|
The results of the Cam Neely trade:
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
And 1 Cup.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Rotten Cookies posted:Unironically agree. Wacky Goalies yeah! Wacky goalies yeah! dont wait until luongo retires to do it too, he justs hosts in a mystery goalie costume
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Wilford Cutlery posted:The results of the Cam Neely trade: Now do one for the Thornton trade
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Ceyton posted:It's a 1 year / 675K contract, guys. That's almost surely going to be the least harmful move Bergevin makes all summer. Try to keep things in perspective. Your GM making dumbass moves, even small ones, are a bad sign, Lou's been doing dumb poo poo since Toronto got him but we're at the start of our window. Bergevin continuing his disastrous march of bullshit at the mid to final part of Montreal's window should be cause for concern and a one year contract for Andreas "so bad Colorado didn't want him" Martinsen is a horrible sign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
wojtek wolski is back!! https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/1314439 i figured 2 broken vertebrae, spinal cord damage, and the mega-concussion would have ended his career so this rules. go wojtek.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
here's a funny icy cold take https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3647126&pagenumber=56&perpage=40#post432891173 http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2015.html Austrian mook posted:The New Jersey Devils will make the 2014-15 Stanely Cup playoffs
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Zamboni Jesus was cool
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
hifi posted:here's a funny icy cold take https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3647126&pagenumber=56&perpage=40#post432891173 Oh the halcyon days of HAS fretting over Bergevin taking PK to arbitration, Molson stepping in and telling him to give Subban what he wants and then we thought we would never have to worry again.  We should've known Bergevin was a piece of poo poo. We... should... have... known... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
We thought we were safe with the NMC. We were wrong. Also I'm really glad I kept in touch with all the HAS members who left on twitter/fb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Competition committee has proposed two rule changes that will do precisely squat. No time-out calls allowed after icing, and quote:Rule 80.4: The Committee recommends a change so that when a team has a power-play and a player on the team at full strength causes a stoppage of play as the result of striking the puck with a high stick in the offensive zone, the resulting face-off shall be made in the neutral zone on the nearest face-off spot. This makes the rule consistent with the how the face-off is addressed when there is a stoppage under the same circumstances when both teams are at full strength. so basically now get ready for every goalie to have an equipment issue when their team ices the puck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
No time out after icing just means that no teams will save their time outs and we'll get more coach's challenges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
I'd forgotten Kovalchuk's contract was terminated because he went back to Russia. It would be his rights Columbus would have to trade for, then, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:I'd forgotten Kovalchuk's contract was terminated because he went back to Russia. It would be his rights Columbus would have to trade for, then, right? Nope, Kovalchuk's rights cannot be traded. He must sign with Jersey first before he's traded. (Okay well his rights can be traded if every GM agrees to it, but that won't happen.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:No time out after icing just means that no teams will save their time outs and we'll get more coach's challenges. Apparently this had already happened to some degree. Timeouts after icings were way down after the challenge started.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Thufir posted:Apparently this had already happened to some degree. Timeouts after icings were way down after the challenge started. I wonder how much if at all that has contributed to injuries. Guys who get gassed as gently caress can't protect themselves very well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Thufir posted:Apparently this had already happened to some degree. Timeouts after icings were way down after the challenge started. I really don't understand why the penalty for an incorrect challenge is the loss of a timeout. The only reason I can see is that it's because football does it that way, even though timeouts in football and hockey have entirely different significance. In football losing one of your three timeouts can have a substantial impact on the outcome of a game and clock management. In hockey it just means your guys might be a bit less rested when you need them. I think getting a challenge wrong should result in a delay of game penalty. It's a punishment more in line with the spirit of what occurs in football, and that's exactly what it is (the coach wasting everyone's time). It might even cause teams to hesitate using them in those situations where it comes down to the grainiest single frame to determine if a guy was onside or not. Who am I kidding? Coaches would just challenge anyways and refs would be terrified of influencing the outcome and everything would be successful no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:I really don't understand why the penalty for an incorrect challenge is the loss of a timeout. The only reason I can see is that it's because football does it that way, even though timeouts in football and hockey have entirely different significance. In football losing one of your three timeouts can have a substantial impact on the outcome of a game and clock management. In hockey it just means your guys might be a bit less rested when you need them. I think the way challenges are working now completely misses the point of why people wanted challenges in the first place. People want challenges to correct obviously blown calls (like Duchene's famous offside goal), not to make sure the call was perfect. IMO if an offside isn't obvious in real-time, it's close enough that it should count. I think the refs and linesmen are probably going to want to get it right once they review it, so they don't look like assholes, which is why we end up with 10 minutes of them staring at slowmo on a tiny screen. I think they should put a time limit on the review, like 30 seconds, or only show them the replay in realtime. That would save them some face, limit the time it takes, and should still catch the worst examples. Goalie interference is a little more complicated I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
So this is incredible and it's going to take a little time to soak it all in and evaluate it. https://twitter.com/RK_Stimp/status/872438043378057217
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Thufir posted:I think the way challenges are working now completely misses the point of why people wanted challenges in the first place. People want challenges to correct obviously blown calls (like Duchene's famous offside goal), not to make sure the call was perfect. IMO if an offside isn't obvious in real-time, it's close enough that it should count. I think the refs and linesmen are probably going to want to get it right once they review it, so they don't look like assholes, which is why we end up with 10 minutes of them staring at slowmo on a tiny screen. I think they should put a time limit on the review, like 30 seconds, or only show them the replay in realtime. That would save them some face, limit the time it takes, and should still catch the worst examples. The problem with goalie interference is its such a judgment call for the refs and nobody knows from one series to the next how they're gonna call it. The offsides thing I'm torn on. On the one hand I hate seeing goals disallowed in a sport that really needs offense and it's annoying how after every goal you see some smug coach squinting at the replay monitor below their bench to see if they can get it disallowed on the slightest of technicalities. On the other hand if you are offsides you're offsides so maybe don't break the rules if you want your goal to count. I guess I should ultimately be happy with the challenge because the Pens might have lost to Tampa last year without it. Drouin had that offsides goal to put the Lightning up 1-0 in game 6 and maybe that's a different game without the challenge to take that away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Thufir posted:I think the way challenges are working now completely misses the point of why people wanted challenges in the first place. People want challenges to correct obviously blown calls (like Duchene's famous offside goal), not to make sure the call was perfect. IMO if an offside isn't obvious in real-time, it's close enough that it should count. I think the refs and linesmen are probably going to want to get it right once they review it, so they don't look like assholes, which is why we end up with 10 minutes of them staring at slowmo on a tiny screen. I think they should put a time limit on the review, like 30 seconds, or only show them the replay in realtime. That would save them some face, limit the time it takes, and should still catch the worst examples. I don't think it's possible to put a time cap on anything. What's the point of a review if it's not to make sure something was correct in the first place. If it's "correct so long as you're certain within 30 seconds" then it's not really a review, it's more a confirmation. It's the same with putting an arbitrary time limit on how long before a goal is scored can something be reviewed. What's to say a missed offside 40 seconds before the goal didn't fundamentally change the outcome of the attacking play? Rather than trying to limit when they can take place or how long they have to be resolved, I think the best course of action is to discourage teams from making a hail mary shot at overturning a goal by making the punishment for being wrong actually meaningful. I am in favour of scrapping goalie interference as reviewable though. It's a judgement call at the best of times, don't make it more complicated than it already is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Possession change. Make it possession change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Possession change. Make it possession change. The NHL doesn't even have a reliable way to determine when possession changes hands during a delayed penalty and that immediately results in a whistle. The last thing the league needs is coaches crowing about what constitutes a change of possession during active play while trying to challenge a goal. I want things sped up here, not slowed down even further.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:The problem with goalie interference is its such a judgment call for the refs and nobody knows from one series to the next how they're gonna call it. Same with game 1 this year. Obviously it's hard to make an argument on a call so early in the game, but who knows, we could already be talking the series being over or Nashville taking a 3-1 lead into game 5. Here's my view on offsides challenges: make the blue line a plane. Get rid of this stupid "skate has to be on the ice" bullshit. It's a "historic" rule at this point for the sake of a historic rule, nothing else. Also, institute a time limit on reviews, starting from the moment the ref gets the tablet. If he can't make a call in 90 seconds, inconclusive evidence. The last change I'd personally make? All goal reviews are entirely done in Toronto. That way you don't have the refs having to review their own work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
All goal reviews done by me. I can make the time NHL, you know where to find me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
I'm almost positive goal reviews are solely Toronto's discretion already. Refs can call for them but i'm pretty sure it's Toronto who makes the decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Regular reviews are Toronto. Coach's challenges are the refs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
iospace posted:Here's my view on offsides challenges: make the blue line a plane. Oh dear god no. They can barely tell if a skate is touching the ice, can you imagine a ref trying to determine if some dude's skate blade hovering two feet off the ice is actually over the blue line or not with a playoff OT goal on the line?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Eliminate all reviews and accept that error is a part of the game. "If you look for perfection, you will never be satisfied." -Ilya Bryzgalov
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
iospace posted:Same with game 1 this year. Obviously it's hard to make an argument on a call so early in the game, but who knows, we could already be talking the series being over or Nashville taking a 3-1 lead into game 5. Yeah it should just be a plane and you should be allowed to drag one foot to stay onsides and whether that foot is in the air or not should be irrelevant. Aphrodite posted:All goal reviews done by me. After video review we have determined according to Aphrodite that gently caress the Habs this goal is going to count
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Oh dear god no. They can barely tell if a skate is touching the ice, can you imagine a ref trying to determine if some dude's skate blade hovering two feet off the ice is actually over the blue line or not with a playoff OT goal on the line? Why not, they do it with pucks being over a goal line. Put a camera overtop of the blue line, if the back of dude's skate isn't conclusively over the line before the puck is, he's onside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
The concept of make-up calls already exists in hockey, so what they should do is have a few people reviewing everything as the game progresses and if they see something, hand out retroactive penalties/goals! The fancystat crowd is already studying every frame with a magnifying glass so they just gotta tap into that system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The concept of make-up calls already exists in hockey, so what they should do is have a few people reviewing everything as the game progresses and if they see something, hand out retroactive penalties/goals! the vancouver canucks would be awarded a retroactive stanley cup, the only one they would ever win, just to make it sting for the fans even more
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Disallowing goals for obvious offsides should be the same as when they allow goals that originally went uncalled, like Gaudreau's last game. Then just get rid of the challenge altogether, since the outcome a goalie interference challenge seems to be even more random than who wins a shootout.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Why not, they do it with pucks being over a goal line. Put a camera overtop of the blue line, if the back of dude's skate isn't conclusively over the line before the puck is, he's onside. Maybe, but it's still very, very had to determine and the number of times there's a question as to whether the puck is over the line and off the ice pales in comparison to the number of times an attacker will go offside with his foot in the air. I general I hate subjectivity in reviews, and this is just adding an element to them that we don't need that's just going to further slow things down. The Forsberg offside was stupid, but at least the rule is black and white as to what counts or not. Adding a huge floating grey area doesn't help anything in terms of eliminating these infuriating delays from reviews. Aye Doc posted:the vancouver canucks would be awarded a retroactive stanley cup, the only one they would ever win, just to make it sting for the fans even more Retroactively take that cup from Boston and give it to Vancouver today and I'm going on a three month celebration bender. I don't care how we win a cup, just so long as the record books say we do before I die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
The offside challenge is getting to be like a PPG resulting from The Worst Penalty- you only like it if it favors your team in the end.Aphrodite posted:All goal reviews done by me. All reviews in favor of the Bruins, while Pittsburgh, Montreal, and Columbus never win one?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Oh dear god no. They can barely tell if a skate is touching the ice, can you imagine a ref trying to determine if some dude's skate blade hovering two feet off the ice is actually over the blue line or not with a playoff OT goal on the line? ... How is that harder? Seriously? You can use overhead angles for that, and side angles as well. The goal waved off in game 1? Good goal if they used plane vs skate on ice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
iospace posted:... How is that harder? Seriously? You can use overhead angles for that, and side angles as well. The goal waved off in game 1? Good goal if they used plane vs skate on ice. In that particular instance sure, but what about this?  Is this guy onside or offside? In the currently definition of the rule he's objectively offside no question. Sure overhead cameras would give a better view, but you're relying on cameras 75ft or well off to the side to determine the exact location of a tiny part of a player's skate (maybe only a couple centimetres in size) in 3D space. They have trouble locating the exact position of a puck and it's a consistent size and shape and the goal line is six feet wide compared to 85 ft for the blueline. It's a hell of a lot less clear cut than people seem to make it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
I think players are going to gently caress with the rules no matter what, and the only reason they should switch to a plane vs the line on the ground is if it's easier to call correctly. That one in game 2 where we had a grainy ice-level still was godawful because the skate blade was reflecting the light colored ice and disappeared into the white boards. That said, the entire "did he pick up his skate" review process is terrible TV and maybe they should change it because of that alone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
If the nhl spent more than fifteen bucks on their blue line cameras, it would be pretty easy to determine offsides. But nah, a 0.5 megapixel sensor recording at 3 fps is all we got budget for. Sorry guys!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:37
|
|