Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Fans more paranoid than ours


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#21 cupforwings

cupforwings

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,097 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 10:07 AM

they need to define what a "kicking motion" is more clearly... He definitely intentionally extended his foot to direct the puck into the net, but he didn't kick it... Interesting call, but they need to rewrite the rule where it is more specific to these situations.

#22 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,605 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 20 April 2010 - 10:17 AM

Move on over, Clapton; Mike Murphy thinks he's God.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#23 NHLrules?

NHLrules?

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 10:39 AM

they need to define what a "kicking motion" is more clearly... He definitely intentionally extended his foot to direct the puck into the net, but he didn't kick it... Interesting call, but they need to rewrite the rule where it is more specific to these situations.



How about they actually make a rule here? Take all room for interpritation out. If it goes off an offensive players foot, no goal. Pretty simple really.

The NHL is like Congress they leave everything to interpretation and leads to everything getting f***ed up.

Look at the stupid rules in this league, why are they so complex?

#24 mindfly

mindfly

    GRRRRR

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,170 posts
  • Location:The Multiverse

Posted 20 April 2010 - 10:42 AM

Bob Mckenzie wrote about it today:

MCKENZIE: GIVING THE BOOT TO THE KICKED-IN-GOAL DEBATES

To be honest, I would like to "propel" the NHL's rule for disallowing kicked-in goals into outer space, never to be seen again.

But unlike a lot of Vancouver Canucks fans, I don't believe anyone is out to get them. The Canucks are not a victim of a grand conspiracy so much as a proclivity to take too many penalties at a time when their penalty killing, and perhaps their goaltending, isn't where it needs to be. And besides, the series, at 2-1 for Los Angeles, is far from over.

The fact that the man who made the no-goal decision last night on Daniel Sedin in Los Angeles is Mike Murphy, the NHL's director of hockey operations who once played and coached in Los Angeles, has no bearing on anything unless you happen to wear a tin-foil hat.

You may not like Murphy's decision, and I don't, but where he once played or coached has no bearing on anything because the man has integrity and cares about doing the right thing because he's a professional. And if someone wants to draw a line from last night's no-goal to a linesman deciding to call a too many men on the ice penalty in overtime in Game 2 to Auger-gate, well, better to just to move to Dealey Plaza in Dallas with all the other world-class conspiracy theorists.

That said, this rule has to go, mostly because it's too hard to understand, too hard to explain and just too darn confusing.

These kicked-in goal debates are the bane of our existence on the TSN panel. No matter who is on the panel, we almost never see it the same way.

It used to be that the "distinct kicking motion" was the smoking gun, whatever a "distinct kicking motion" is, because everyone seems to have a different notion of exactly what that is.

Then the key word became "propel," which means we are into physics and that's bad news for me. If I hadn't cheated by writing a couple of formulas on the buttons of my shirt I would have failed Grade 11 physics.

As best as I can understand, the most important aspect of whether a "off the skate" goal is going to be permitted is where did the puck originate before it struck the blade of the player's skate?

If it's a shot from the point (i.e. headed toward the net), unless that player winds up and boots the puck with Lui Passaglia vigor into the net, chances are pretty good it's going to be a good goal. That's because the puck's "propulsion" is already in that direction.

If it's a shot from the hash marks on the boards, that is to say a 90 degree bank job off a skate in front, the likelikhood of goal being disallowed the league is probably about 50-50. That is where the whole "distinct kicking motion" could be as important as how it was "propelled" into the net.

But if it's a pass out from behind the net as it was last night on the Sedin no-goal you have to ask yourself, how does a puck travelling north end up going south into the net? There are only two possibilities.

One, the puck is shot with such force from behind the net that it strikes the blade of a stationary player and effectively bounces into the goal. That would be a good goal because the player did nothing to "propel" the puck into the net. It happened on its own. It's a deflection.

Or two, the player is moving towards the net, as Sedin was, and the puck strikes his skate. Because he's in motion toward the net when the puck hits his skate, he "propels" it into the net. Based on the NHL rule wording, it's no goal.

That's why when I saw Sedin going to the net and the puck coming out from behind the net I automatically assumed "no goal."

But that whole explanation is a difficult concept to understand and a difficult concept to explain, and trust me when I tell you if you have 30 seconds to make your case on the TSN panel, it's going to come out as mostly babble.

For years now, NHL on TSN host James Duthie has opined that any puck off a skate, kicked or not, should be a good goal so long as the skate blade remains on the ice (in order to promote safety and not having players dangerously flashing their blades in a heavy traffic area).

I've always resisted on that safety issue, but now, I cry Uncle.

Make 'em all count, unless the blade comes off the ice and use video review to figure that out. There'll still be some where it's tough to tell and there will still be some controversies but no more and probably less than those questionable "was the puck knocked in with a high stick debates."

But that isn't going to happen in these playoffs, so the Canucks are left to work on what they can control taking fewer penalties, doing a better job of killing them when they do take them and getting better goaltending from Roberto Luongo.



#25 Howard He Do It?!

Howard He Do It?!

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown

Posted 20 April 2010 - 10:49 AM

Intent to kick. :hehe:

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


Round 1: Red Wings (4) vs. Coyotes (0)
Round 2: Red Wings (0) vs. Sharks (0)


#26 ComradeWasabi

ComradeWasabi

    the abdelgator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,461 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 10:49 AM

McKenzie's explanation makes sense, maybe they should hire him to do Mike Murphy's interview for him next time :P but I wasn't aware that "propulsion" was the deciding factor on kicked-in goals now.
QUOTE (thedisappearer @ December 13, 2008 - 10:13AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, we're dogpiling on the goalie sammy Hudler the defense the refs league bias against us coaching now? Ok.

Babcock is lazy and he sucks!

#27 evilmrt

evilmrt

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,533 posts
  • Location:Winter Freakin Wonderland

Posted 20 April 2010 - 11:02 AM

Intent to kick. :hehe:



WIN! :siren:

Honestly, this league, under Bettman, as descended into something resembling a 3rd rate bush league - when it comes to officiating, rules and regulations, etc. What a joke the NHL has become.

#28 AtomicPunk

AtomicPunk

    Nobody rules these streets at night like me...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,099 posts
  • Location:Home of the Wings

Posted 20 April 2010 - 01:26 PM

Any time you are trying to determine what a player's INTENT is, not what he DID, you're opening up a package of FAIL. This also applies to referees intending to blow. Did you blow or not? (most often the answer is yes...but..) If you did not blow the whistle, play is still on. Always has been, always should be.
I am a victim of the science age...the underground.

Feed the Swede! - RETIRED 2012

#29 Stickman

Stickman

    Draftee

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 01:37 PM

WIN! :siren:

Honestly, this league, under Bettman, as descended into something resembling a 3rd rate bush league - when it comes to officiating, rules and regulations, etc. What a joke the NHL has become.


I couldn't agree more. That is a BS call in BS league. It must be nice for the King's organization and their fair weather fans
to have an ex-player and coach of the Kings in charge of the series. Talk about a conflict of interest. That Son of a ***** Murphy is cheering for the Kings in this interview. http://kings.nhl.com...s.htm?id=501547

LAKings.com: Describe your time on the Kings in one sentence?

Murphy: Unbelievable learning experience mixed with unbelievable fun.

LAKings.com: You were with the Kings from early on in the team's existence how have you seen the team change in the time since then?

Murphy: Well I have seen some obvious changes with the colors of the uniforms and the logo and the different arena where they play. What has not changed is the great group of solid hockey fans in Southern California that support and love the Kings, even with the changes. I think it would be so neat to see the Kings succeed and win a Stanley Cup because it would do just a tremendous amount for the Southern California market and the Kings franchise. They have been hard working and very close in a number of years, so that would be nice to see.



F'kin Buttman.

#30 RockyMountainWingGal

RockyMountainWingGal

    RockyMountainWingGal

  • HoF Booster
  • 3,810 posts
  • Location:Denver, Colorado

Posted 20 April 2010 - 02:36 PM

Fans more paranoid than ours should be the Sharks fans handsdown.

If Lidstrom flipped a goal into our own net in OT of a playoff game - I'd contemplate the samurai seppuku :o
New season, New start! May the force be with the Wings this time!

#31 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,448 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 02:53 PM

Any time you are trying to determine what a player's INTENT is, not what he DID, you're opening up a package of FAIL. This also applies to referees intending to blow. Did you blow or not? (most often the answer is yes...but..) If you did not blow the whistle, play is still on. Always has been, always should be.

I agree, the whole intet to blow the whistle is crap, but the only issue I have is this: What if the goalie covers the puck, but before the whistle blows, someone pokes at his glove and the puck ends up in the net?

I think a better rule on this is needed, but I still think there will be some challenges.

#32 henriksedin

henriksedin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 258 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 03:23 PM

conflict of interest

what a joke
QUOTE (Heroes of Hockeytown @ April 1, 2004 - 04:09PM)
I would rather have Vancouver drink the brain juice out of their splintered skulls than have Colorado win another Stanley Cup.

#33 matt198913

matt198913

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 03:29 PM

I love how the Canadians are so paranoid that they have the guy come on and explain the call. Anyone remember having Brad Watson answer for his dips*** call against us last year. Jeeze get over it you lost to a team because you cannot stop their powerplay. Thats not Mike Murphys fault or anyone elses for that matter.
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#34 Howard He Do It?!

Howard He Do It?!

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown

Posted 20 April 2010 - 03:50 PM

Mike Murphy was not the sole decider in making this call. That should end the conspiracy theory right there. Now, if Murphy punched everyone in the face and made them say it was no-goal, then we have a different story. The only theory, and it's more fact than theory, here is that the Vancouver PK blows and Luongo didn't do much better.

I couldn't agree more. That is a BS call in BS league. It must be nice for the King's organization and their fair weather fans
to have an ex-player and coach of the Kings in charge of the series. Talk about a conflict of interest. That Son of a ***** Murphy is cheering for the Kings in this interview.

Murphy isn't in charge of the series. He's VP of Hockey Operations for the NHL.

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


Round 1: Red Wings (4) vs. Coyotes (0)
Round 2: Red Wings (0) vs. Sharks (0)


#35 NHLrules?

NHLrules?

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:06 PM

Mike Murphy was not the sole decider in making this call. That should end the conspiracy theory right there. Now, if Murphy punched everyone in the face and made them say it was no-goal, then we have a different story. The only theory, and it's more fact than theory, here is that the Vancouver PK blows and Luongo didn't do much better.


Murphy isn't in charge of the series. He's VP of Hockey Operations for the NHL.


Someone really needs to convince me that the "War Room" in Toronto is anything more than a bunch of drunk Canadians watching hockey games. Hell the crowd at your average Buffalo Wild Wings would do a better job making calls 95% of the time.

#36 Louisville

Louisville

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,513 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:06 PM

Fans more paranoid than ours should be the Sharks fans handsdown.

If Lidstrom flipped a goal into our own net in OT of a playoff game - I'd contemplate the samurai seppuku :o


People keep saying this, but Boyle's pass went off a stick and Nabakov is a overrated piece of garbage that wasn't covering his post.

Edited by Louisville, 20 April 2010 - 04:06 PM.


#37 Howard He Do It?!

Howard He Do It?!

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown

Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:10 PM

Someone really needs to convince me that the "War Room" in Toronto is anything more than a bunch of drunk Canadians watching hockey games. Hell the crowd at your average Buffalo Wild Wings would do a better job making calls 95% of the time.

So why would a room full of a bunch of drunk Canadians rule against a Canadian team? Buh-bye conspiracy theory.

The NHl sucks at officiating and enforcing rules. We all know that but there is no conspiracy.

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


Round 1: Red Wings (4) vs. Coyotes (0)
Round 2: Red Wings (0) vs. Sharks (0)


#38 NHLrules?

NHLrules?

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 947 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:13 PM

So why would a room full of a bunch of drunk Canadians rule against a Canadian team? Buh-bye conspiracy theory.

The NHl sucks at officiating and enforcing rules. We all know that but there is no conspiracy.


I never said there was a conspiracy theory here, just that the league is horribly incompitant.

#39 Stickman

Stickman

    Draftee

  • Member
  • 3 posts

Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:15 PM

Mike Murphy was not the sole decider in making this call. That should end the conspiracy theory right there. Now, if Murphy punched everyone in the face and made them say it was no-goal, then we have a different story. The only theory, and it's more fact than theory, here is that the Vancouver PK blows and Luongo didn't do much better.


Murphy isn't in charge of the series. He's VP of Hockey Operations for the NHL.


From the CBC
Earlier this season, NHL GMs made it clear they would prefer the War Room in Toronto make the final decision on all video reviews, not the on-ice officials. The final straw for a lot of them was Steve Ott's bizarre shootout goal from Jan. 16. Rob Martell, the referee right on the goal-line, was overruled by Mike Leggo and Lonnie Cameron, who didn't have as good a view. The GMs wanted Colin Campbell, Mike Murphy et al to hold ultimate power.

Guess were Mike the Fixer is. He's in the war room fixing up games for his favorite team.

#40 Howard He Do It?!

Howard He Do It?!

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown

Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:18 PM

From the CBC
Earlier this season, NHL GMs made it clear they would prefer the War Room in Toronto make the final decision on all video reviews, not the on-ice officials. The final straw for a lot of them was Steve Ott's bizarre shootout goal from Jan. 16. Rob Martell, the referee right on the goal-line, was overruled by Mike Leggo and Lonnie Cameron, who didn't have as good a view. The GMs wanted Colin Campbell, Mike Murphy et al to hold ultimate power.

Guess were Mike the Fixer is. He's in the war room fixing up games for his favorite team.

Show me where it says Mike Murphy has final authority in all matters that flow through the war room. Oh yeah, that's right. It doesn't say that. A consensus is formed in the war room, i.e. more than one person has the same view of the play being reviewed. Plus this is just a preference and is not even in practice. Your tin foil hat is too tight and it's affecting your brain.

Was it a bad call? Yes. Is the NHL out to get the Canucks? Are youf****** kidding me? NO! There is no game fixing.

Edited by Howard He Do It?!, 20 April 2010 - 04:20 PM.

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


Round 1: Red Wings (4) vs. Coyotes (0)
Round 2: Red Wings (0) vs. Sharks (0)






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users