Philly v. Tampa

[Ram 240]

While watching, I thought this was pretty rowdy and anti-rowdy, all at the same time.

[rrasco 1,312]

Here's another video.

Same video...

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Still more exciting than watching the NBA.

I hereby brand this post: Classic!

[WorkingOvertime 536]

Same video...

I thought this was the video already posted. My bad.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I'm guessing Tampa won't be getting many televised NBC games once January rolls around.

[pvilleguru 65]

I played in a soccer game in high school. We went up 1-0 pretty early. After that, the other team didn't send a player past midfield until 10 minutes left in the game. Originally, we had only on defender standing next to the ball on our side of the field for a few minutes. Then the ref threatened to give our player a yellow card if he didn't pass the ball (although it was completely legal for the defender to do what he was doing). So the we just sent another player back there and they just passes the ball back and forth for the next 60 minutes. The other team finally attacked with 10 minutes to go in the game. We won 2-0.

[esteef 2,679]

Looks to me like Philly is just too ***** to bring the puck up ice. Who cares what kind of D they're playing.

esteef

[Echolalia 2,961]

I wouldn't be against adding an asterisk to the icing rule, where a team is allowed to dump the puck into the opposition's zone from behind center ice when the opposition's zone is occupied by at least one player besides the goalie.

As stated above, icing was introduced to prevent teams from relieving pressure in a manner difficult to combat from their own zone. This punishes the defending team and prevents them from simply dumping the puck every time they gain possession after they get a lead. The trap is so effective partially because of the icing rule, but its punishing the attacking team, not the defending team. By eliminating the icing rule when opponents are playing the trap, dump and chase should become more prominent, and that run-and-gun style hockey might be observed more.

[drwscc 212]

Yeah, it should be illegal to play defense. I mean really, we want to see goals, not defense. Who needs a goalie anyway? All they do is clog up the net, and not let shots by. We should make them illegal, and just play 6 forwards on the ice at all times.

The Flyers are just whiners here. They were scared of a defensive scheme, and couldn't think of a way to beat it, so they decided not to play. Everyone brings back how boring the Devils were when they trapped, and how that was cheating, but I don't remember them being a dynasty. There are ways to beat any kind of trap. You just have to sack up and play.

[Nhurdi 42]

I'm not sure why the flyers didn't have someone just come back to their own zone then build up speed through the neutral zone and then have the D guy blast it down the ice and try to beat the icing. Or do a high flip with the puck. If they can out man that guy in the back quickly they should be able to recover.

Then again I guess it depends on what TB does at that point.

[P. Marlowe 748]

Kerry Fraser's take

Rule 72.1 - Refusing or Abstaining from Playing the Puck was applied last night through the general spirit of the rule which states; “The purpose of this section is to enforce continuous action and both the Referees and Linesmen should interpret and apply the rule to produce this result.”

There you have the 'spirit' of the rule. The letter of the rule covers hand pass, high stick of the puck; icing and failing to touch the puck on a delayed penalty as we discussed the other day and not what transpired last night.

I would go so far as to say that stopping play when Philadelphia was passing and cycling the puck within their defensive zone, without pressure from Martin St. Louis, gives this application new meaning since 'continuous action' versus continuous motion is not clearly defined. The rule doesn't state that the puck must be advanced but just that continuous action is to be enforced. Passing and moving the puck are both action words, albeit without pressure from within their own defending zone.

Tampa could be deemed most culpable for the lack of pressure that results from their 1-3-1 defense set up between the blue lines. The relative stationary posture each Lightning player assumed could better describe a lack of continuous action. All 'word-smithing' aside, Tampa clearly gains an advantage if the rule continues to be applied as it was last night. A forced end zone face-off gives them at least a 50 percent chance of gaining puck possession from a key location face-off win in their attacking zone.

(...)

Should the NHL ban certain methods of defending such as the 1-3-1 employed by Tampa. While we're at it do we throw out the neutral zone trap and left wing lock and strip the New Jersey Devils and Detroit Red Wings of their Stanley Cup victories for employing those systems to their advantage while some fans cried b-o-r-i-n-g?

Should we create a rule that penalizes a team that fails to pressure (Tampa) by blowing the whistle and taking the puck all the way into their end for a face-off and attempt to gain puck possession from the hand of the linesman in their own zone? How about giving one team or the other a penalty for delay of game; but which one? Would equal culpability be determined and as such drop the puck at centre ice?

Some have written here that Flyers were cowards for not attacking. I can't understand how this situation can be seen that way. They were just waiting for Tampa to lose their nerves in front of the pressure of home crowd and start opening up their trap.

I also think that Yzerman is wise enough to know that a GM that interferes the coach does no one no good.

Edited November 10, 2011 by P. Marlowe

[rrasco 1,312]

I thought this was the video already posted. My bad.

All good. That one was even worse, didn't even skate around.

[Guest Heaten]

both teams should have been zapped with a delay of game penalty. They can't play like that 4 on 4.

[55fan 5,133]

Why am I not surprised that it was Pronger? Why can I imagine him laughing whilst doing it?

[esteef 2,679]

"Waaaaaaaaaa! They're defense is too good. Make them stop ref!" - Chris Pronger

esteef

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

"Waaaaaaaaaa! They're defense is too good. Make them stop ref!" - Chris Pronger

esteef

Maybe that badass old school Pronger couldn't see the defense quite right with that visor on

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

This shows that the statement "Any publicity is good publicity" can be incorrect.

[drumnj 459]

It would be wrong to penalize a team that doesn't want to play into the trap. That's just giving other teams more reason to use the trap.

Both sides are equally wrong. A team is just as much at fault for not forecheck pressuring as a team not advancing the puck. There will have to be a rule change of some kind in the future to combat this.

[Guest Heaten]

Here's what Yzerman and some Red Wings had to say about this. Zetterberg though it was hilarious Flyers did this because the trap is boring hockey.

Yzerman said:

"I don't care what people say. I coach our team and I'm paid to win games and our rink is full. (General Manager) Steve Yzerman is happy," he said after Thursday's practice. "The comments don't bother me and I really don't know the extent of it. We play the same way we played last year and we're going to continue playing that way. In every game, every team has a strategy. We have a strategy against the other team and during the game we adjust and re-adjust and other teams have to do the same against us. It's an ongoing process, whether it's on the ice or off the ice. The only thing that matters is what happens on the ice. We've got our strengths and weaknesses. We play to our strengths."

Zetterberg said:

"I think Philly did the right thing," Detroit's Henrik Zetterberg said. "I haven't actually seen it, but I think it's hilarious if they're just standing there waiting for them to come. It must be tough for the referee to know what to do. I don't know … I actually thought it was a good way for showing how boring it could be if the other team doesn't do anything if they have the puck. That's the way we played in Sweden for, I think, 10 years. We played a 1-3-1 really strict and the game became really, really boring. I think with the skill we have in this League, you shouldn't be able to play that way."

Babcock said:

Added Detroit coach Mike Babcock: "What the League's got to decide … if you look at the League every night, it's one guy and then four guys standing around the far blue. That's because everyone stretches out and that stretch pass and you tip it and you race … so all your offense is off the forecheck. That's what taking the red line (out) has done and making the end zones bigger. So, to me, if you want rush hockey and you want nice-looking hockey, you put the red line back in."

Added Babcock: "Tampa was rewarded with a 2-1 win, so why would you forecheck when you can wait? They forecheck when they get the opportunity. They wait for transition and they go like crazy. And it's been very successful for them. Their coach is a real good coach and they have good players and they play a good system that works for them."

EDIT:

Source: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=600195&navid=DL|NHL|home

Edited November 10, 2011 by Heaten

[Konnan511 1,736]

The Lightning won and the fans (the ones that I have talked to) don't mid this style because they are winning. Look at the cups the Devils won doing the same thing, I doubt ther fan base cared they played the trap. Stevie and the coach get paid to win, not to appease fan boys.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

It would be wrong to penalize a team that doesn't want to play into the trap. That's just giving other teams more reason to use the trap.

Both sides are equally wrong. A team is just as much at fault for not forecheck pressuring as a team not advancing the puck. There will have to be a rule change of some kind in the future to combat this.

I agree. I'm not sure how one team can be singled out for this happening. I hope the league doesn't make a knee-jerk reaction with any changes.

The Lightning won and the fans (the ones that I have talked to) don't mid this style because they are winning. Look at the cups the Devils won doing the same thing, I doubt ther fan base cared they played the trap. Stevie and the coach get paid to win, not to appease fan boys.

FWIW Philly scored first, despite the trap- Tampa then stopped playing the trap. I'm not sure if it was implemented as severely after Tampa tied the game. Tampa did win, but it wasn't because Philly sat back on their breakout.

[drumnj 459]

The Lightning won and the fans (the ones that I have talked to) don't mid this style because they are winning. Look at the cups the Devils won doing the same thing, I doubt ther fan base cared they played the trap. Stevie and the coach get paid to win, not to appease fan boys.

Yup...totally, fans of the Devils are filling their arena every night for the past 10 years.

They are winning alright, all the way to the poor house.

[miller76 463]

I hope I never watch another game that has 64 face offs in it again.

That and the refs were so in shock they failed to blow the whistle, make the delay of game calls. Rule 73 I think.

Edited November 10, 2011 by miller76

[SDavis35 140]

I see nothing wrong with playing a 1-3-1 defence, but I don't think that should mean no forecheckers, that's where I get annoyed. Philly is the first(?) to exploit it like this, but it's not an unbeatable tactic.

[WorkingOvertime 536]

I hope I never watch another game that has 64 face offs in it again.

That and the refs were so in shock they failed to blow the whistle, make the delay of game calls. Rule 73 I think.

By the rule, they can only use that rule if the puck is not being played. Therefore, when Philly skated around and passed within their zone they were playing/moving the puck. I believe the NHL called the officials during a stoppage to clarify this rule. The referees were told not to interfere with the coaching strategies as long as the puck was being moved.