Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
legend-1

2019 Playoffs

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, AWACSooner said:

The Don isn’t an idiot...he knows this’ll generate interest in the team and the league and that means more revenue and ratings.

 

Oh I agree but it sure is fun to watch. Don doesn't get a free skate on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OBXer said:

 

Oh I agree but it sure is fun to watch. Don doesn't get a free skate on this one.

Oh hell no he doesn’t!  Highly disagree with how he’s treated us fans and this team this year, but I still like the guy and watch the show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

If you want to complain about officiating, this is a case where I'm right there with you. There is no question that by the letter of the rule, Skog was offside. But in a Game 7, with the guy waiting at the open bench door for room to step in, with his stick in a useless position, and the puck on the other side of the ice?

 

I picked the Sharks to win, but at some point, situational reality has to be brought to bear. In a case like this, the officials should have the discretion to say that while technically an infraction, it had zero effect on the play, so SJ doesn't lose its TO for the challenge but the goal stands. Really, really crappy way to lose, or win, a Game 7, IMO--and could be avoided in the future if the league sees fit.

 

Top, while I agree about the "should", off the top of my head I'm trying to think of any rule in any sport that allows refs/ umps the discretion to call or not call an infraction based on how it effects the play and I'm having trouble coming up with any.  Maybe goalie interference comes closest?

 

I've got a question about the play.  Was Landeskog's replacement already on the ice at the time the puck crossed the blue line? When teams change lines they actually have more than 5 skaters on the ice at a time, but the ones leaving don't count towards a Too Many Men penalty if they're close enough to getting off and not involved in the play. Why wouldn't the same apply to an offsides call?

 

And here's another thought:  are the bench doors in the same place across arenas?  Any rules requiring "symmetry"? See where I'm going here with regard to placement?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LakeLivin said:

 

Top, while I agree about the "should", off the top of my head I'm trying to think of any rule in any sport that allows refs/ umps the discretion to call or not call an infraction based on how it effects the play and I'm having trouble coming up with any.  Maybe goalie interference comes closest?

 

I've got a question about the play.  Was Landeskog's replacement already on the ice at the time the puck crossed the blue line? When teams change lines they actually have more than 5 skaters on the ice at a time, but the ones leaving don't count towards a Too Many Men penalty if they're close enough to getting off and not involved in the play. Why wouldn't the same apply to an offsides call?

 

And here's another thought:  are the bench doors in the same place across arenas?  Any rules requiring "symmetry"? See where I'm going here with regard to placement?

In soccer there is a passive offside which us not called if player who is actually offside doesn't affect a play.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lake, the "too many men" call has a discretionary aspect to it if I am not mistaken. If a puck hits a skater in the act of leaving the ice during a line change, I believe the linesman has the option of blowing play dead rather than calling the penalty based on his "assessment" of intent.

As far as the specific play that brought this issue up, the confusing part to me is that it appears Landeskog's right skate is on the blue line. But I have to admit I haven't gone digging see all the angles, so maybe there is a better angle to use to overrule the call on the ice of good goal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 10:01 PM, LakeLivin said:

See where I'm going here with regard to placement?

I do, and it's a good point. To my knowledge there are variations from rink to rink. The only rule governing bench "geography" is that both benches in each rink must be "mirrors" of each other, so both teams are faced with the same door placements relative to the rink surface/markings.

 

Landeskog's replacement being on the ice or not was not the issue; the call was that he was still in the zone, thus making the play offside when the puck crossed the blue line into the Sharks' end. I get what you're saying but it's not the issue here; it's his proximity to the blue line.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding officials' discretion; I think it exists on literally every call. Faulk closed his hand on the puck on his breakaway goal vs. the Isle, but it was let go. I've also seen guys who never closed their hand on the puck get called for doing so. TT embellished when he went down against Boston--if you agree that going down unnecessarily constitutes embellishment. Bishop embellished when he went down and stayed there after that shot to the shoulder, but the refs have discretion in determining if a player is seriously enough injured to warrant a stoppage. In that case, they knew his history and got it right: he was fine and just trying to get a free whistle. So why wasn't Bishop tagged for embellishment? Maybe he would have been, if the Stars had managed to control the puck? Instead the Blues scored, so if there was a delayed call, the goal would have wiped it out. All examples of discretion and its effects.

 

When you introduce video review, discretion becomes a whole different question, because you must to go with whatever the video shows. The offside rule is clear: If an offensive player is still on the ice and in the O-zone when the puck crosses back in from neutral ice, the play is offside, period. That hard-and-fast hewing to the letter of the rule is what prompted the goal being called back, despite Landeskog clearly having his back to the ice, going off, and not being anywhere near the play. Kudos to him for taking blame, and rightly so; he was, absolutely, technically, offside. But he had nothing to do with the play, in much the same way you suggest vis-a-vis line changes.

 

Here's something else to think about. How many times have we seen two guys mugging each other as they make their way up the ice, behind the play? If a goal is scored while they are doing so, should the goal be called back due to the refs not noticing the roughing incident, which began before the puck tickled the twine? 

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we lose this round and the Sharks win, I’m on their bandwagon for the SCF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, AWACSooner said:

If we lose this round and the Sharks win, I’m on their bandwagon for the SCF

Most definitely SJ over Boston.  Add Big Joe into it the choice is that much easier.

 

although TBH I wouldn’t be as upset if Big Joe won his cup against the Canes.

Edited by gocanes0506

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 10:12 PM, top-shelf-1 said:

I do, and it's a good point. To my knowledge there are variations from rink to rink. The only rule governing bench "geography" is that both benches in each rink must be "mirrors" of each other, so both teams are faced with the same door placements relative to the rink surface/markings.

 

Landeskog's replacement being on the ice or not was not the issue; the call was that he was still in the zone, thus making the play offside when the puck crossed the blue line into the Sharks' end. I get what you're saying but it's not the issue here; it's his proximity to the blue line.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding officials' discretion; I think it exists on literally every call. Faulk closed his hand on the puck on his breakaway goal vs. the Isle, but it was let go. I've also seen guys who never closed their hand on the puck get called for doing so. TT embellished when he went down against Boston--if you agree that going down unnecessarily constitutes embellishment. Bishop embellished when he went down and stayed there after that shot to the shoulder, but the refs have discretion in determining if a player is seriously enough injured to warrant a stoppage. In that case, they knew his history and got it right: he was fine and just trying to get a free whistle. So why wasn't Bishop tagged for embellishment? Maybe he would have been, if the Stars had managed to control the puck? Instead the Blues scored, so if there was a delayed call, the goal would have wiped it out. All examples of discretion and its effects.

 

When you introduce video review, discretion becomes a whole different question, because you must to go with whatever the video shows. The offside rule is clear: If an offensive player is still on the ice and in the O-zone when the puck crosses back in from neutral ice, the play is offside, period. That hard-and-fast hewing to the letter of the rule is what prompted the goal being called back, despite Landeskog clearly having his back to the ice, going off, and not being anywhere near the play. Kudos to him for taking blame, and rightly so; he was, absolutely, technically, offside. But he had nothing to do with the play, in much the same way you suggest vis-a-vis line changes.

 

Here's something else to think about. How many times have we seen two guys mugging each other as they make their way up the ice, behind the play? If a goal is scored while they are doing so, should the goal be called back due to the refs not noticing the roughing incident, which began before the puck tickled the twine? 

 

Sounds like we may not be in disagreement.  I thought you were talking about codifying discretion on calls rather than the refs just exercising it, which I know happens all the time.

 

p.s. Pretty sure Faulk's play wasn't a penalty, even technically.  I remember actually looking up the rule a couple years ago after a huge debate on another board about what should have been a penalty when an opponent caught the puck, skated a couple strides with it, and then tossed it forward (and went around I think it was Slavin) to score a goal. If he had dropped it immediately he would have been ok, but as it was, he should have penalized for skating with the puck.

 

67.2 Minor Penalty – Player - A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed for “closing his hand on the puck”. A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who, while play is in progress, picks up the puck off the ice with his hand.

 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey! we are only down one game. You'd think from some of these posts we were down 3-0. A series don't start til you lose at home. I don't know who will win this series, but, we ain't done yet.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

67.2 Minor Penalty – Player - A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. If he catches it and skates with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over his opponent, a minor penalty shall be assessed for “closing his hand on the puck”. A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who, while play is in progress, picks up the puck off the ice with his hand.

I appreciate you putting this up. Maybe the rule has been modified over the years, because back in my competitive playing days, catching the puck was not an option. You could knock it down with your closed or open hand, but the minute you held it the play was blown dead. 

 

I do think a case can be made that Faulk sought a territorial advantage. He takes a stride while turning, so he can place it in front of him, putting his body between the puck and the nearest defender. But I can also see how refs would deem it okay, because he did it all in one motion. Regardless, it was a gorgeous goal, and the breakdown was ultimately on the Isles; they have to know the guy is getting sprung and be ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

I thought you were talking about codifying discretion on calls rather than the refs just exercising it, which I know happens all the time.

Oh, I am, but just in the specific conditions of Landeskog's offside, which render it of zero consequence. I think that when those conditions exist and are clearly visible upon video review, the refs should be allowed to let the goal stand. They lack that ability at present due to the strictures of the video review for offsides, i.e.: if the guy is on the ice in the zone, the goal is called back--even if he's at the bench, getting off, has his back to the play, and the puck is in a different zip code.

Edited by top-shelf-1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

I thought you were talking about codifying discretion on calls rather than the refs just exercising it, which I know happens all the time.

One more thing on this, since at this point it's probably just us giving a rip anyways.

 

To me, the best-case scenario would be getting all the bench doors inside the neutral zone. That would make it impossible to be offside while trying to get off the ice. Whether it's possible while keeping both benches on the same side of the rink I'm not sure, but I'm guessing no, or they've have done it a long time ago. So put one player bench on each side of the rink. That would end the extracurricular crap between teams when both are changing lines, and it would make the access to benches the same for both teams all game long (no "long change" in the second period).

 

I'd also like to see the sin bins moved, one each, to the end of the rink. When you get a penalty, you serve it in the box in your end, allowing the sprung player to re-join the play more quickly (assuming the team with the man advantage is set up on the PP when the penalty expires). The official scorer's table/referee's crease could remain in the neutral zone, at one or the other end of one of the players benches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, top-shelf-1 said:

Oh, I am, but just in the specific conditions of Landeskog's offside, which render it of zero consequence. I think that when those conditions exist and are clearly visible upon video review, the refs should be allowed to let the goal stand. They lack that ability at present due to the strictures of the video review for offsides, i.e.: if the guy is on the ice in the zone, the goal is called back--even if he's at the bench, getting off, has his back to the play, and the puck is in a different zip code.

 

Yeah, I don't see why a changing player is treated differently for offsides as he is for too many men on the ice.  If he's considered out of the play and "part of the bench" for the one, why not the other?  I can't see any way to game that situation to create an advantage, it's not like you're getting the man coming on out in front of the play, just the opposite.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, AWACSooner said:

If we lose this round and the Sharks win, I’m on their bandwagon for the SCF

 

Just remember if the Sharks win and Canes win, the Cup finals will air on the SyFy network...because it will be a Sharknado! 😜

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And somehow the Blues managed to come out of the Shark Tank with a split...ugh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squeezing out stuff and the previous analogy he used just really turn my stomach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OBXer said:

 

 

 

I would start McE.  You never know, he may win out.  You just NEVER know.  He actually had a great game 3, we just couldn't score for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...