STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Discuss the St. Louis Blues, the NHL, or anything hockey.

Moderator: LGB Mods

STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby cprice12 » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:05 pm

http://www.canuckscentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14424

Let's hope the last spanking is not forgotten... Keep 'er rolling on home ice. Uhh, must win?


I'm actually kinda worried about this game, as St. Louis still might want even more revenge and get excited to beat the Canucks again. In addition the Canucks abysmal record vs. the Central Division.


we are due to win a game against a shitty team. I wonder if andy murry will cry after we beat them


I don't think they are playing poorly at all. The large majority of play has been in St Louis's zone. The main concerns moving forward in this game is 1) stupid penalties and 2) lack of finish.

They showed up tonight. They are playing like they give a shit so that is a good thing. However, we just made perennial Average Joe goalie Ty Conklin look like a Vezina candidate in that period. Need to start burying more chances like Shane "Maurice Richard" O'Brien!


God damn Backes...


Ugh. This is going to be 7 -1


What a (Frank) fail. Until this team can beat these shitty teams, we are going NOWHERE.


Well, that's probably game over. This game just reeks of a loss.


Unbelievable. After a strong first period, the Nucks just stop playing. No effort at all. Bieksa just lets Backes go right past him, and don't get me started on Luongo on that third goal. (Frank) pathetic. When is the next time we play a shitty team?


We will own the third period, score with about 5 minutes left, but will fail to tie it. Backes with the empty netter for the hat trick.

4-2 blues


This is what drives me crazy. Bowness is talking about how the Canucks struggled because they aren't respecting the Blues. Well, here is the million dollar question. Why are we not respecting the Blues? Or the Ducks? Or the Canes? Why are we not respecting the weak teams in this league?


That was a goal, no way around it. No kicking motion AND off of Jackman.


Jackman with a no glove sucker punch, drawing blood.

Just a 2 minute minor? Wtf...


The thing is, this is a terrible goalie we are facing tonight. But we still can't even get chances.


A chance to squeak into the top 8 against a struggling team and down 3-1 with 8 minutes left, all they've managed is 4 shots on net...and that's with two power plays.


Ty (Frank) Konklin


Blues are trapping. What a terrible team to watch.



I can't tell who has the better 'stone-hands', is it Steve Bernier or Ryan Johnson.


Team didn't all show up at the right time, some plays looked good while others were leaving you speechless. St. Louis sure blocked a lot of shots from the point, they deserved the win tonight.


At the end of the day we outshot them, outchanced them and outplayed them for 2 periods but at the end of the day we generated very few grade A scoring chances, looked very tentative in all three zones and seemed content playing on the perimeter.


Third Blues goal was an ugly bounce off the boards, but Boyes and Walt's kid beat Salo and Mitchel. Willie, that pass from Boyes should not have been played by Walt's kid.


Did not see much of the first half of the game but the Blues went hard to the net all night from what I did see. The D just didn't handle them well. Blues got the bounces but they worked hard for them.

Disgreed with the call on the Burrows denied goal.



RJ unconfident? No, he has no skills. That drop pass was excellent and most top midget players would have had no trouble taking it. Instead, Johnson bumbled and fumbled it and then stumbled and tumbled on to the ice. He looked like a beer leaguer on that play. He's pretty much useless other than as an often out of position back-board.


Blues had all the puck luck as well. They Get 2 goals of strange bounces, and we have the Burrows goal disallowed and then Bernier ripps one off of the shaft of the goalies stick.

Thats a 4 goal swing and it would be difficult for any team to win under those circumstances.
Image
Image
User avatar
cprice12
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19488
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Center Ice

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby kodos » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:26 pm

That was a goal, no way around it. No kicking motion AND off of Jackman.


I agree that this was a goal. It went off Jackman and it wasn't really a kicking motion. It was a bad call.

Blues are trapping. What a terrible team to watch.


Truer words have never been spoken.
Image
User avatar
kodos
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 11893
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:05 pm

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby cprice12 » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:00 pm

kodos wrote:
That was a goal, no way around it. No kicking motion AND off of Jackman.


I agree that this was a goal. It went off Jackman and it wasn't really a kicking motion. It was a bad call.

Blues are trapping. What a terrible team to watch.


Truer words have never been spoken.


If they determined it was a kicking motion, it doesn't matter if it went off of Jackman.

If they had ruled it a goal on the ice, I think it would have counted after a review.

There was definitely a kicking motion, but it seemed to happen after the puck hit his skate. Tough call.
Image
Image
User avatar
cprice12
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19488
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Center Ice

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby section319 » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:09 pm

Pang said for it to have been a goal it would have had to deflect in off of Jackman's stick, hitting off another player doesn't negate the kick, unless it hits their stick.
Official LGB sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko.
User avatar
section319
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
 
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:20 am
Location: Mizzou

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby ohio BLUES » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:36 pm

section319 wrote:Pang said for it to have been a goal it would have had to deflect in off of Jackman's stick, hitting off another player doesn't negate the kick, unless it hits their stick.

I don't think that's necessarily true, a deflection off another player's stick is one thing and concerted control of the puck is another.

But anyhow, I thought for sure that it should have been a goal. Burrows obviously intended to deflect it in off his skate, but it was stationary when the puck contacted it. A little later on he had somewhat of a kicking motion. (I only saw this on slow-mo so I have no idea how it looked realtime.) So his poor coordination should have counted as a goal.

Peter Forsberg used to do this all the time and John Kelly would salivate over it like it was the second coming. But last night he sounded as if there's no way a puck deflecting off a skate can be counted as a goal.
Image

Official LGB.com Sponsor of Gymrat Ken Hitchcock
User avatar
ohio BLUES
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 10346
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 3:42 pm

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby glen a richter » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:10 pm

we are due to win a game against a shitty team.


Normally I'd be agitated by a comment like this, but...
Official sponsor of Ian Cole 2011-2012
Official sponsor of Gary Bettman's Pink Slip 2013
Official sponsor of Dmitrij Jaskin 2013-2014
glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 7205
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby BF44 » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:18 pm

glen a richter wrote:
we are due to win a game against a shitty team.


Normally I'd be agitated by a comment like this, but...


Agree -- there's a subtle but important difference between an insult and a description.....
User avatar
BF44
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
 
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: The estrogen-free hockey-watching man-cave

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby cprice12 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:45 pm

BF44 wrote:
glen a richter wrote:
we are due to win a game against a shitty team.


Normally I'd be agitated by a comment like this, but...


Agree -- there's a subtle but important difference between an insult and a description.....


Not really.
There are shitty teams, and then there are teams that have a poor record and are underachieving but capable of playing much better hockey.
We fall into the latter...so to people that are paying attention, when their team loses to the Blues, they shouldn't act like they just lost to the 1988 Quebec Nordiques or something. Just sayin'.

We've definitely been a jeckyl and hyde team this year...you never know when we're going to play well or who it will be against.
Image
Image
User avatar
cprice12
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19488
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Center Ice

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby kodos » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:15 pm

78.4 Scoring a Goal - A goal shall be scored when the puck shall have been put between the goal posts by the stick of a player of the attacking side, from in front and below the crossbar, and entirely across a red line the width of the diameter of the goal posts drawn on the ice from one goal post to the other with the goal frame in its proper position. The goal frame shall be considered in its proper position when the flexible peg(s) are still in contact with both the goal post and the hole in the ice. The flexible pegs could be bent, but as long as they are still making contact with both the hole in the ice and the goal post, the goal frame shall be deemed to be in its proper position. The goal frame could be raised somewhat on one post (or both), but as long as the flexible pegs are still in contact with the holes in the ice and the goal posts, the goal frame shall not be deemed to be displaced.
A goal shall be scored if the puck is put into the goal in any way by a player of the defending side. The player of the attacking side who last played the puck shall be credited with the goal but no assist shall be awarded.
If an attacking player has the puck deflect into the net, off his skate or body, in any manner, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal.
Should a player legally propel a puck into the goal crease of the opponent Club and the puck should become loose and available to another player of the attacking side, a goal scored on the play shall be legal.
78.5 Disallowed Goals – Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick.
(ii) When the puck has been kicked using a distinct kicking motion.
(iii) When the puck has deflected directly into the net off an official.
(iv) When a goal has been scored and an ineligible player is on the ice.
(v) When an attacking player has interfered with a goalkeeper in his goal crease.
(vi) When the puck has been directed into the net by a stick of an attacking player that is above the height of the crossbar.
(vii) When video review confirms the scoring of a goal at one end of the ice, any goal scored at the other end on the same play must be disallowed.
(viii) When a Linesman reports a double-minor penalty for high-sticking, a major penalty or a match penalty to the Referee following the scoring of a goal by the offending team, the goal must be disallowed and the appropriate penalty assessed.
(ix) When a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a save.
(x) When the net becomes displaced accidentally. The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal.
(xi) During the delayed calling of a penalty, the offending team cannot score unless the non-offending team shoots the puck into their own net. This shall mean that a deflection off an offending player or goalkeeper, or any physical action by an offending player that may cause the puck to enter the non-offending team’s goal, shall not be considered a legal goal. Play shall be stopped before the puck enters the net (whenever possible) and the signaled penalty assessed to the offending team.
(xii) When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.
(xiii) Any goal scored, other than as covered by the official rules, shall not be allowed.


This call was so stupid. He deflected the puck with his foot, wide of the net, and it bounced off Jackman and in. How is that not a goal? He didn't direct it in the net or toward the net. He deflected it into another plays skate and it bounced in.

Even discounting that, it wasn't really a kicking motion at all. I've seen goals that looked a million times kickier that were allowed.

This rule is so all over the place. I hate it.
Image
User avatar
kodos
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 11893
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:05 pm

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby kodos » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:22 pm

cprice12 wrote:
BF44 wrote:
glen a richter wrote:
we are due to win a game against a shitty team.


Normally I'd be agitated by a comment like this, but...


Agree -- there's a subtle but important difference between an insult and a description.....


Not really.
There are shitty teams, and then there are teams that have a poor record and are underachieving but capable of playing much better hockey.
We fall into the latter...so to people that are paying attention, when their team loses to the Blues, they shouldn't act like they just lost to the 1988 Quebec Nordiques or something. Just sayin'.

We've definitely been a jeckyl and hyde team this year...you never know when we're going to play well or who it will be against.


The NHL is weird now. Teams are only shitty for a year or two tops, and then they can be amazing one year and shitty the next.

Bottom line, the Blues are a shitty team.
Image
User avatar
kodos
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 11893
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:05 pm

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby abc789987 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:23 pm

39.4 (iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately
batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a
foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent
goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one
which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his
skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put
into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it
must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck,
after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and
then into the net. This is still NO GOAL.
See also 49.2.

It looked like a kicking motion to me and the ref on the ice.
...
abc789987
All-Star
All-Star
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:00 pm
Location: Indiana?

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby SteveO » Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:08 am

I think he TRIED to kick it, but his reaction was a little late. It's like by the time he felt it hit his skate, it was already on its way to being deflected when he tried to kick.
User avatar
SteveO
LGB Booster - Blue
LGB Booster - Blue
 
Posts: 5481
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:08 am
Location: Lockout Hell

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby kodos » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:32 am

abc789987 wrote:
39.4 (iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately
batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a
foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent
goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one
which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his
skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put
into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it
must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck,
after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and
then into the net. This is still NO GOAL.
See also 49.2.

It looked like a kicking motion to me and the ref on the ice.



I stand corrected.
Still didn't look like much of a kick... and I've seen more kicky kicks get counted.
Image
User avatar
kodos
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 11893
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:05 pm

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby sseagle » Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:06 am

kodos wrote:
abc789987 wrote:

I stand corrected.
Still didn't look like much of a kick... and I've seen more kicky kicks get counted.


How kicky can you kick a kicky kick with your kicker kodos?
Official Sponsor of FlashChat.. why am I alone still?

Image
User avatar
sseagle
All-Star
All-Star
 
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:03 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: STL @ VAN...Last night's game...from their perspective.

Postby OS » Fri Dec 25, 2009 9:55 pm

Prngr44 wrote:I think he TRIED to kick it, but his reaction was a little late. It's like by the time he felt it hit his skate, it was already on its way to being deflected when he tried to kick.


:plusplus:

There was a kicking motion... but not until the puck had already bounced off of and away from his skate.
Image
The Original Sponsor of T.J. Oshie
User avatar
OS
Hockey God
Hockey God
 
Posts: 27094
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:25 am
Location: Section 301


Return to St. Louis Blues Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 12 guests