Gio posted:

uh ok. that's a pretty dumb nonsensical rationalization. "amateurs that cheat are cheaters. pros that cheat are competitors" makes sense.

im not even sure what your argument is. diving should be allowed and praised? or not allowed but praised?

JawKnee posted:

the Oilers have looked super dangerous against both the Sharks and the Ducks - including tonight - and I hate that they're probably going to be that good next year if they get another year of good goaltending out of talbot

Kilza posted:

I'm just really concerned over Game 4. If the Oilers lose that then I feel like they lose the series. Then that'll be Kilza's time.

Kilza posted:

I really don't like blaming the refs, but holy poo poo the refs really decided Game 4 tonight. First Ducks goal was goalie interference (yet it counted), second Ducks goal was offside (yet it couldn't be challenged), fourth Ducks goal (the OT winner) should have been icing leading up to it. Oilers win that game if not for that bullshit reffing.


The Fix Is In and we will lose the series.

Ginette Reno posted:

if only Nuge didn't suck they'd be a pretty dominant team

Aphrodite posted:

That's not the rule.

JawKnee posted:

Duke Chin posted:

he still. has. to. be. given. the. opportunity. to. make. the. save. you. dumbs.

why is this so har
and there it is.

bias > the actual rules I guess okay

he had the opportunity to make the save. Moreover, let's have a look at a part of rule 69:

quote:

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

Ignore the bolding (mine) for a moment: I think the refs probably concluded that that contact was incidental, and the replay shows that it is initiated outside the crease. Now Corey Perry is a poo poo, but I doubt he meant to perfectly position his backswinging foot into Talbots.

e: forgot to address the bolding! A question about it, seems like the coach challenge overrides it? What's the point of that part of the rule now?

soggybagel posted:

Goddamn penguins fans are annoying

JawKnee posted:

it's not, that's true - I'll go ahead and grab my post from the gdt because I'd actually like to have some discussion about it rather than just insults:


he had the opportunity to make the save. Moreover, let's have a look at a part of rule 69:


Ignore the bolding (mine) for a moment: I think the refs probably concluded that that contact was incidental, and the replay shows that it is initiated outside the crease. Now Corey Perry is a poo poo, but I doubt he meant to perfectly position his backswinging foot into Talbots.

e: forgot to address the bolding! A question about it, seems like the coach challenge overrides it? What's the point of that part of the rule now?

quote:

(a) If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(b) If an attacking player initiates any contact, other than incidental contact, with the goalkeeper, while the goalkeeper is outside of his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(c) In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). See also Rule 47 (c) - Charging.

Powershift posted:

Here's the rest of that rule

ElwoodCuse posted:

gently caress Corey Perry

JawKnee posted:

Can you provide a source on that? I'm looking at the rulebook here and can't find that particular phrasing. Did you edit it? Or paraphrase it?

Powershift posted:

http://www.nhlofficials.com/rule78.asp

e: twitter gifs and vids have been flaky for a few hours. i've been trying to post that for a while and it finally worked for me, but everything but talbot's blade is in the crease, if that doesn't mean he's in the crease, then goalies have to literally watch their toes.

quote:

(NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.

Sharks Eat Bear posted:

honestly the rules seem just vague enough that it could go either way. what was the call on the ice? if they originally called it a good goal, i'm not surprised they didn't overturn it

if you read Table 16 in the PDF of the rulebook, it looks like it could fit under the situation of incidental contact with the goalie in the crease (no goal, and talbot was mostly but not entirely in the crease) or under the situation of a screen with a goalie on the edge of the crease (good goal)

JawKnee posted:

hey did you catch Ron pointing out in the intermission that the contact was completely outside the crease? With a still-frame and everything?

JawKnee posted:

That's odd, rule 78 in the NHL Interactive rulebook is 'Goals', but okay. From the link you posted:


Are you saying Perry's contact isn't incidental?

quote:

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed

quote:

this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Kalenn Istarion posted:

Contact outside the crease is still interference, and he was in the crease

JawKnee posted:

Okay, you're a ref as per what you've said in SAS threads, so I have some questions: Can you define incidental contact? I can't find a definition for it. Also when a rule talks about where contact is 'initiated', it would seem to mean where the point of contact is initiated, no?

Powershift posted:

He wasn't pushed, and talbot didn't move towards him, it could be claimed it wasn't incidental, but that's not the issue.

The initial contact occured with talbot almost entirely in his crease, with the blade of his skate outside of it. If that mean's he's not "in his crease", then goalies have to start treating the line around the crease as an impenetrable boarder they cannot cross when attackers are near the zone, or they're exposed to "accidental" bumps.

Rule 69.3 from here http://1.cdn.nhle.com/downloads/2016-17_RuleBook.pdf


the initial contact doesn't have to be within the goal crease, the goalkeeper has to be within the goal crease. If that is interpreted to mean every inch of the goalie has to be in the goal crease, goaltender interference disappears.

Kalenn Istarion posted:

As a referee, the rules are specifically vague about things like that to gif the refs wiggle room in judgement.

In this case, I think the ref made an error in judgement in determining the contact to be incidental with Talbot outside the crease.

JawKnee posted:

How much of the goalie has to be within the crease then? I think the rule is referring to where contact is initiated on each player - ie: is it initiated on a part of the player that is outside the crease. Also, that particular addendum tells refs not to pay too much attention to exactly where contact was made, but rather the nature of it.

And I agree, the rules are vague. I don't really know if that's good or bad - seems like everyone is very annoyed at coaches challenges slowing down the games by making sure offsides are strictly adhered to - so maybe a little vagueness is good?


Thanks! Is there specifically no definition of incidental contact? Or what 'initiating contact' means?

JawKnee posted:

How much of the goalie has to be within the crease then? I think the rule is referring to where contact is initiated on each player - ie: is it initiated on a part of the player that is outside the crease. Also, that particular addendum tells refs not to pay too much attention to exactly where contact was made, but rather the nature of it.

And I agree, the rules are vague. I don't really know if that's good or bad - seems like everyone is very annoyed at coaches challenges slowing down the games by making sure offsides are strictly adhered to - so maybe a little vagueness is good?


Thanks! Is there specifically no definition of incidental contact? Or what 'initiating contact' means?

shyduck posted:

Rules are made vague on purpose because the game is so fast and fluid that calling everything to the letter is just impossible. They're gonna miss things, but they'll crack down on other things to not only keep control, but keep the game moving. It's good that the open interpretation exists.

Powershift posted:

Well if this was a good goal, 100% because 98% of talbot was in the crease.

If the same rules apply to goalies as other players, it's "a significant portion of the body" of the player as decided by the ref. If 98% of talbot isn't a significant portion of him, i don't know what would be"

Powershift posted:

I think the problem is the rules are left vague under the assumption referees aren't paint drinking morons, and that's obviously dead loving wrong.

JawKnee posted:

okay, so if we grant that - would a screen 3 inches further from Talbot have allowed him to make that save?

I don't think so. I think the refs probably came to the same conclusion, and given that addendum - that they can judge based on the nature of the contact - I think they made the right call.

Kalenn Istarion posted:

Powershift posted:

I think so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzGVIo75xGY

You can see momentum is imparted on him.



He would have to drop his stick to move to his right and the shot hasn't been taken yet.


You included

Your favorite flavor is probably fire truck red.