NHL Playoff Thread

[dave-O]

haha, Hal owns this thread tonight.

[hamilton]

Am I the only one who thought that that last icing call that was changed after the play went off the side of the net rather than being touched by Niemi?

[ollie]

Best game of the series and I've enjoyed them all. Go 7!

[Kanada Kev]

Great game last night!

Bettman was on fire and skewered Ron. Get better prepared next time Ron and bring the little king down a few notches. Better luck next time McLean.

[c-towns]

Anyone else hear this story yesterday? I thought it was hilarious.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=323240

[Kanada Kev]

Who got the puck last night? I was sure they were going to highlight that after the goal

[dave-O]

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't wondering the same thing, Kev!

[dave-O]

Elliotte Friedman: "A number of Flyers said that was the fastest game they ever played in."

[Whitey]

Who got the puck last night? I was sure they were going to highlight that after the goal

It was on TSN this morning, a Philly player gave it to Claude.

[Kanada Kev]

Elliotte Friedman: "A number of Flyers said that was the fastest game they ever played in."

BTW - what was up with Elliotte going on about it being a "NO NO" that they replayed the goal that was under review to the paying fans in the stands???

Why shouldn't they get to "review" it themselves?

[dave-O]

League rules.

I don't know the rationale behind it, but that's always been the rule - no replay on the big screen until the call has been decided.

[Whitey]

League rules.

I don't know the rationale behind it, but that's always been the rule - no replay on the big screen until the call has been decided.

Keeps the riots at bay.

[MrBigTime]

It was actually because they showed it twice before the call was made, that is the no-no... they are allowed to show it once...

They sure were quick on that horn though!! A bit trigger happy there...

I also couldn't believe they reviewed the goal so quickly and called it a good goal after the call on ice was no goal (by the pay going on)... it was pretty damn close, but still a goal me thinks

[Kanada Kev]

well, with more and more access to online streaming, etc. to smartphones they'll have to think up something else soon.

Was thinking during that play last night about what would have happened if Chicago had scored during the 1:27 of ensuing play (since the play was never whistled dead). Which goal would have counted?

Question

Team A scores takes a shot which may or may not have entered the net. The referee waves it off and play continues. Team B goes down the ice and scores a goal. Television replays show that the shot by Team A did in fact cross the goal line. Which goal counts?

Answer

Only the second goal. Team A is out of luck in a situation like this. There are no provisions in hockey rules for instant replay except for situations where the clock has already stopped; going "back in time" on the game clock is not allowed.

A similar situation happened a couple of years ago in the playoffs between Buffalo and Philadelphia. One of the Flyers took a shot that appeared to elude Hasek, who was livid. The goal was counted, but after the ensuing faceoff someone up in the TV booth took a closer look at the replay and noticed a hole in the webbing of the net; the shot had actually gone through the side of the net rather than through the goal mouth, and should not have counted. If it had been noticed before the center-ice faceoff, the goal probably would have been disallowed, but since play had continued the goal had to stand.

[MrBigTime]

Was thinking during that play last night about what would have happened if Chicago had scored during the 1:27 of ensuing play (since the play was never whistled dead). Which goal would have counted?

Question

Team A scores takes a shot which may or may not have entered the net. The referee waves it off and play continues. Team B goes down the ice and scores a goal. Television replays show that the shot by Team A did in fact cross the goal line. Which goal counts?

Answer

Only the second goal. Team A is out of luck in a situation like this. There are no provisions in hockey rules for instant replay except for situations where the clock has already stopped; going "back in time" on the game clock is not allowed.

A similar situation happened a couple of years ago in the playoffs between Buffalo and Philadelphia. One of the Flyers took a shot that appeared to elude Hasek, who was livid. The goal was counted, but after the ensuing faceoff someone up in the TV booth took a closer look at the replay and noticed a hole in the webbing of the net; the shot had actually gone through the side of the net rather than through the goal mouth, and should not have counted. If it had been noticed before the center-ice faceoff, the goal probably would have been disallowed, but since play had continued the goal had to stand.

I don't think this is right, because they did go "back in time" last night to when the goal was scored, and dropped the puck at centre with the same time remaining when the puck crossed the line.

I think your example is wrong, the first goal counts, as it should have.

I think I'm right, [color:purple]I usually am

[Booche]

I'm with MrBigTime on this. It would be fuckingretarded if the Team B goal counted. What would be the point of instant replay?

[Kanada Kev]

This is why i ask the question. It doesn't seem to be clear.

As for going back in time last night, well they did as the replay made the goal count. However, they did not put the clock back 1:27 did they?

[dave-O]

They sure did put the clock back, and the rulebook is very clear on how it's handled.

[Kanada Kev]

They sure did put the clock back, and the rulebook is very clear on how it's handled.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. I had the game on the PVR and was going through it pretty quick. Putting the time back is only fair

[AD]

So apparently Ron McLean helped save a guy attempting to kill himself today. Not a bad way to spend a day off. I wonder what Bettman did.

[hamilton]

As the only one watching the game on Vs instead of CBC, I feel like I'm missing out on half of the fun around here.

[Kanada Kev]

As the only one watching the game on Vs instead of CBC, I feel like I'm missing out on half of the fun around here.

Video here:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2010/06/02/sp-maclean-bettman.html

[MrBigTime]

I'm with MrBigTime on this. It would be fuckingretarded if the Team B goal counted. What would be the point of instant replay?

If this was the case, and you thought you had been scored on, you should pull the goalie and go on an ALL OUT ATTACK to score to wash out the previous goal...

If this was the case, what if someone took a penalty after the goal had been scored? The penalty would count but not the goal..

Yes, these examples are crap... but just to show that the first example was obviously wrong and must have been taken from a comment on a board, and taken as fact, which is crappier

[Kanada Kev]

Fun analysis of the Bettman interview the other night:

http://sports.gunaxin.com/gary-bettman-most-defensive-commissioner-in-sports/60526

Gary Bettman: Most Defensive Commissioner In Sports

Not since watching a marathon of the British version of The Office have I seen something so squirm-worthy as Ron MacLean pelting NHL commissioner Gary Bettman with questions in between periods in last night’s Flyers/Blackhawks Game 3. For a guy who’s reviled by hockey fans everywhere, Bettman’s not doing himself any favors going on the CBC and answering every question like he’s been caught taking upskirt photos with his shoe-cam. Bettman’s body language and contentious interruptions suggested a man trying to convince himself as much as he was trying to sway MacLean and the viewers in his efforts to deflect any of MacLean’s questions regarding the health of the NHL in the southern U.S. states. And while Maclean obviously had an agenda going in, Bettman sounded like the weasel lawyer he is:

Maclean: I think the players might wonder why you don’t go into Southern Ontario because it could be so profitable.

Bettman: What inside of you compels you to want to go in that direction, because I don’t think our viewers are that interested in the franchise status.

Yeah, why would Maclean ask the commissioner of the league questions about the future of the league when we can get his informed analysis of the game being played instead? Granted, MacLean’s insistence in trying to steer the whole interview toward expansion in Canada (a prospect Bettman has proven unreceptive to) may have been premeditated, but Bettman’s defensive stance and sputtering denials made for a very uncomfortable viewing experience. The whole thing reminded me of that SNL skit with Martin Short as the oily attorney being grilled by Harry Shearer’s Mike Wallace (sorry about the quality, it’s all i could find):

[AD]

No, why would Ron MacLean start the interview by singing Happy Birthday? Embarrassing. And I didn't like how when Battman asked where MacLean was getting his information he referenced two newspapers / magazines. I'd think that a guy with MacLean's connections would have better sources than I have access to down at the corner store. Maybe he can't speak publicly about them but he had to know Bettman would ask where MacLean's cited opinions were coming from.