw it at infractions that are directly related to the goal.
back in the 70's and early 80's the refs made every call and there was no replay to look at. Those were the good old days. The refs made tons of mistakes and you would YELL at the TV but at least the game had flow. Now we just sit there and either watch commercials for 10 extra minutes a game or listen to Bob Cole or that idiot Greg millen twist reality so that it makes sense in their little minds.
No further video replay please. We've gone far enough. |
|
|
|
bablaboushka
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2417 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 18:09:54
|
I think it should and could be limited to plays directly related to the goal but where the line is drawn would be up to the discretion of the people in the "booth". There obviously has to be human interaction somewhere, that can't be denied.
Yeah yeah I know back in the day....blah blah blah. Look I realize the game was perfect back then, but this is now. We have technology to make the games more enjoyable on TV and hopefully to eliminate human errors on the ice. But why is it satisfactory to eliminate SOME of the errors and not all of them? Why is it only ok to call a goal back because of a kicking motion, but a high-stick that occured maybe 2-3 seconds earlier that contributed directly to the goal is not reviewable?
It's time to take full advantage of the technology we do have cause otherwise it's completely useless. If someday we figure out a better system that eliminates even more errors, then great... I hope we use it to its fullest extent.
P.S. I hate Greg Millen too. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Time to hit the links 
