Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Homer's slashing penalty and Z's disallowed goal


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 Taylorov

Taylorov

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 163 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 02:24 PM

Sharks wanted it more or Wings backed-off to avoid more penalties?

#42 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 02:47 PM

Per your unique belief system, "THE PUCK CAN BE REDIRECTED IF AND ONLY IF THE PLAYER IS ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PIVOTING OF A SKATE ON THE ICE" and a "kick" can "ONLY OCCUR IF THE PUCK IS PROPELLED IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SKATE'S MOTION." Hank's skate was being propelled OUTSIDE the net...look at the replay. Was he trying to "propel" the puck outside the net? If so, the puck OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have gone IN the net (unless he was trying NOT to score!!!) The puck bounced at somewhere around a 70 degree angle off his skate (OK, it's hard to tell, but give-or-take thirty degrees." THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT "the foot...moving in the direction that the player (Hank) hopes the puck will go." Now you have introduced the third option, the foot IS moving and DOES redirect the puck. BUT THIS DOES NOT CONSITUTE A DIRECT KICKING MOTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the rule was rewritten as you appear to think it's written that foot motion=kicking, then your're right...which is of course not the case.

I think it's more than obvious Hank's momentum (body in motion tends to remain in motion) drove him (and his attached skate) past the net. Does simple momentum constitue a "distinct kicking motion?" Then we're back to the concept that any time the puck glances off of a MOVING skate and into the net it MUST be waived off! I don't believe that's the intent of the rule, though Buttman's thinking is probably as fuzzy as yours.


Have you ever plowerd snow? Ever played ping pong? Tennis? The direction of force coupled with the angle of the device applying the force dictates the direction the snow, or puck or ball goes. You wouldn't watch a plow truck driving straight forward and conclude that he must be trying to push snow straight forward if his blade were angled and he were driving straight ahead. You wouldn't watch a tennis forespin hit and conclde that the player was trying to hit the ball into the ground before the net because that is where his racket was pointed.

Hank readjusted himself in the momments immediately before and durring the time his skate was in contact with the puck, and it looked to me like he did so in order to propell (not deflect) the puck into the net. That's kick. Regardless of which way your foot is traveling, regardless of which way your skate is facing.

The "Buttman" reference and the random caps did make your argument pretty compelling though.
"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#43 EojUSAF0112

EojUSAF0112

    Draftee

  • Member
  • 13 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 05 May 2010 - 02:50 PM

Anyone else find this interesting?

Posted Image
"Every man dies. Not every man really lives". - William Wallace
Posted Image
Wings fan stuck in Germany.

#44 Wings_Fan_In_Exile

Wings_Fan_In_Exile

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,094 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO

Posted 05 May 2010 - 02:58 PM

Anyone else find this interesting?

Posted Image

Nope, just an ordinary line change to be frank.
thanks offsides!




#45 EojUSAF0112

EojUSAF0112

    Draftee

  • Member
  • 13 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:12 PM

Nope, just an ordinary line change to be frank.


The rule is

74.1 Too Many Men on the Ice - Players and goalkeepers may be changed at any time during the play from the players' bench provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall be within five feet (5') of his players' bench and out of the play before the change is made. Refer also to Rule 71 – Premature Substitution. At the discretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5') limit of the players' bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed.

If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player (or goalkeeper) retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of "too many men on the ice" will be called.

74.2 Bench Minor Penalty – A bench minor penalty for too many men on the ice shall be assessed for a violation of this rule. This penalty can be assessed by the Referees or the Linesmen. Should a goal be scored by the offending team prior to the Referee or Linesman blowing his whistle to assess the bench minor penalty, the goal shall be disallowed and the penalty assessed for too many men on the ice.

now that you know the rules.. do you agree that the two sharks heading to the bench are MORE then five feet from the players bench? If yes, then read 74.2

If no, look at this video (very beginning ) look at the two sharks returning to the bench (more then five feet) and as the video follows the puck, you can see Marleau already a good ten feet away from the bench (as they are still more then five feet away) and not long after already right in the play. Thus referring to rule 74.1 a penalty should have been given for "too many men on the ice".

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8utfTNg44oU"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=8utfTNg44oU[/url]

Edited by EojUSAF0112, 05 May 2010 - 03:14 PM.

"Every man dies. Not every man really lives". - William Wallace
Posted Image
Wings fan stuck in Germany.

#46 vOrophin

vOrophin

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Location:Boulder, CO

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:13 PM

I guess it's futile to stop LGW homers from being homers, but hey. Slash was ridiculous, I didn't see anything in any replay indicative of a penalty. Z's goal was disallowed because of other incidents that have already occurred in the playoffs, early on there was a precedent set and now the people in Toronto are sticking with it. Unlucky for the Wings, but at least they are trying to be consistent. Homer's interference penalty was because of the 2nd push after Boyle had already come into contact with Nabokov, and it was not one that was good to take. I have a little issue with that one because if Nabokov was not 5 feet out of the crease it would not be called, and the fact that goalie interference was called without any contact from Homer to Nabokov (instead of just interference being called). Still, it was something that Homer did not have to do that hurt the Wings' opportunity to end the game in regulation.

#47 Heroes of Hockeytown

Heroes of Hockeytown

    Big Goal Bob

  • Bronze Booster
  • 13,729 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:16 PM

now that you know the rules.. do you agree that the two sharks heading to the bench are MORE then five feet from the players bench? If yes, then read 74.2

It might be violating the letter of the law, but that's not how it's enforced. That very same line change is completed dozens of times a game, by all teams, without penalty.
"We've been in the same spot all year long. We won 50 games for the fourth year in a row. People think we're just hum-drum and boring.
No, you know what we are, we're good. You can't do what we do every single day and not be good." - Mike Babcock

#48 donfishmaster

donfishmaster

    steviesteenie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 776 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:20 PM

Have you ever plowerd snow? Ever played ping pong? Tennis? The direction of force coupled with the angle of the device applying the force dictates the direction the snow, or puck or ball goes. You wouldn't watch a plow truck driving straight forward and conclude that he must be trying to push snow straight forward if his blade were angled and he were driving straight ahead. You wouldn't watch a tennis forespin hit and conclde that the player was trying to hit the ball into the ground before the net because that is where his racket was pointed.

Hank readjusted himself in the momments immediately before and durring the time his skate was in contact with the puck, and it looked to me like he did so in order to propell (not deflect) the puck into the net. That's kick. Regardless of which way your foot is traveling, regardless of which way your skate is facing.

The "Buttman" reference and the random caps did make your argument pretty compelling though.


Micah, your precious interpretation of capitals intended for emphasis is delightful!

Maybe,(and I know this is probably radical for you) go back to the YouTube links at the beginning of this thread (sorry my dear Micah, there go those silly capitals again!) and watch WHY (tee hee to you!) Hank "readjusted" his skate. A Fish had his stick horizontal and was shoving Hank with said stick. Hank was "readjusting" to maintain balance during this cross-check, as shown in every view visible to us (and presumably, the Toronto "war room".) Moving his feet to maintain balance and not crash into the net/boards probably doesn't count as "distinctly kicking", and undoubtedly the Fishies would simply have collapsed and flopped, pleading for the merciful gods above to call a cross-check/interference/roughing, etc., etc., penalty.
So no MICAH, that "not kick" (sic)
...and the "Fails" continue!

Edited by donfishmaster, 05 May 2010 - 03:22 PM.


#49 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:24 PM

At the discretion of the on-ice officials... is the part of the rule that some here seem to be forgetting. If it appears that a player is more than 5' out while there are too many men trying to be involved in the play, that's a penalty every time the ref sees it. Players coasting into the bench area (even though they are outside the 5 zone) are not a penalty. Flying into the bench area at full steam is reckless and unnecessary. This rule makes sense and last night it was interpreted the same way it was interpreted 20 years ago.
"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#50 Vladifan

Vladifan

    Legend

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 5,759 posts
  • Location:Central Texas

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:25 PM

I couldn't agree more that Homer gets screwed by the refs consistently. Calls that go against him are seldom called when players are pounding on him. However. Even Mickey said it last night. Homer was pushing his luck in and around the crease and if he didn't cool it he would be called (fair or not). They showed him pulling on somebody's jersey and trying to take him down in the Sharks' crease. I saw what I thought was a slash on the guy that took him down at another point in the game. Probably the same one you're all referring to. The player taking him down should have been called and was not. But the last thing Homer needed to do was to draw the ref's attention to himself.

Mickey said it. Don't give the (*******) refs the chance to call you. I know there's a fine line about how to play the game with that in mind, but it was definitely good advice.

"He even ate with women who at that time were accorded the same status as the family donkey. Are we willing to break bread with, say, child sex slaves, transgender teens and undocumented workers? Because when Jesus comes back to Earth, that's where he'll be hanging."
You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.

 
 
 


#51 travis08

travis08

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:27 PM

If you watch the replay of the lebda penalty it seems clear he is faking. I know it is in slow motion, but there is a large delay between the supposed contact and his head flying back. That's not to say that the stick didn't graze him, but it seems obvious he is embellishing.

He also seems to be checking for blood at random places, start out kinda checking his nose, then later he is checking his forehead.

Edited by travis08, 05 May 2010 - 03:33 PM.


#52 hockeynut

hockeynut

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 27 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:30 PM

Ok, let's ASSUME the goal that Zetterberg kicked in was good and that was a bad call. The play where the Wings were awarded a penalty shot was an AWFUL call. Couture just pushed the puck under Nabokov's pads, never once did he cover the puck with his glove. The ref was out of position and missed it. The refs "tried" to give the Wings a make up goal, but Nabokov "foiled" their plot. Also, look CLOSELY at the replay of the Holmstrom slash. Clearly he does take a whack at the back of Vlasic's leg and he did it right in front of the ref, almost daring him to call it, so call it he did.

#53 micah

micah

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,345 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:32 PM

Micah, your precious interpretation of capitals intended for emphasis is delightful!

Maybe,(and I know this is probably radical for you) go back to the YouTube links at the beginning of this thread (sorry my dear Micah, there go those silly capitals again!) and watch WHY (tee hee to you!) Hank "readjusted" his skate. A Fish had his stick horizontal and was shoving Hank with said stick. Hank was "readjusting" to maintain balance during this cross-check, as shown in every view visible to us (and presumably, the Toronto "war room".) Moving his feet to maintain balance and not crash into the net/boards probably doesn't count as "distinctly kicking", and undoubtedly the Fishies would simply have collapsed and flopped, pleading for the merciful gods above to call a cross-check/interference/roughing, etc., etc., penalty.
So no MICAH, that "not kick" (sic)
...and the "Fails" continue!


You believe that the officials in Toronto wanted the wings to lose the game? so much so that not only do you think they made a mistake or that you know the rules better than they do, but that you believe that the purposefully lied about what they saw to take away a Wings' goal?

I suspect they just didn't see it how you see it. I don't either. Sorry.
"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

#54 Tommy_Like_Wingy

Tommy_Like_Wingy

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 369 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 03:33 PM

The Sharks got screwed over plenty in this series too. The fact of the matter is they capitalized on their breaks and we didn't.

#55 scottj

scottj

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 644 posts
  • Location:Southgate

Posted 05 May 2010 - 04:25 PM

Also, look CLOSELY at the replay of the Holmstrom slash. Clearly he does take a whack at the back of Vlasic's leg and he did it right in front of the ref, almost daring him to call it, so call it he did.


CLEARLY

oh my god...

#56 Dr. Detroit

Dr. Detroit

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 22 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 06:13 PM

Also, look CLOSELY at the replay of the Holmstrom slash. Clearly he does take a whack at the back of Vlasic's leg...


Are we watching the same video... because nothing happened.

#57 T.OWingsFan

T.OWingsFan

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 05 May 2010 - 06:31 PM

I wish I could say that the refs cost us this series, but really, I only thought that game 2 was terrible that way.


SJ has had more power plays in 3 games than most teams do in 7 games. Almost 30 by my count. And the vast majority have been like Homer's above phantom slash. Including a 4 minute highsticking penalty against Setogouchi which somehow transformed into a Franzen penalty and then a 5 on 3. Also throw in 3 goalie interference penalties where in all 3 cases no one was in the blue paint.

No, the refs haven't done a thing. Only snuffing out Detroit everytime momentum seems to shift. Only making the Red Wings play a man down for half a game. Not at all.

Edited by T.OWingsFan, 05 May 2010 - 06:32 PM.


#58 mjtm77

mjtm77

    mjtm77

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 962 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 06:37 PM

Berts penalty in game two made draper :lol:

Edited by mjtm77, 05 May 2010 - 06:37 PM.

Posted Image

#59 SiLkK19

SiLkK19

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 930 posts
  • Location:Bay Area CA

Posted 05 May 2010 - 07:03 PM

who cares, penalty shot was the fail, he could have made up that goal right there

bad calls happen, that call on homer is not why the Wings lost, SJ just wanted it more 3rd period and on



Yeah along with any other shot that didn't go in.... Lets not be that " :crazy: "

Edited by SiLkK19, 05 May 2010 - 07:11 PM.


#60 Doc Holliday

Doc Holliday

    LGW's impromptu Photoshopper

  • Silver Booster
  • 4,341 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 07:22 PM

I just don't understand. Can you explain? I mean, I'll ignore the fact that I have many years of playing soccer, and it is impossible to "kick" an object with your foot moving forward and have the object hit the side of your foot, and change directions 90 degrees. That is called a re-direction of the object. Now if in fact the object hits the tip/front of the shoe/skate, then yes it's a kick in.

I get that if someone has never played the sport of soccer before may be confused with this, but come on, haven't we all studied physics in highschool/college?

Edit:
In fact, in soccer if this exact situation happened, it would be considered as if the player fanned on kicking the ball, and it just luckily deflected in anyways. Its amazing how simple physics change from sport to sport.


Have you ever passed the soccer ball before?

You can kick something with the side of your foot.

Posted Image






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users