|
|
Post by jkr on Nov 2, 2014 7:00:53 GMT -5
Didn't see a second of the game, but Reimer with 45 saves vs. Chicago in a 3-2 win for the Leafs. 3 wins in a row….and I bet the lawn chairs are back on Yonge St. and Reimer is the new #1, according to fans. What's changed in Toronto since last season? They give up 47 shots & win. Sounds familiar. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 2, 2014 12:07:24 GMT -5
Didn't see a second of the game, but Reimer with 45 saves vs. Chicago in a 3-2 win for the Leafs. 3 wins in a row….and I bet the lawn chairs are back on Yonge St. and Reimer is the new #1, according to fans. What's changed in Toronto since last season? They give up 47 shots & win. Sounds familiar. Ottawa has been giving up shots too ... you have to wonder just how long they can continue to do this ... big win for Toronto, though ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Nov 2, 2014 12:56:34 GMT -5
Reimer gave up a lot of juicy rebounds when I was watching. The Hawks narrowly missed on a few of them. No doubt Reimer was at his acrobatic best, but he was scrambling a lot too.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 2, 2014 13:35:29 GMT -5
Reimer gave up a lot of juicy rebounds when I was watching. The Hawks narrowly missed on a few of them. No doubt Reimer was at his acrobatic best, but he was scrambling a lot too. So, Chicago had "one of those games". Happens to the best of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 2, 2014 15:20:53 GMT -5
Reimer gave up a lot of juicy rebounds when I was watching. The Hawks narrowly missed on a few of them. No doubt Reimer was at his acrobatic best, but he was scrambling a lot too. Well, he had some luck, too ... there were a few pucks that simply hit him wherever ... he was getting peppered, though ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 4, 2014 11:00:11 GMT -5
Goal of the year candidate. St. Louis Blues' Vladimir Tarasenko vs. the Rangers. Nov. 3, 2014.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Nov 4, 2014 11:07:15 GMT -5
Watched that this morning. Greassssy. I think the most impressive part was his weaving through the defenders at the line. Just flew through them. He was sort of 1 on 4, and I think they must have thought he was going to chip it in because they were all flat-footed.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 4, 2014 11:16:29 GMT -5
Watched that this morning. Greassssy. I think the most impressive part was his weaving through the defenders at the line. Just flew through them. He was sort of 1 on 4, and I think they must have thought he was going to chip it in because they were all flat-footed. gotta take note of the Ranger D right now too, BLNY. Boyle, McDonagh, Klein, and Moore out. Marc Staal and Dan Girardi their top two. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 4, 2014 11:17:26 GMT -5
Karlsson was -4 against Boston ... he's one of the guys killing me in my fantasy pool ... brutal ... I've got PK, Dis . . . I think the two of them are playing about the same . . . brutal is putting it mildly. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Nov 4, 2014 11:34:01 GMT -5
Watched that this morning. Greassssy. I think the most impressive part was his weaving through the defenders at the line. Just flew through them. He was sort of 1 on 4, and I think they must have thought he was going to chip it in because they were all flat-footed. gotta take note of the Ranger D right now too, BLNY. Boyle, McDonagh, Klein, and Moore out. Marc Staal and Dan Girardi their top two. Good point. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 4, 2014 16:02:10 GMT -5
Was flipping back and forth between the Leafs/Chicago and Bruins/Senators ... Reimer was the difference in Toronto, while Karlsson was -4 against Boston ... he's one of the guys killing me in my fantasy pool ... brutal ... Cheers. yeah, I saw one forward give him a little deke in the face off circle, go past him and score. All he had to do was take the body, even a little, and the play stops. He seemed really hesitant to get involved. That's gotta drive Walrus nuts. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 6, 2014 9:04:42 GMT -5
I've been clamouring for a Coach's Challenge for what seems like a decade….certainly ever since Koivu's eye injury in 2006.
Only a matter of time before it's implemented. The missed Burrows elbow on Emelin in Vancouver, on which a goal was scored, being a key piece of evidence.
Then last night in New York, Hagelin highsticked Dekeyser...drew blood…with ref Steve Kozari seemingly looking right at the play. Kozari calls over partner Peel and the linesmen.
No call. 2-2 tie, midway through the third. Detroit should've been on a 4:00 PP.
Babcock was livid. Rangers ended up winning in 4-3 in OT.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 6, 2014 11:01:06 GMT -5
Have you noticed a certain carelessness on the Rangers WRT the opposition. Kreider takes out goalies willy nilly, Moore knocks people silly, Hagelin waves a stick at a players face, when the puck is no where near. Odd, huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Nov 7, 2014 1:37:58 GMT -5
Just watched the last 13 minutes of the Canucks/Sharks game, with the Canucks winning 3-2. Thornton scored with -.2 seconds left (in other words, .2 seconds after the game ended. There was another horrible icing call with about 20 seconds left. Puck just crawled over the line and Couture was doing his best impression of a snail. The faceoff should never have gone back into the Canucks end, and the refs even conferred over it. It just shows they hate to admit they made a mistake. There has to be a better way. The Canucks deservedly won, but it could have easily gone the other way because of a really bad call. Not quite as bad as the phantom trip against Holtby, but it was terrible. What kind of judgment do these guys have?
One thing I can say, it was a real treat to watch two teams that are so well coached. Everyone's in the right place, the puck moves out quickly, line changes are snappy and quick. It's so easy to recognize a team that's well coached and the Sharks and now the Canucks both have solid coaching. Willie Desjardins has been a huge upgrade for Vancouver.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 7, 2014 9:21:37 GMT -5
Watched a lot of the Leafs-Avalanche last night.
Toronto's Danil Winnick fell awkwardly after a routine hit. Landed on shoulder/neck area then continued to roll on his neck.
Then Gardiner took a puck off the knee and did not return.
The game was all Bernier…should've been over in the second period.
Avs went up 3-2 with about 8 minutes left. During the final couple of minutes, they sat back….they gave the Leafs the blue line at one point, which led to the 3-3 extra-man goal.
Colorado won in a shootout with all shooters beating Bernier. But he was the only reason the Leafs got a point.
Without goaltending and Kessel, these guys would be closer to McDavid than to the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 10, 2014 13:29:17 GMT -5
I've been clamouring for a Coach's Challenge for what seems like a decade….certainly ever since Koivu's eye injury in 2006. Only a matter of time before it's implemented. The missed Burrows elbow on Emelin in Vancouver, on which a goal was scored, being a key piece of evidence. Then last night in New York, Hagelin highsticked Dekeyser...drew blood…with ref Steve Kozari seemingly looking right at the play. Kozari calls over partner Peel and the linesmen. No call. 2-2 tie, midway through the third. Detroit should've been on a 4:00 PP. Babcock was livid. Rangers ended up winning in 4-3 in OT. A Coach's Challenge will not work in hockey. Not to the degree fans keep clamouring for it. Let's take offsides. If a goal is scored and a coach challenges an offside call, great take away the goal and the face off is outside the blueline. BUT for a Coach's Challenge to work, it has to work in reverse as well. That's where hockey falls flat. Let's say an offsides is called and the player would have been on a breakaway. Obviously the whistle is blown, the player's coach challenges and he WAS onside. Then what?? Do you give that player a penalty shot now? What if he was onside but not all alone, but close to beating his defender?? Coach's Challenge works in football, tennis, baseball, etc because those sports are start-and-stop sports. The infractions in hockey happen as the play is ongoing and you have to back-track usually. Even the one alot of people want to jump on. Head shots. The only way a Coach's Challenge will work there is if the rule is changed so that ALL head shots are penalties. If not, you still have interpretation as to if the player meant to hit the head, making the challenge useless. I don't see a day where the NHL starts using a challenge on penalty calls. All goals are already reviewed so a challenge there is moot. In football, if you lose a challenge you lose a time-out. You only get one timeout in hockey and it is pretty meaningless, so will they now do like the stick measurement rule and award a penalty to the team if they are wrong? Are they going to allow challenges on all types of missed penalties? (of which there are many on each and every shift, if you want to go by the letter of the rule book). I think the only instance in which a Challenge will work effectively is highsticking. That's cut and dry. All sticks to the face are penalties. If you challenge, they get the penalty if you are right. If you are wrong, there lies the debate, but I guess it will be a penalty under the current NHL format (delay of game). |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 10, 2014 13:44:41 GMT -5
The Coach's Challenge doesn't have to encompass the entire spectrum of calls/non-calls. Put parameters on it.
Start with the obvious, egregious missed fouls that should lead to major penalties. Go with two out of the gate:
1. Missed high sticks that draw blood.
2. Missed flagrant head shots.
Both rather easily determined by video review.
That's a logical start and would work wonders, IMO.
And even if those two turn out to be the only feasible cases….so be it.
And yep…if the challenging coach is wrong, a delay of game penalty is assessed. Just like the stick measurement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 10, 2014 14:03:20 GMT -5
The Coach's Challenge doesn't have to encompass the entire spectrum of calls/non-calls. Put parameters on it. Start with the obvious, egregious missed fouls that should lead to major penalties. Go with two out of the gate: 1. Missed high sticks that draw blood. 2. Missed flagrant head shots. Both rather easily determined by video review. That's a logical start and would work wonders, IMO. And even if those two turn out to be the only feasible cases….so be it. And yep…if the challenging coach is wrong, a delay of game penalty is assessed. Just like the stick measurement. But the problem with the head shot rule is that the penalty is worded "as targeting the head". That's a judgement call even with video review, and usually done by Quintal. He wont be working the war-room in Toronto nightly. And as we see time and time again, Alex Ovechkin is exhibit A, it is possible to hit the head and it still be deemed legal. The NHL has asinine parameters on that stuff already .. did the victim turn into the hit? Did the victim have his head down? ..etc .. I agree with your premise ... but rule changes will have to be implemented especiaslly with head shots, for it to be effective and the NHL is eons away from getting their act together on that. I'm guessing Patrick Roy would have loved a challenge the other night when MacKinnon was given 5 minutes for boarding. He shoved the guy a little, the guy lost an edge after the shove and went into the boards. What would the Challenge have accomplished there I wonder? Did the shove cause the edge to be lost? Its still a judgement call. So if Roy challenged, MacKinnon gets 7 minutes? I guess its worth it, to try and save your best player off for 5 minutes ... on a play like that, without clear cut black white guidelines, I just don't see calls getting overturned. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 10, 2014 14:26:01 GMT -5
The NHL has asinine parameters on that stuff already .. did the victim turn into the hit? Did the victim have his head down? did my wife yell at me this morning as I left the house? did the pizza give me indigestion? etc . . . |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 10, 2014 14:32:28 GMT -5
Agree Skilly. It could be a real mess.
I guess I'm talking about the outrageously obvious calls.
Don't even have to go to a coach's challenge for those.
The video booth can call down as they do for goals.
The Williams' highstick on Koivu. 4:00.
The Burrows elbow to Emelin's head. 5:00.
The Cooke blindside on Savard. 5:00. (That hit sparked the outcry for the crackdown on head shots. And why? Because it was caught on camera and it was beyond obvious to all. Not only did 4 officials miss it, but Colin Campbell didn't think it was worth a suspension.)
We've come a long way in 4 years…no way that play doesn't get a suspension now. But let's use video review to catch headshots and draw-blood highsticks during a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobs_HABit on Nov 10, 2014 14:43:05 GMT -5
And while I generally agree with your thoughts Skilly, in your example above (re. offsides), hockey can take a lesson from football. The refs learned to let the play continue as opposed to whistling it dead with the thought being they can go back and correct it. To that end, in the case of an offside, if you're calling it, you better be fairly certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Nov 10, 2014 18:02:29 GMT -5
A Coach's Challenge will not work in hockey. Not to the degree fans keep clamouring for it. Let's take offsides. If a goal is scored and a coach challenges an offside call, great take away the goal and the face off is outside the blueline. BUT for a Coach's Challenge to work, it has to work in reverse as well. That's where hockey falls flat. Let's say an offsides is called and the player would have been on a breakaway. Obviously the whistle is blown, the player's coach challenges and he WAS onside. Then what?? Do you give that player a penalty shot now? What if he was onside but not all alone, but close to beating his defender?? Coach's Challenge works in football, tennis, baseball, etc because those sports are start-and-stop sports. The infractions in hockey happen as the play is ongoing and you have to back-track usually. Even the one alot of people want to jump on. Head shots. The only way a Coach's Challenge will work there is if the rule is changed so that ALL head shots are penalties. If not, you still have interpretation as to if the player meant to hit the head, making the challenge useless. I don't see a day where the NHL starts using a challenge on penalty calls. All goals are already reviewed so a challenge there is moot. In football, if you lose a challenge you lose a time-out. You only get one timeout in hockey and it is pretty meaningless, so will they now do like the stick measurement rule and award a penalty to the team if they are wrong? Are they going to allow challenges on all types of missed penalties? (of which there are many on each and every shift, if you want to go by the letter of the rule book). I think the only instance in which a Challenge will work effectively is highsticking. That's cut and dry. All sticks to the face are penalties. If you challenge, they get the penalty if you are right. If you are wrong, there lies the debate, but I guess it will be a penalty under the current NHL format (delay of game). Adding to Bobs' point... don't forget Skilly, video replay is not perfect in the NFL either: let's say a punt is being returned and the returner nearly steps out of bounds, the ref could always rule the play dead incorrectly. There would be no way of reversing that call, and that would hurt especially if the returner never even stepped out of bounds and was on his way to a touchdown. Video replay does not have to work both ways in order to improve the game imo. No matter what the sport, if a play is blown dead, there's not much that you can do in terms of finding out what could have been. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 11, 2014 11:27:36 GMT -5
Allegiance to a team and to alcohol certainly has its way of bringing out the worst in some people. Can't paint any entire fan base with the same brush, but the Leafs certainly have their share of idiots.
Who else would waste $15 worth of beer?
Imagine being seriously injured over something like that?
Morons.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 11, 2014 12:19:35 GMT -5
Allegiance to a team and to alcohol certainly has its way of bringing out the worst in some people. Can't paint any entire fan base with the same brush, but the Leafs certainly have their share of idiots. Who else would waste $15 worth of beer? Imagine being seriously injured over something like that? Morons. we ain't perfect ourselves, CH, not by a long shot. I've been at games here where it hasn't been nice . . . and at the last one a Habs fan sitting two rows in front of me "accidentally" spilled his beer over the head of a loud Sens fan (and was rightly escorted out). for the most part there is a camaraderie and good-natured joking between Habs and Sens fans, no matter who wins. however, you don't find that with regards to Leaf fans (rose-coloured glasses? nope). I think that Sens management would have more Leaf games here if they could, simply because the beer never stops selling. and this was nothing -- it's after the games that the fun begins. win or lose, some Leaf fans never shut up -- and I've been on the bus home where fights have broken out (I'd like to say they've all bee initiated by Leaf fans but I can't, although they have mostly been caused by Leaf fans). as with the Vancouver and yes, Montreal riots, it's not "real" fans as much as fringe idiots, but the paint brush is wide. I fear that in this case it will paint "hockey fans" poorly. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Nov 11, 2014 12:29:58 GMT -5
Agree Skilly. It could be a real mess. I guess I'm talking about the outrageously obvious calls. Don't even have to go to a coach's challenge for those. The video booth can call down as they do for goals. The Williams' highstick on Koivu. 4:00. The Burrows elbow to Emelin's head. 5:00. The Cooke blindside on Savard. 5:00. (That hit sparked the outcry for the crackdown on head shots. And why? Because it was caught on camera and it was beyond obvious to all. Not only did 4 officials miss it, but Colin Campbell didn't think it was worth a suspension.) We've come a long way in 4 years…no way that play doesn't get a suspension now. But let's use video review to catch headshots and draw-blood highsticks during a game. It's my opinion that the Cooke hit on Savard, and the lack of discipline from the NHL, is the reason the Bruins became what they've been since. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 11, 2014 13:24:04 GMT -5
Colin Campbell is on record in an email alluding to a personal grudge against Savard at the time. Plus, son Gregory had yet to join the Bruins.
So, not only did the Bruins decide to go the bully route, but there can be little doubt that Campbell gave them the green light, as if to say, "Sorry for the Savard thing (but I really didn't like him). And my son's on your team now….so….carte-blanche, boys!"
The Chara hit on Pacioretty…the nonsense throughout the playoffs. And still they needed Tim Thomas to play lights out.
That Cup has Colin Campbell's greasy fingerprints all over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 12, 2014 21:07:05 GMT -5
Leafs up 3-0 on Boston early in the second.
Kessel with the first 2. Nice shots, but from what solid NHL goalies would call bad angles.
Then Rask kicks a rebound right to Rielly for a mostly open net.
Julien calls a timeout.
I have more than a feeling that the Bruins are saving themselves up for the Habs.
EDIT:
Now 4-0 on a Leafs' PP....and Rask goes off for Svedberg. 4 GA on 16 shots.
Good, now both goalies will have seen action tonight.
EDIT:
Looks as if the Bruins are just going to coast this one out to a 7-2 loss.
EDIT: 5-0 on another Leafs' PP. Bruins are mailing it in....from the goalie out.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 12, 2014 22:40:11 GMT -5
Leafs win 6-1. Rask was off. The Bruins sagged after Kessel's 2nd bad angle goal that made it 2-0. Then it was 3-0 right away.
Toronto media/fans will be quite puffed up about this one, but the Bruins mailed that game in. Their minds were on the Habs, hence Rask starting in net tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 15, 2014 22:32:14 GMT -5
Malkin levelled Girardi behind the Pittsburgh net. Blindside....but clean hit, as the rules stand.
Will those blindside hits be the next to outlaw....or should they remain in the "keep your head up" category? I ask because those kinds of hits lead to concussions as well. Doesn't have to be a head shot. I wouldn't be surprised if Girardi misses a few games.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Nov 16, 2014 0:00:55 GMT -5
That's not clean. It's a charge at the very least. He came from a fair ways away to make that hit and had no intention of playing the puck. It's not a head shot, but that's not the only criteria for a clean or dirty hit.
|
|
