|
Gio posted:uh ok. that's a pretty dumb nonsensical rationalization. "amateurs that cheat are cheaters. pros that cheat are competitors" makes sense. Gaylord Perry made a career out of people thinking he was cheating even when he wasn't.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 05:42 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:15 |
|
Here's what oshie had to say about the "dive": "The natural reaction when you get hit is your head snaps back a little bit. It's unfortunate. Tough to be in that situation" Huh, maybe watching super slow mo replays makes it easy to ascribe intent to spontaneous reactions that happen in real time
|
# ? May 4, 2017 05:53 |
|
Or maybe Oshie is a noted diver.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 05:54 |
|
He stopped skating and grabbed his face, Mr. Simpson.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 05:56 |
|
Here's a secret about diving: everybody does it
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:10 |
|
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
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:14 |
|
Everyone poops too but there are still many ways you can do it worse.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:13 |
|
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 if only Nuge didn't suck they'd be a pretty dominant team
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:15 |
|
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 yet it wasn't called. Oilers win that game if not for that bullshit reffing.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. The Fix Is In and we will lose the series. Kilza fucked around with this message at 06:53 on May 4, 2017 |
# ? May 4, 2017 06:16 |
|
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. hey did you catch Ron pointing out in the intermission that the contact was completely outside the crease? With a still-frame and everything?
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:15 |
|
Ginette Reno posted:if only Nuge didn't suck they'd be a pretty dominant team That whole line has been cold since december. Nuge has hosed up so many times and cant' win a faceoff to save his life, and they're paying him $6m a year until 2021. They're going to get a 3rd liner and retain 3 mil of his contract when they trade hm.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:20 |
|
That's not the rule. If that had been Carey Price, it would have been called off. And not just because he would have sold it like The Rock sells a stunner.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:21 |
|
NHL Playoffs 2017: Cheat 2 Win
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:20 |
|
Aphrodite posted:That's not the rule. 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: JawKnee posted:
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:23 |
|
soggybagel posted:Goddamn penguins fans are annoying Present company excluded..... mostly.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:24 |
|
It means the refs cannot ask to review goalie interference themselves. It has to be initiated by a coach's challenge. Compared to say intent to blow, where the refs can ask for video to verify.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:25 |
|
the way it's written it seems to imply that the refs can't make any further judgements on such a play off of a video review, but fair enough. That wasn't why I re-posted that though: the contact was incidental, in that Perry (probably) didn't intend it (he would have had to have somehow seen Talbot's foot outside the crease from the back of his head), and in any case Talbot could have still made the save if he could have seen it, which was due to a screen - that was not affected by having his foot bumped into by Perry. Seems perfectly in line with 69.2 to me.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:27 |
|
The review rules are really loving stupid and probably need a good shakeup.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:29 |
|
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: Here's the rest of that rule 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. You have to be arguing that talbot is not in his crease right here. https://twitter.com/PeteBlackburn/status/859975999764746240
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:31 |
|
Powershift posted:Here's the rest of that rule 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? e: also I can't get that video to play seems like I'm not the only one either JawKnee fucked around with this message at 06:41 on May 4, 2017 |
# ? May 4, 2017 06:37 |
|
gently caress Corey Perry how haven't yall said that yet
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:40 |
|
ElwoodCuse posted:gently caress Corey Perry
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:43 |
|
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? 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.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:43 |
|
Powershift posted:http://www.nhlofficials.com/rule78.asp That's odd, rule 78 in the NHL Interactive rulebook is 'Goals', but okay. From the link you posted: 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. Are you saying Perry's contact isn't incidental?
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:47 |
|
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)
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:50 |
|
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 Called a good goal on the ice
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:52 |
|
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? Contact outside the crease is still interference, and he was in the crease
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:52 |
|
JawKnee posted:That's odd, rule 78 in the NHL Interactive rulebook is 'Goals', but okay. From the link you 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 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 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. e: copying from the janky PDF so bear with me. futher on in 69.3(page 95 and 96) 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. So the player having "his body, or a substantial portion there of" in the crease is "in the crease" in terms of the attacking player being in the crease, it should be the same for the goalie.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:56 |
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Contact outside the crease is still interference, and he was in the crease 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?
|
# ? May 4, 2017 06:54 |
|
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? 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.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 07:00 |
|
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. 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? Kalenn Istarion posted:As a referee, the rules are specifically vague about things like that to gif the refs wiggle room in judgement. Thanks! Is there e: wrong term JawKnee fucked around with this message at 07:03 on May 4, 2017 |
# ? May 4, 2017 07:00 |
|
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. Generally not. Rules are usually structured so that standard English language interpretations of words are sufficient. There's not likely a glossary section that says "incidental means blah", although I haven't read the NHL rule book cover to cover.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 07:02 |
|
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.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 07:04 |
|
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. 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"
|
# ? May 4, 2017 07:05 |
|
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. I tend to agree, but at the same time I'm ambivalent to the coaches challenge existing. There are already commercial breaks and such in the game. An unscheduled break doesn't really mean anything to me.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 07:03 |
|
Powershift posted:Well if this was a good goal, 100% because 98% of talbot was in the crease. 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.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 07:06 |
|
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.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 07:11 |
|
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.
|
# ? May 4, 2017 07:15 |
|
JawKnee posted:okay, so if we grant that - would a screen 3 inches further from Talbot have allowed him to make that save? 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. Powershift fucked around with this message at 07:18 on May 4, 2017 |
# ? May 4, 2017 07:16 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 03:15 |
|
Powershift posted:I think so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzGVIo75xGY To be honest, for as rigorous as freezing step-by-step can be for me on a youtube video, it looks like perry is entirely outside the crease on that entire play (from the overhead view) - talbots mask, stick, and foot are at best on the line e: food != foot JawKnee fucked around with this message at 07:25 on May 4, 2017 |
# ? May 4, 2017 07:20 |