|
Post by scotiahockey on Apr 24, 2019 10:41:50 GMT -4
Full credit to the Sharks for taking what was given to them and getting the job done, they earned that victory, as they still had to actually go out there and score the goals and Vegas couldn’t get it done. I think what bothers me about it (not them coming back and winning, as it was a hell of a game) is that the refs clearly didn’t actually see what happened but yet they made the call anyways and for all the things the NHL reviews, I don’t see why this shouldn’t be reviewable or at the very least allow the refs to take a look at it to determine what the call should be. You have all the technology there, if you’ll allow for some things and the refs have determined they want to call a penalty on the play, then why not let them look at it and decide whether it’s going to be a 2 or a 5. You’re protecting the refs in the end and we’ve already seen a couple of examples in these playoffs where a penalty was called and the wrong determination was made on its severity. The refs won’t always have the perfect angle to make these calls in real time with 1 chance at it and by looking at them, on big decisions like this, you can make sure you have the right angle and look to make the best call possible. It just seems too easy, you have all the technology and access there, why not use it to make sure you’ve gotten it right? Also on a side note, Kevin Labanc had probably the best 3 minute stretch he will ever have in his career and was buzzing all night. They did a hell of a job drafting and developing that kid. Right or wrong, it's what they do consistently...the call reflects an injury or non injury. Oshie penalty notwithstanding, they usually call 5 minutes when guys are hurt. If a guy get shoved headfirst 10 5 feet from the boards, unless it's an injury it's a 2 minute minor. Bottom line LVK gave up FOUR goals on one penalty, that alone means you deserve to lose. Block a few shots and stop a few pucks. Whether they give up 15 goals on the PP or give up 0 and still win the game, it doesn’t matter. The end result of the game is really irrelevant. San Jose took advantage and Vegas crumbled. What matters is that the refs made a call, that wasn’t based on what they saw and was based on what happened after the fact because if you watch the actual play, there’s no penalty called. There’s no indication of a penalty until after Pavelski is clearly hurt, the play has been whistled dead and San Jose players are losing their shit. I’m fairly certain that Vegas even controlled the puck and there was still no penalty called. They made a reactionary call based on what they thought happened, instead of what they saw happen. Evidently Gallant says that someone on the officiating team told him they saw Eakin crosscheck Pavelski in the face, which clearly did not occur. This is where allowing refs to look at the play in question and making an informed decision is paramount, I’m not talking reviewing a tripping penalty or two-minute minors but when you’re going to eject a player from the game, you should be able to take a 2nd look at it to make sure you’re actually making the correct call. The technology is there, use it. It’s simple, just get the call right.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Apr 24, 2019 13:50:14 GMT -4
Right or wrong, it's what they do consistently...the call reflects an injury or non injury. Oshie penalty notwithstanding, they usually call 5 minutes when guys are hurt. If a guy get shoved headfirst 10 5 feet from the boards, unless it's an injury it's a 2 minute minor. Bottom line LVK gave up FOUR goals on one penalty, that alone means you deserve to lose. Block a few shots and stop a few pucks. Whether they give up 15 goals on the PP or give up 0 and still win the game, it doesn’t matter. The end result of the game is really irrelevant. San Jose took advantage and Vegas crumbled. What matters is that the refs made a call, that wasn’t based on what they saw and was based on what happened after the fact because if you watch the actual play, there’s no penalty called. There’s no indication of a penalty until after Pavelski is clearly hurt, the play has been whistled dead and San Jose players are losing their shit. I’m fairly certain that Vegas even controlled the puck and there was still no penalty called. They made a reactionary call based on what they thought happened, instead of what they saw happen. Evidently Gallant says that someone on the officiating team told him they saw Eakin crosscheck Pavelski in the face, which clearly did not occur. This is where allowing refs to look at the play in question and making an informed decision is paramount, I’m not talking reviewing a tripping penalty or two-minute minors but when you’re going to eject a player from the game, you should be able to take a 2nd look at it to make sure you’re actually making the correct call. The technology is there, use it. It’s simple, just get the call right. Right or wrong, this is how the NHL conducts discipline and major penalties, in that sense, they are being consistent. If a player gets hurt it’s usually a major and a longer suspension, often times, very dangerous plays get no suspension if the player is unhurt. Do I agree with it, no. That being raid, from reffing myself(not a high level), if a penalty leads to an injury, it’s supposed to lead to a major or match(depends on severity and intent). In this case it was a weird confluence of events. My opinion on all this is, when it’s an injury or possible major, they should have access to replay and on the flip side, I would get rid of replays for offsides on goals that are not within 5 or 10 seconds of the goal. I find it dumb that you can call back a goal based on an offside 30 seconds before that had no real/direct impact on the goal. I can see it on a 2 on 1 or breakaway where the goal happens right after.
|
|
|
Post by Reesor on Apr 25, 2019 7:06:58 GMT -4
Four division winners... all golfing. What a crazy first round. I guess I'll hop on the Colorado bandwagon. How's everyone's hockey pools doing? Out of twenty players I had in my pool, I have three remaining.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Apr 25, 2019 7:37:35 GMT -4
Four division winners... all golfing. What a crazy first round. I guess I'll hop on the Colorado bandwagon. How's everyone's hockey pools doing? Out of twenty players I had in my pool, I have three remaining. Blows my mind how bad Holtby was in that game. Washington was in complete control and he gives up 2 ugly goals(1st and Staal one) and gives Carolina life.
|
|
|
Post by yesisaiditfirst on Apr 25, 2019 8:31:58 GMT -4
Four division winners... all golfing. What a crazy first round. I guess I'll hop on the Colorado bandwagon. How's everyone's hockey pools doing? Out of twenty players I had in my pool, I have three remaining. Blows my mind how bad Holtby was in that game. Washington was in complete control and he gives up 2 ugly goals(1st and Staal one) and gives Carolina life. I have become a disciple of Steve Valiquette who is a retired goalie of NY Rangers and now consults with them and formed clear sight analytics which is not your typical fancy stat outfit. Many of the things he proposes come from somebody who played goal - arguably the most impactful position on a team. And he addressed Holtbys success and failures before. They used to play Holtby 60-65 games and last year because of bad play he got benched..played way fewer games and was very sharp by playoffs. Valuquette says a goalie will never admit if he is mentally tired. It's not as easy to spot because NHL goalies are so good at what they do they win anyway. However fatigue is there and it does affect them. In playoffs everything is magnified. He said the ideal scenario is 2018 Holtby with something like only 54 GP when he was used to 73,66,63 the seasons before. He played 59 this year then 7 playoff games all stressful games. Aside from Bob and Jones at 62 GP regular season the remaining goalies should all have a mental edge. Lehner 46 GP + 4 playoff Mrazek 40 GP + 7 playoff Bob 62 + 4 Rask 46 + 7 Biddington 32 + 6 (plus 16 AHL) Bishop 46 + 7 Jones 62 + 7 Grubauer 37 + 4 Other goalies. Vasilevskiy was held at 53 regular season games which is the sweet spot. After 65 last year before playoffs. Anderson had 67 at the end of game 7 MAF played 68!! And it showed in the last 2 Goalies need rest even when they say they dont. A team that can trust its 2nd string can invest in that. Washington lost Grubauer in the offseason. They werent willing to play Copley enough. And they played Holtby too much down the stretch chasing a division title which right now isnt worth the fabric on the banner it will hang by. They may have been better facing Pittsburgh.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Apr 25, 2019 9:18:22 GMT -4
Blows my mind how bad Holtby was in that game. Washington was in complete control and he gives up 2 ugly goals(1st and Staal one) and gives Carolina life. I have become a disciple of Steve Valiquette who is a retired goalie of NY Rangers and now consults with them and formed clear sight analytics which is not your typical fancy stat outfit. Many of the things he proposes come from somebody who played goal - arguably the most impactful position on a team. And he addressed Holtbys success and failures before. They used to play Holtby 60-65 games and last year because of bad play he got benched..played way fewer games and was very sharp by playoffs. Valuquette says a goalie will never admit if he is mentally tired. It's not as easy to spot because NHL goalies are so good at what they do they win anyway. However fatigue is there and it does affect them. In playoffs everything is magnified. He said the ideal scenario is 2018 Holtby with something like only 54 GP when he was used to 73,66,63 the seasons before. He played 59 this year then 7 playoff games all stressful games. Aside from Bob and Jones at 62 GP regular season the remaining goalies should all have a mental edge. Lehner 46 GP + 4 playoff Mrazek 40 GP + 7 playoff Bob 62 + 4 Rask 46 + 7 Biddington 32 + 6 (plus 16 AHL) Bishop 46 + 7 Jones 62 + 7 Grubauer 37 + 4 Other goalies. Vasilevskiy was held at 53 regular season games which is the sweet spot. After 65 last year before playoffs. Anderson had 67 at the end of game 7 MAF played 68!! And it showed in the last 2 Goalies need rest even when they say they dont. A team that can trust its 2nd string can invest in that. Washington lost Grubauer in the offseason. They werent willing to play Copley enough. And they played Holtby too much down the stretch chasing a division title which right now isnt worth the fabric on the banner it will hang by. They may have been better facing Pittsburgh. Very interesting, that has been a big change since the late 90’s and early 2000’s. Cups used to be won by teams with goalies playing 65-70 games, but the last 4-5 years the pace is quicker, more traffic in front makes it more of a grind for goalies, mentally and physically to see pucks and stay sharp. Wonder if we’ll see more contenders spend a couple million on a good back up going forward. The Fleury, Andersen and Holtby performances in game 7 are a great example.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on May 8, 2019 22:37:38 GMT -4
And the Sharks get another huge break handed to them on a silver platter in a Game 7.
|
|
|
Post by scotiahockey on May 8, 2019 23:08:25 GMT -4
And the Sharks get another huge break handed to them on a silver platter in a Game 7. That’s not a huge break, that’s a very clear offside. San Jose just got the actual call they deserved based on the rules, unlike their last game 7.
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on May 9, 2019 5:33:52 GMT -4
And the Sharks get another huge break handed to them on a silver platter in a Game 7. That’s not a huge break, that’s a very clear offside. San Jose just got the actual call they deserved based on the rules, unlike their last game 7. The right call was made but a guy not involved in the play was called offside after video review, that's a huge break.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on May 9, 2019 8:48:05 GMT -4
Offside review is the new foot in the crease rule- I understand the reason for the rule, Briere and Duchesne, but it is getting ridiculous and it reached a head last night. I hope the NHL gets rid of it or curtails it so they don't have a Stanley Cup winning goal taken back because of something happening like the bullshit in San Jose last night.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 9, 2019 8:56:22 GMT -4
And the Sharks get another huge break handed to them on a silver platter in a Game 7. What break? The Avalanches had a guy offside and 6 guys on the ice as they scored.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on May 9, 2019 9:01:52 GMT -4
And the Sharks get another huge break handed to them on a silver platter in a Game 7. What break? The Avalanches had a guy offside and 6 guys on the ice as they scored. Landeskog wasn't involved with the play, bullshit call. The puck had cleared the zone as well, bullshit call.
|
|
|
Post by yesisaiditfirst on May 9, 2019 9:05:39 GMT -4
They still needed another goal to win even if that counted.
What I dont like about the offside challenge is it's only reviewable if a goal is scored to reverse a non-call. What about all the times dingus blows the whistle and calls an offside and I can prove he was wrong by video and it took away my odd man break?
If you cant review or replace a lost scoring chance due to error why are we reversing a goal when the opposite occurs and linesman missed that it was offside.
|
|
|
Post by moosefan1994 on May 9, 2019 9:18:37 GMT -4
They still needed another goal to win even if that counted. What I dont like about the offside challenge is it's only reviewable if a goal is scored to reverse a non-call. What about all the times dingus blows the whistle and calls an offside and I can prove he was wrong by video and it took away my odd man break? If you cant review or replace a lost scoring chance due to error why are we reversing a goal when the opposite occurs and linesman missed that it was offside. True, it was no guarantee the Avs would have won anyways. Offside review is really going to bite the NHL in the ass at some point like the toe in the crease BS from 1999.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 9, 2019 9:29:28 GMT -4
Offside review is the new foot in the crease rule- I understand the reason for the rule, Briere and Duchesne, but it is getting ridiculous and it reached a head last night. I hope the NHL gets rid of it or curtails it so they don't have a Stanley Cup winning goal taken back because of something happening like the bullshit in San Jose last night. If that NEEDS to be right....then I want every call to be right. No 5 minute major to Vegas for example because you should be able to review that if you're reviewing offsides after goals. Other stick infractions that can end plays should also be reviewable. Hand passes should be as well. 4 minute high sticking penalties and majors as well. Now...if I had 1 choice or the other...i'd go back to reviewing whether the puck is in or not and very little else. But if we absolutely need the offside review....then make sure the entire game is called accurately. Because if San Jose had won the game because of a missed hand pass in the offensive zone...while Colorado lost a goal on an offside...that would be absolute bullshit to me.
|
|