Other NHL games 2013-2014 season

[bhaw]

So Milbury's solution to everything now is to fight/vengeance. If you missed it, Prust called out Krieder for crashing into Price, saying he did it against Fleury (he did) and that's what he does. He also injured Anderson this year doing the same thing.

Milbury's response was along the lines of instead of going to the press, Montreal should just beat the crap out of Kreider or crash into Lundqvist.

I get how Cherry appeals to all the old school hockey fans in Canada, but the US isn't Canada, and it's not like there is a huge population of old school hockey fans. Wonder how long NBC will stick with the "violence is the answer" schtick.

[PghSkins]

U mad Chicago?

[offsides]

U mad Chicago?

Pretty sure they are now. Nice pass and deflection.

[mikey287]

Regardless of whether that was interference with Quick or not, that should have counted...what did they review there? They put the headset down and said, "no goal, goalie interference" - uh, you can't do that. I'm normally in support of the refs because they do a better job than many think...but I'm confused. I know goalie interference can't be reviewed and you wouldn't need to review a kick if goalie interference was the call...so...what were they discussing...I didn't see a back judge make a signal, but I saw the ref by the net clearly make a goal signal and a goal signal alone...that one is very curious...

[profpolisci]

So Milbury's solution to everything now is to fight/vengeance.

Unfortunately ...this appears to be the prevalent 'approach' in Toronto and one doubts it will change anytime soon.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Regardless of whether that was interference with Quick or not, that should have counted...what did they review there? They put the headset down and said, "no goal, goalie interference" - uh, you can't do that. I'm normally in support of the refs because they do a better job than many think...but I'm confused. I know goalie interference can't be reviewed and you wouldn't need to review a kick if goalie interference was the call...so...what were they discussing...I didn't see a back judge make a signal, but I saw the ref by the net clearly make a goal signal and a goal signal alone...that one is very curious...

I don't know the letter of the law but I think they were reviewing if Quick had the opportunity to make the save because of Toews' contact. They can't call the penalty retroactively but they can wave the goal off if there's illegal contact, I think...

Idk

[mikey287]

So Milbury's solution to everything now is to fight/vengeance. If you missed it, Prust called out Krieder for crashing into Price, saying he did it against Fleury (he did) and that's what he does. He also injured Anderson this year doing the same thing.

Milbury's response was along the lines of instead of going to the press, Montreal should just beat the crap out of Kreider or crash into Lundqvist.

I get how Cherry appeals to all the old school hockey fans in Canada, but the US isn't Canada, and it's not like there is a huge population of old school hockey fans. Wonder how long NBC will stick with the "violence is the answer" schtick.

Well, he said "defend it better or pummel him" essentially...and he's right in this case. People clamor "they don't call interference or clutching and grabbing or anything!" so Kreider is exceptionally fast and a college hockey player...college players wear all this stuff, they got the cage and they are impervious to everything and they don't have to answer for any actions...they hold their sticks high, they take full-on running leaps at players, goals are scored with 7 players in the key, just rugby on ice...because you can't get hurt and you don't have to answer for anything because of the dumb cages...

So, Kreider doesn't know any better...he's gonna do what he always did...skate really fast and just go for it...until, someone tells him enough of that and tags him...so, you can't slow him down because then that's "clutching and grabbing" and you can't feed him some manners because that's "old school" so you get what you get...

Not that violence is always the answer and Milbury is rarely correct...but you got a kid who is making a habit of going bowling for goalies, maybe it's time to learn him some manners...

[Gaucho]

Bollig didn't even try to stop Toffoli. He didn't even pretend to try to stop Toffoli.

[mikey287]

Regardless of whether that was interference with Quick or not, that should have counted...what did they review there? They put the headset down and said, "no goal, goalie interference" - uh, you can't do that. I'm normally in support of the refs because they do a better job than many think...but I'm confused. I know goalie interference can't be reviewed and you wouldn't need to review a kick if goalie interference was the call...so...what were they discussing...I didn't see a back judge make a signal, but I saw the ref by the net clearly make a goal signal and a goal signal alone...that one is very curious...

I don't know the letter of the law but I think they were reviewing if Quick had the opportunity to make the save because of Toews' contact. They can't call the penalty retroactively but they can wave the goal off if there's illegal contact, I think...

Idk

I'm not aware of that. I'll have to check the rulebook on it...I've watched a lot of hockey, and I don't recall that being used very often...

[Gaucho]

So Milbury's solution to everything now is to fight/vengeance. If you missed it, Prust called out Krieder for crashing into Price, saying he did it against Fleury (he did) and that's what he does. He also injured Anderson this year doing the same thing.

Milbury's response was along the lines of instead of going to the press, Montreal should just beat the crap out of Kreider or crash into Lundqvist.

I get how Cherry appeals to all the old school hockey fans in Canada, but the US isn't Canada, and it's not like there is a huge population of old school hockey fans. Wonder how long NBC will stick with the "violence is the answer" schtick.

Well, he said "defend it better or pummel him" essentially...and he's right in this case. People clamor "they don't call interference or clutching and grabbing or anything!" so Kreider is exceptionally fast and a college hockey player...college players wear all this stuff, they got the cage and they are impervious to everything and they don't have to answer for any actions...they hold their sticks high, they take full-on running leaps at players, goals are scored with 7 players in the key, just rugby on ice...because you can't get hurt and you don't have to answer for anything because of the dumb cages...

So, Kreider doesn't know any better...he's gonna do what he always did...skate really fast and just go for it...until, someone tells him enough of that and tags him...so, you can't slow him down because then that's "clutching and grabbing" and you can't feed him some manners because that's "old school" so you get what you get...

Not that violence is always the answer and Milbury is rarely correct...but you got a kid who is making a habit of going bowling for goalies, maybe it's time to learn him some manners...

Or you could just call the penalty every time he does it.

[mikey287]

Regardless of whether that was interference with Quick or not, that should have counted...what did they review there? They put the headset down and said, "no goal, goalie interference" - uh, you can't do that. I'm normally in support of the refs because they do a better job than many think...but I'm confused. I know goalie interference can't be reviewed and you wouldn't need to review a kick if goalie interference was the call...so...what were they discussing...I didn't see a back judge make a signal, but I saw the ref by the net clearly make a goal signal and a goal signal alone...that one is very curious...

I don't know the letter of the law but I think they were reviewing if Quick had the opportunity to make the save because of Toews' contact. They can't call the penalty retroactively but they can wave the goal off if there's illegal contact, I think...

Idk

I'm not aware of that. I'll have to check the rulebook on it...I've watched a lot of hockey, and I don't recall that being used very often...

I looked briefly at Rule 69 and it states that even with incidental contact, it's not reviewable...

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Regardless of whether that was interference with Quick or not, that should have counted...what did they review there? They put the headset down and said, "no goal, goalie interference" - uh, you can't do that. I'm normally in support of the refs because they do a better job than many think...but I'm confused. I know goalie interference can't be reviewed and you wouldn't need to review a kick if goalie interference was the call...so...what were they discussing...I didn't see a back judge make a signal, but I saw the ref by the net clearly make a goal signal and a goal signal alone...that one is very curious...

I don't know the letter of the law but I think they were reviewing if Quick had the opportunity to make the save because of Toews' contact. They can't call the penalty retroactively but they can wave the goal off if there's illegal contact, I think...

Idk

I'm not aware of that. I'll have to check the rulebook on it...I've watched a lot of hockey, and I don't recall that being used very often...

If you remember Sutter had a very similar play that was waved off against Detroit this season. Really the only difference was the Toews' one was called a goal on the ice while on the Sutter play there wasn't any call at all, they just reviewed it.

[DocEmrick]

Chicago is going to win their 3rd cup in 5 years, and the Pens are in shambles. Things should have gone differently.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Chicago is going to win their 3rd cup in 5 years, and the Pens are in shambles. Things should have gone differently.

I hope we see Blackhawks/Rags so the Rags can get swept

[mikey287]

So Milbury's solution to everything now is to fight/vengeance. If you missed it, Prust called out Krieder for crashing into Price, saying he did it against Fleury (he did) and that's what he does. He also injured Anderson this year doing the same thing.

Milbury's response was along the lines of instead of going to the press, Montreal should just beat the crap out of Kreider or crash into Lundqvist.

I get how Cherry appeals to all the old school hockey fans in Canada, but the US isn't Canada, and it's not like there is a huge population of old school hockey fans. Wonder how long NBC will stick with the "violence is the answer" schtick.

Well, he said "defend it better or pummel him" essentially...and he's right in this case. People clamor "they don't call interference or clutching and grabbing or anything!" so Kreider is exceptionally fast and a college hockey player...college players wear all this stuff, they got the cage and they are impervious to everything and they don't have to answer for any actions...they hold their sticks high, they take full-on running leaps at players, goals are scored with 7 players in the key, just rugby on ice...because you can't get hurt and you don't have to answer for anything because of the dumb cages...

So, Kreider doesn't know any better...he's gonna do what he always did...skate really fast and just go for it...until, someone tells him enough of that and tags him...so, you can't slow him down because then that's "clutching and grabbing" and you can't feed him some manners because that's "old school" so you get what you get...

Not that violence is always the answer and Milbury is rarely correct...but you got a kid who is making a habit of going bowling for goalies, maybe it's time to learn him some manners...

Or you could just call the penalty every time he does it.

But what's the call? Letang does help him into Fleury, he does wipe out and go into Anderson, he does get a stick on his ankles before going into Price...it's a no-win situation...you call goalie interference and then it looks it sets a precedent that shoving people into your goalie is a penalty on the shovee...which will elicit even more anti-ref propaganda...sometimes you have to let the players police a game...this is a perfect instance for that...like or not...it goes beyond what a referee can do...

[mikey287]

Ok, they explained it. I guess...

[Gaucho]

Or you could just call the penalty every time he does it.

But what's the call? Letang does help him into Fleury, he does wipe out and go into Anderson, he does get a stick on his ankles before going into Price...it's a no-win situation...you call goalie interference and then it looks it sets a precedent that shoving people into your goalie is a penalty on the shovee...which will elicit even more anti-ref propaganda...sometimes you have to let the players police a game...this is a perfect instance for that...like or not...it goes beyond what a referee can do...

Probably true, yes.

[offsides]

So, did that explanation of the goal review make any sense to anybody?

[PghSkins]

NBC is great at picking up f bombs on the ice

[mikey287]

So, did that explanation of the goal review make any sense to anybody?

The only thing I took solace in was that the other officials on the ice got together and said no goal. The NBC crew (or the officiating crew, as Engblom is normally quick to pick up on this type of stuff) did a poor job and letting everyone know that the goal was actually ruled "no goal" on the ice. So, despite the point. It was actually no goal. So they reviewed it to see if the original shot scored.

[profpolisci]

That entire goal sequence...I've seen that fish before.

[offsides]

Really good chance for back to back with the Hawks. Can't count out this game LA team, but........... Did I hear them say Chicago is unbeaten at home in this year's playoff. I guess 3 in 5 years would be considered a dynasty.

[profpolisci]

Really good chance for back to back with the Hawks. Can't count out this game LA team, but........... Did I hear them say Chicago is unbeaten at home in this year's playoff. I guess 3 in 5 years would be considered a dynasty.

...with different goalies and plenty of turnaround.

[Avyran]

I wish we would've drafted Saad.

(Yes, I know all of the surrounding issues about it.)

[Desiato]

NP. The Kings play a rope-a-dope style. They'll let the Blackhawks punch themselves out the first few games before going in for the kill. :p