GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/KMOX

Discuss the St. Louis Blues, the NHL, or anything hockey. (Formerly the Blues News Forum)

Moderator: LGB Mods

User avatar
gaijin
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
Posts: 4820
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:46 pm
Location: Peterson AFB, CO

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by gaijin »

Some fun with numbers:

Tank's goals came at 17:17 of the first and 1:17 of the second. He now has 17 goals on the year.
Image

User avatar
dmiles2186
Hockey God
Hockey God
Posts: 7288
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Selling Air Bombays--for kids who want to coach

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by dmiles2186 »

I always say this about the NHL's officiating. It sucks all around. They don't try to screw specific teams, they screw everybody accidentally because they aren't any better. I still feel awful for Isles fans today. I don't care what their record shows, they should have had both points from yesterday.
Image

2015-2016 LGB Sponsor of Not Ott, because he is a booger-eating dumb dumb

User avatar
ComradeT
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:08 am

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by ComradeT »

sseagle wrote:
ViPeRx007 wrote:It was a bad call, but it's not like we haven't had our share go against us. Granted, this one was at a more critical point, but still.

We got lucky. Simple as that. Anyone who says that was a kicking motion is a homer. Of course, we were also unlucky as well; 3 posts or whatever it was. It could have easily been 5-2 Blues at the end of regulation and the OT fiasco wouldn't have even transpired. Whatever. The encouraging thing to me about this game is that there were some flashes I saw of the pre-slump Blues in there; moving the puck better, getting more shots on net, etc. Sometimes it's a game of bounces, and this was definitely one of them. We had some go against us, and one big one go for us.

Hopefully they can get some more consistency back because that's the part that's lagging right now. They'll follow up a great play with something stupid.

Anyway, 2 points is 2 points. You take them any way you can. These ones were definitely in gift form though.

It was a kicking motion, anyone that says it wasn't doesn't have EYES. That puck didn't have the momentum to deflect of the skate in that direction, its simple physics and gee-ometry. But I'm a retard that says (Frank) a lot.. so what would I know?
On the ice, no much momentum is needed for things to move. Also, that seemed more like a Steen own goal to me. Vanek's skate is jammed by Steens as he tries to muscle the Austrian away from the crease.

So, SS is a homer. Shocker.
Last edited by ComradeT on Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2018 - 2019 Official sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2017 - 2018 Official sponsor of Joel "Top Shelf" Edmundson
2016 - 2017 Official sponsor of Nail "THE YAK" Yakupov

glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
Posts: 11406
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by glen a richter »

ComradeT wrote:
sseagle wrote:
ViPeRx007 wrote:It was a bad call, but it's not like we haven't had our share go against us. Granted, this one was at a more critical point, but still.

We got lucky. Simple as that. Anyone who says that was a kicking motion is a homer. Of course, we were also unlucky as well; 3 posts or whatever it was. It could have easily been 5-2 Blues at the end of regulation and the OT fiasco wouldn't have even transpired. Whatever. The encouraging thing to me about this game is that there were some flashes I saw of the pre-slump Blues in there; moving the puck better, getting more shots on net, etc. Sometimes it's a game of bounces, and this was definitely one of them. We had some go against us, and one big one go for us.

Hopefully they can get some more consistency back because that's the part that's lagging right now. They'll follow up a great play with something stupid.

Anyway, 2 points is 2 points. You take them any way you can. These ones were definitely in gift form though.

It was a kicking motion, anyone that says it wasn't doesn't have EYES. That puck didn't have the momentum to deflect of the skate in that direction, its simple physics and gee-ometry. But I'm a retard that says (Frank) a lot.. so what would I know?
On the ice, no much momentum is needed for things to move. Also, that seemed more like a Steen own goal to me. Vanek's skate is jammed by Steens as he tries to muscle the Czech away from the crease.

So, SS is a homer. Shocker.
Image
Sponsor of Joel "Future" HOFer 2023-2024

User avatar
ComradeT
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:08 am

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by ComradeT »

Vanek is apparently Austrian by citizenship. Oops.
2018 - 2019 Official sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2017 - 2018 Official sponsor of Joel "Top Shelf" Edmundson
2016 - 2017 Official sponsor of Nail "THE YAK" Yakupov

glen a richter
Hockey God
Hockey God
Posts: 11406
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:02 am
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by glen a richter »

I thought Vanek was a Czeck or Check or Chezk or something like that too. Austrian? Not too many Austrians in the league, I'd imagine.
Sponsor of Joel "Future" HOFer 2023-2024

User avatar
ComradeT
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:08 am

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by ComradeT »

He's probably a Czech ethnically, just happened to be born/naturalized in Austria. In Europe it's almost like born in Missouri, living in NYC, Glen.
2018 - 2019 Official sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2017 - 2018 Official sponsor of Joel "Top Shelf" Edmundson
2016 - 2017 Official sponsor of Nail "THE YAK" Yakupov

KPFBlue
3rd Line Grinder
3rd Line Grinder
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:20 pm

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by KPFBlue »

Brett Hull won the Stanley Cup on more of a kick than that.


Just sayin.
Official 2011-12 sponsor of Chris Stewart

KPFBlue
3rd Line Grinder
3rd Line Grinder
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:20 pm

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by KPFBlue »

Brett Hull won the Stanley Cup on more of a kick than that.


Just sayin.
Official 2011-12 sponsor of Chris Stewart

User avatar
ComradeT
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:08 am

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by ComradeT »

Hey, KFP, I want to be a Hockey God too but double-posting just ain't fair dude!
2018 - 2019 Official sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2017 - 2018 Official sponsor of Joel "Top Shelf" Edmundson
2016 - 2017 Official sponsor of Nail "THE YAK" Yakupov

User avatar
ComradeT
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
Posts: 973
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:08 am

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by ComradeT »

Posting twice to finish your thought is fair game though :ninja:
2018 - 2019 Official sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2017 - 2018 Official sponsor of Joel "Top Shelf" Edmundson
2016 - 2017 Official sponsor of Nail "THE YAK" Yakupov

User avatar
sseagle
All-Star
All-Star
Posts: 2188
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:03 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by sseagle »

ITS ABOUT MOTHER (Franking) TIME!

http://deadspin.com/thomas-vaneks-game- ... 1509006595

FINALLY, WE ARE THE CHOSEN ONES!
Official Chatzy Sponsor Extraordinaire - Just wait till we score four...

Official Sponsor of FlashChat.. why am I alone still?

Image

User avatar
ViPeRx007
LGB Booster - Yellow
LGB Booster - Yellow
Posts: 9765
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Billings, MT

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by ViPeRx007 »

If anything it was Steen's foot slamming into Vanek's that caused any perceived forward momentum. Even with that it was so minimal that it's hard for me to see any clear intent on Vanek's part to kick it in. Typically these situations favor the scoring team because it has to be completely conclusive to be overturned. I know it went to Toronto and I'm sure a lot of eyes looked at this and made the call, but it doesn't seem right to me. There's so much gray area with this play that, I don't know how they were able to conclude without any doubt that it was intentionally kicked. I guess I'm not a real Blues fan....
2015-2016 Official LGB Sponsor of Jaden Schwartz (IR) & The Hockey Gods
2014-2015 Official LGB Sponsor of T.J. Oshie
2013-2014 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk
2012-2013 Official LGB Sponsor of Ryan Reaves
2011-2012 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko
2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko

User avatar
cprice12
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 21529
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Center Ice
Contact:

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by cprice12 »

KPFBlue wrote:Brett Hull won the Stanley Cup on more of a kick than that.


Just sayin.
Hull kicked it to his stick, then shot it in.

Just sayin'.
LETS GO BLUES RADIO
LIVE weekly broadcasts on YouTube & http://www.LetsGoBlues.com/radio!
Twitter: https://twitter.com/curtprice
Lets Go Blues Radio Twitter: https://twitter.com/lgbradio
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cprice12/
Lets Go Blues Radio Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lgbradio/

User avatar
gaijin
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
Posts: 4820
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:46 pm
Location: Peterson AFB, CO

Re: GDT #51: 1/25/14 > Blues @ Islanders > 12:00 PM > FSMW/K

Post by gaijin »

sseagle wrote:ITS ABOUT MOTHER (Frank) TIME!

http://deadspin.com/thomas-vaneks-game- ... 1509006595

FINALLY, WE ARE THE CHOSEN ONES!
Not sure if "League Bias" in this case means the League is biased toward the Blues, or against the Islanders... I'm betting Vanek means the latter.

This issue really comes down to the "conclusive evidence" requirement to overturn a call on the ice. In this case, I don't think the video provides conclusive evidence of a distinct kicking motion. I think if the call on the ice had been no-goal, it would have stood, because the video was inconclusive. But since the on-ice call was good goal, I'm shocked they reversed the call based on this video evidence.
Image

Post Reply