It is currently Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:22 am

Board index » Let's Go Blues » St. Louis Blues Discussion

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:26 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
ComradeT wrote:
theohall wrote:
Oilers cancelled their mandated day-off in order to practice today before they play Carolina tomorrow. IMO, this is stupid. As some others have said, it's OCTOBER and the Oilers already have two wins. McClellan will still be as pissed about the loss on Tuesday as he was after the game. What happens if the lose to Carolina? More cancelled days off??


Yes, and if they are not top of the division by the trade deadline, hard labor camps for everyone! And theo, if you mess up GDT once, you'll come out of retirement and have to work your way back in. Now drop down and give me 20! :lol: :lol: :lol:


No more dropping and giving anyone anything anymore - already dropped and gave the 20 years. :)

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:24 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Jared Bednar, Avs coach, used to be with the Blues organization with Peoria. Corey Hirsch was shocked the Blues didn't keep him on after the 2011-12 season as he fully expected Bednar to eventually become the Blues next head coach. Instead, 5 years later, we get the re-tread Yeo to succeed Hitchcock. :roll: (Of course, I could be completely wrong about Yeo. We shall see).

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:20 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
This is from Tuesday night - how in the hell did this count as a goal?

Referees ruled "the puck kept moving" so it's a goal. Problem - Trocheck stopped the damn puck. And - the puck actually stopped moving forward and moved away from the opponent's goalline as required by the rule. At least Tampa Bay still got the win in spite of the awful ruling.

Rule 24 wrote:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot


That was not "kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line." It actually moves away from the opponent's goal line when he mishandles it.

I find it interesting the wording of the referee after the review as to why it counted stating the puck kept moving. He didn't add the very important "towards the opponent's goal" part in that ruling.

Thoughts? Goal or No Goal. Pretty much every expert, except that referee, has said it shouldn't have counted.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:27 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1392
theohall wrote:
This is from Tuesday night - how in the hell did this count as a goal?

Referees ruled "the puck kept moving" so it's a goal. Problem - Trocheck stopped the damn puck. And - the puck actually stopped moving forward and moved away from the opponent's goalline as required by the rule. At least Tampa Bay still got the win in spite of the awful ruling.

Rule 24 wrote:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot


That was not "kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line." It actually moves away from the opponent's goal line when he mishandles it.

I find it interesting the wording of the referee after the review as to why it counted stating the puck kept moving. He didn't add the very important "towards the opponent's goal" part in that ruling.

Thoughts? Goal or No Goal. Pretty much every expert, except that referee, has said it shouldn't have counted.


And every one of them is a Lightning fan... except that Ref jk :lol:

Watching this, I think that Ref's argument is that there was no shot on goal because the puck moved away from the stick and a 'flick' of a stick doesn't constitute a shot on goal. The moment the stick connects with the puck, we got the shot on goal. The puck was parallel to the pipes, so one could argue that the puck had to be in forward motion because there is no more extreme forward motion that the pipes. Plus, the puck never stopped moving, so it's not a dead play.

_________________
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:01 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:46 pm
Posts: 3634
Location: Scott AFB, IL
Oaklandblue wrote:
theohall wrote:
This is from Tuesday night - how in the hell did this count as a goal?

Referees ruled "the puck kept moving" so it's a goal. Problem - Trocheck stopped the damn puck. And - the puck actually stopped moving forward and moved away from the opponent's goalline as required by the rule. At least Tampa Bay still got the win in spite of the awful ruling.

Rule 24 wrote:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot


That was not "kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line." It actually moves away from the opponent's goal line when he mishandles it.

I find it interesting the wording of the referee after the review as to why it counted stating the puck kept moving. He didn't add the very important "towards the opponent's goal" part in that ruling.

Thoughts? Goal or No Goal. Pretty much every expert, except that referee, has said it shouldn't have counted.


And every one of them is a Lightning fan... except that Ref jk :lol:

Watching this, I think that Ref's argument is that there was no shot on goal because the puck moved away from the stick and a 'flick' of a stick doesn't constitute a shot on goal. The moment the stick connects with the puck, we got the shot on goal. The puck was parallel to the pipes, so one could argue that the puck had to be in forward motion because there is no more extreme forward motion that the pipes. Plus, the puck never stopped moving, so it's not a dead play.


A gray area for sure. What's the rule on fanned shots in the shootout? He clearly brought the puck to his forehand to shoot it, but whiffed. Are you allowed to regain control of the puck after a fanned shot and put a legit shot on goal? That's the real question here.

Yes, the puck kept going after the fanned shot, technically "away" from the goal line, but if we argue that this is what makes it a failed shootout attempt, then logically we have to argue than any deke in the shootout is moving the puck away from the goal line and therefore a failed attempt. The puck starts at center ice and the shortest distance between two points (center ice and the goal line) is a straight line. So any player that takes the puck off that direct line to the goal is moving the puck "away" from the goal line. So I don't think that's the deciding factor here.

During a game, a shot is only counted as a "shot" if the goalie has to make a save. Does the same standard apply in the shootout? I would argue it does not. For example- if a shot misses the net during regulation, it doesn't count as a "shot," but clearly missing the net in the shootout counts as a shot because players miss the net all the time and their attempt is done. So does a fanned shot count as a shot in the shootout?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1392
gaijin wrote:
Oaklandblue wrote:
theohall wrote:
This is from Tuesday night - how in the hell did this count as a goal?

Referees ruled "the puck kept moving" so it's a goal. Problem - Trocheck stopped the damn puck. And - the puck actually stopped moving forward and moved away from the opponent's goalline as required by the rule. At least Tampa Bay still got the win in spite of the awful ruling.

Rule 24 wrote:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot


That was not "kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line." It actually moves away from the opponent's goal line when he mishandles it.

I find it interesting the wording of the referee after the review as to why it counted stating the puck kept moving. He didn't add the very important "towards the opponent's goal" part in that ruling.

Thoughts? Goal or No Goal. Pretty much every expert, except that referee, has said it shouldn't have counted.


And every one of them is a Lightning fan... except that Ref jk :lol:

Watching this, I think that Ref's argument is that there was no shot on goal because the puck moved away from the stick and a 'flick' of a stick doesn't constitute a shot on goal. The moment the stick connects with the puck, we got the shot on goal. The puck was parallel to the pipes, so one could argue that the puck had to be in forward motion because there is no more extreme forward motion that the pipes. Plus, the puck never stopped moving, so it's not a dead play.


A gray area for sure. What's the rule on fanned shots in the shootout? He clearly brought the puck to his forehand to shoot it, but whiffed. Are you allowed to regain control of the puck after a fanned shot and put a legit shot on goal? That's the real question here.

Yes, the puck kept going after the fanned shot, technically "away" from the goal line, but if we argue that this is what makes it a failed shootout attempt, then logically we have to argue than any deke in the shootout is moving the puck away from the goal line and therefore a failed attempt. The puck starts at center ice and the shortest distance between two points (center ice and the goal line) is a straight line. So any player that takes the puck off that direct line to the goal is moving the puck "away" from the goal line. So I don't think that's the deciding factor here.

During a game, a shot is only counted as a "shot" if the goalie has to make a save. Does the same standard apply in the shootout? I would argue it does not. For example- if a shot misses the net during regulation, it doesn't count as a "shot," but clearly missing the net in the shootout counts as a shot because players miss the net all the time and their attempt is done. So does a fanned shot count as a shot in the shootout?


Thing is:

1. It wasn't moving away from the goal line; it was moving parallel to it.

2. If a 'fake shot' (A movement of the stick to simulate a shot without actually shooting the puck) is considered a shot on goal, then this is a no goal situation.

3. Is a player mismanaging a puck near the goalie and the puck skitters away considered a shot on goal? It isn't. So maybe that was the Ref's rationale in making this decision.

I agree with you, this is all a gray area and one would think the NHL would have a clear, concise definition of what a shot on goal during a shootout would constitute. I am curious what exactly the current rule states.

_________________
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:42 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Well the rule is damn clear that the puck has to keep moving "towards the opponents goal line," not parallel to it, so throw out the parallel thing. I know they allow the deke things, but not the puck going damn near 20 feet sideways after the player has clearly lost control.

Guys whiff all the time, but don't get to go back and re-gather the puck to make another attempt when the puck is clearly not moving "towards the opponents goal line."

I've seen the intentional whiff followed by shot, but the puck is kept moving forward in those instances.

That comment about "all of the them being Lightning fans" - every expert on NHL.com, NHL Radio, TSN, Sportsnet.ca - all agree that should not have counted - so throw that one out, too. Even the Florida announcers didn't think it should have counted.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2016 12:09 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame

Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:43 am
Posts: 3902
I don't think this is a good goal. Doesn't pass the common sense test. That said, it's hard to write rules to account for weird situations. My guess is that that when the rule book says "moving toward the goal line," they are referring to the goal line that extends the width of the ice, not just the line between the pipes, and the intention is that it can't move toward the center line.

It looks to me like it's moving parallel (which isn't forward, but not backward either) or slightly backward (but hard to tell on the angle). But, if the same thing happened and it moved closer to the extended goal line (as opposed to ~parallel), the bigger issue might be whether he had attempted a shot moreso than if the puck was moving toward the goal line.

_________________
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2016-2017 Official LGB Sponsor of Dmitri Jaskin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:13 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Kings are screwed even more. Quick out indefinitely and now Zatkoff had to be helped off the ice after getting hurt in practice. Peter Budaj is not an every day starter, that's for sure.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:45 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Vancouver just did it again - potting the 3-3 game-tying goal with 30 seconds left in regulation.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:24 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1392
theohall wrote:
Well the rule is damn clear that the puck has to keep moving "towards the opponents goal line," not parallel to it, so throw out the parallel thing. I know they allow the deke things, but not the puck going damn near 20 feet sideways after the player has clearly lost control.

Guys whiff all the time, but don't get to go back and re-gather the puck to make another attempt when the puck is clearly not moving "towards the opponents goal line."

I've seen the intentional whiff followed by shot, but the puck is kept moving forward in those instances.

That comment about "all of the them being Lightning fans" - every expert on NHL.com, NHL Radio, TSN, Sportsnet.ca - all agree that should not have counted - so throw that one out, too. Even the Florida announcers didn't think it should have counted.


If you are going to quote me, good sir, quote me completely. I did not say, "All of them being Lightning fans", I said "And every one of them is a Lightning fan... except that Ref jk :lol: ". Notice the "... except that Ref jk :lol: "? That means I was kidding. Or maybe that just didn't matter to you?

As for "everyone you mentioned" "didn't think it should have been counted" well, guess what? It did.

As for the parallel part, if a puck is moving along the line, it isn't moving AWAY from it and IS in motion. You know how many goals would have to be disallowed if a puck was moved to the side by a player due to the opinion that moving parallel to the line = not moving "forward"? It would be a nightmare.

The player not having control is also a gray area. How do you determine that he doesn't have control of it? How far does the puck need to move away from the player to make the call that the goal shouldn't be allowed due to lack of possession? Hell, what does the actual rules state about this? I have a feeling the rules doesn't have a clear distance rule for this.

Hell, what does the actual rule say? You said the rule is pretty damn clear, but I have yet to see what the exact wording of the rule is and I would be interested in seeing that as it IS a gray area and my line of thinking or yours could be very well wrong or right in the matter, regardless who called what.

_________________
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:31 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Oaklandblue wrote:
Hell, what does the actual rule say? You said the rule is pretty damn clear, but I have yet to see what the exact wording of the rule is and I would be interested in seeing that as it IS a gray area and my line of thinking or yours could be very well wrong or right in the matter, regardless who called what.


I already quoted the exact wording of the relevant portion of the rule. Here it is again for the reading impaired. :P

Rule 24 wrote:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line


Parallel for 20 feet is not towards. I get the small deke stuff, which is fine, but not 20 f'in feet not at all "towards the opponent's goal line." Dude....

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:48 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Rule 24 wrote:
Rule 24 – Penalty Shot
24.1 Penalty Shot – A penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending team, based on the parameters set out in these rules.

24.2 Procedure - The Referee shall ask to have announced over the public address system the name of the player designated by him or selected by the team entitled to take the shot (as appropriate). He shall then place the puck on the center face-off spot and the player taking the shot will, on the instruction of the Referee (by blowing his whistle), play the puck from there and shall attempt to score on the goalkeeper.

The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post or crossbar, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the puck crosses the goal line or comes to a complete stop, the shot shall be considered complete. The lacrosse-like move whereby the puck is picked up on the blade of the stick and “whipped” into the net shall be permitted provided the puck is not raised above the height of the shoulders at any time and when released, is not carried higher than the crossbar. See also 80.1. The spin-o-rama type move where the player completes a 360° turn as he approaches the goal, shall not be permitted. Should a player perform such a move during the penalty shot, the shot shall be stopped by the Referee and no goal will be the result. Only a player designated as a goalkeeper or alternate goalkeeper may defend against the penalty shot. The goalkeeper must remain in his crease until the player taking the penalty shot has touched the puck.
If at the time a penalty shot is awarded, the goalkeeper of the penalized team has been removed from the ice to substitute another player, the goalkeeper shall be permitted to return to the ice before the penalty shot is taken. The team against whom the penalty shot has been assessed may replace their goalkeeper to defend against the penalty shot, however, the substitute goalkeeper is required to remain in the game until the next stoppage of play. While the penalty shot is being taken, players of both sides shall withdraw to the sides of the rink and in front of their own player’s bench.


If there is any ambiguity about "towards the opponent's goal line" - as in 20 friggin feet sideways, I don't see it in that rule. Admit it when you're wrong Oakland.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1392
theohall wrote:
Rule 24 wrote:
Rule 24 – Penalty Shot
24.1 Penalty Shot – A penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending team, based on the parameters set out in these rules.

24.2 Procedure - The Referee shall ask to have announced over the public address system the name of the player designated by him or selected by the team entitled to take the shot (as appropriate). He shall then place the puck on the center face-off spot and the player taking the shot will, on the instruction of the Referee (by blowing his whistle), play the puck from there and shall attempt to score on the goalkeeper.

The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the puck off the goal post or crossbar, then the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the puck crosses the goal line or comes to a complete stop, the shot shall be considered complete. The lacrosse-like move whereby the puck is picked up on the blade of the stick and “whipped” into the net shall be permitted provided the puck is not raised above the height of the shoulders at any time and when released, is not carried higher than the crossbar. See also 80.1. The spin-o-rama type move where the player completes a 360° turn as he approaches the goal, shall not be permitted. Should a player perform such a move during the penalty shot, the shot shall be stopped by the Referee and no goal will be the result. Only a player designated as a goalkeeper or alternate goalkeeper may defend against the penalty shot. The goalkeeper must remain in his crease until the player taking the penalty shot has touched the puck.
If at the time a penalty shot is awarded, the goalkeeper of the penalized team has been removed from the ice to substitute another player, the goalkeeper shall be permitted to return to the ice before the penalty shot is taken. The team against whom the penalty shot has been assessed may replace their goalkeeper to defend against the penalty shot, however, the substitute goalkeeper is required to remain in the game until the next stoppage of play. While the penalty shot is being taken, players of both sides shall withdraw to the sides of the rink and in front of their own player’s bench.


If there is any ambiguity about "towards the opponent's goal line" - as in 20 friggin feet sideways, I don't see it in that rule. Admit it when you're wrong Oakland.


(Read underlines, then continue.)

The Refs, upon further review, announces "...Puck stays in motion, Florida REGAINS control of the puck and scores."

STAYS IN MOTION means sideways/parallel was considered legal because nowhere in the rules does it state anything beyond the puck not moving towards the goal or the puck being DEAD. NOWHERE in the rules above does it state that not moving towards the goal = Sideways/Parallel to the goal.

On top of that, a group of Certified Professional NHL Refs sanctioned and paid to call this game decided ON REVIEW OF THE GOAL that the puck stayed in motioned and was not moving BACKWARDS. It isn't a shot on goal because the player did NOT shoot the puck at Bishop, so there was no save to record, the puck was in motion not moving away from the goal and the play was still active.

Nowhere in the rules does it clearly or otherwise state that sideways/parallel is not considered "moving towards the pipes".

So I am actually, right.

And btw, 20 feet? Rewatch the video, it's no more than 5 feet, if that.

_________________
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:28 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Quote:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line


Clearly, you can't read, Oakland.

Define "motion towards the opponent's goal line" and things that are not "motion towards the opponent's goal line."

And
Quote:
must
eliminates exceptions - such as those not specifically mentioned, which is your supposed case, because it wipes out all of them.

Admit it. You are still wrong. Or is it that beneath you?

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:25 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:46 pm
Posts: 3634
Location: Scott AFB, IL
Alright guys, enough with the urinary olympics.

We're stronger together, so let's make hockey great again.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:42 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm
Posts: 1392
theohall wrote:
Quote:
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line


Clearly, you can't read, Oakland.

Define "motion towards the opponent's goal line" and things that are not "motion towards the opponent's goal line."

And
Quote:
must
eliminates exceptions - such as those not specifically mentioned, which is your supposed case, because it wipes out all of them.

Admit it. You are still wrong. Or is it that beneath you?


There are NO stated exceptions, which is why this rule is a bad one; it is too broad. It makes a statement without a clear explanation on what the words means.

The rule states that the "Puck MUST be moving TOWARDS the opponent goal line. Not just must, but also towards.

Pay attention to the words MUST and TOWARDS.

If I get in a car and drive to the Scottrade and then drive around the building, say, to find parking. I'm not driving towards it, but also I am NOT driving away from it, keeping with both the MUST and the TOWARDS parts of the rule...

The TOWARDS part seems to follow the conditions I just mentioned, that moving parallel/sideways = towards the goal because...

If a player skates towards the box and then moves the puck left or right, whether parallel or sideways of themselves to set up a shot at the corners, your rationale is that the action of the puck moving paralle or sideways to the goal would break the rule and the play would be dead, even though we see hundreds of examples of this in shootouts, some of which by players in the HOF, of which the ones that were shot in were called a goal.

I'm not going to agree I'm wrong because you feel your point is superior and you're trying to bully/shame me into it and that kind of behavior. It says more about you as a person than myself.

What I will agree with you on, as I did before, is that it is a gray area, because the rule is too broad. What it SHOULD say, in my opinion, is that if a player's body moves past either of the pipes of the goal box, the puck is dead. That would make more sense and would stop this goal from being allowed again.

But under the rules as stated, with the reasons I said above, which might or might not be part of the rationale the Refs had under review of it, that goal is good and they called it good. So I can't be wrong about that.

Now about the ideology about why it was called wrong, however, I can absolutely be wrong and you can too. Unless the Refs gave some rationale about it after the game via media, which they might have, I haven't seen any of that, though, then there is no way to tell, and if you want me to admit I'm wrong with something like that after you have demanded I 'admit I am wrong' while I made a statement that you should learn to read, made points to show I was right IN MY OPINION and in no way demanding ANYTHING of you?

Think about that.

_________________
2016-2017 LGB Sponsor of Brian Elliott, Calgary Flames
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Ryan "Turn that leaf on the wind into a shrimp on the bar-bee" Reaves
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Obviously Not Steve Ott
2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Steve "Chirps-A-Lot" Ott
2015 LGB Supporter of the New York Rangers
2014-2015 LGB Sponsor of Patrik "No-Timer" Berglund
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:35 pm 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
That is an absolutely horrible analogy. There aren't exceptions listed because of the "must" "towards" part of the rule. Puck must be moving towards the opponent's goal line. If it's not moving towards the opponents goal line, the penalty shot try is over. That simple. It doesn't matter if the player is skating upside down, on his heads, backwards, or forwards (with the spin-o-rama exception listed), as long as the PUCK is moving towards the opponent's goal line. That's where you're thinking too much. It's not the player movement, it's the puck movement.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2016 11:57 am 
Offline
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame

Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:43 am
Posts: 3902
theohall wrote:
That is an absolutely horrible analogy. There aren't exceptions listed because of the "must" "towards" part of the rule. Puck must be moving towards the opponent's goal line. If it's not moving towards the opponents goal line, the penalty shot try is over. That simple. It doesn't matter if the player is skating upside down, on his heads, backwards, or forwards (with the spin-o-rama exception listed), as long as the PUCK is moving towards the opponent's goal line. That's where you're thinking too much. It's not the player movement, it's the puck movement.


That's definitely the way the rule is written. I don't think it's totally out of possibility that the intention of the rule doesn't perfectly match the way it's written though. That happens sometimes which is why most rulebooks have an "accepted interpretation" section (not sure if NHL does or not). Moving toward the goal line and not moving away from the goal line are very very similar things.

Take the infield fly rule thing the Cardinals had against the Braves a couple of years ago. Requirements for IFR are:

1. Fair ball.
2. Infielder/pitcher or catcher can catch it with ordinary effort.
3. Runners on 1st and 2nd or bases loaded with less than 2 outs.

1 and 2 were clearly met. Kozma is an infielder and was camped under the ball before dropping it, so a reasonable argument could be made that the 2nd requirement was also met. But, the purpose of that rule is to prevent easy double or triple plays by letting a ball drop instead of catching it. It wasn't intended to cover what happened on that play.

Like that play, it's possible this SO attempt isn't what the rule was trying to disallow.

_________________
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2016-2017 Official LGB Sponsor of Dmitri Jaskin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:05 am 
Offline
Hockey God
Hockey God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 9:49 pm
Posts: 5459
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Sens G Craig Anderson pitches 37 save shutout at Edmonton. Named #1 star, gets standing ovation from Oilers fans.

_________________
Official LGB sponsor of Robby Fabbri 2016-2017 Season
Official LGB sponsor of Colton Parayko 2015-2016 Season
Official LGB Sponsor Dmitrij Jaskin 2014-2015 Season


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Board index » Let's Go Blues » St. Louis Blues Discussion

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group