GDT: Hawks vs Boredom: 7:30PM Central on NBCSCHI--Corey "Colander" Crawford Edition

[Ace Card Bedard]

Seabrook and Keith were bad tonight ..

Agreed, but the entire defense was very sloppy.
Forsling’s terrible play on the first goal.
Kempny’s terrible pinch right before the 2nd goal.
Rutta got beat wide a few times.

Keith was fumbling the puck a lot.
And then Seabs gon’ Seab and lose the game.

All that being said, if AA doesn’t hit both posts the Hawks prob win.
Just one of those games where the Hawks did not play very well but still had a good chance to win.

 

[featherhawk]

That is not carrying the puck. The puck hitting a player and bouncing into the zone is not carrying the puck. Seabrook did not carry or pass the puck into the zone. If it were intended to be interpreted how you are the wording would be "legally re-enters the zone".

It was a bad call and your interpretation is wrong in the context of the game.

Disagree with you bk, context of the game has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the definition and interpretation of legally carrying the puck and having it deflect of a player's body fits that criteria

 

[BK]

We are arguing over context and interpretation so we will most likely spin our tires here. Sorry for getting fired up but it was a shit call and I 100% disagree with how some are interpreting.

 

[JaegerDice]

While I agree with most of the message, this is just not what's happening here. We are not just "arguing over an inch". Were arguing over a call that was clearly called wrong and cost the hawks a chance at winning this game.

Do you "argue over an inch" in football when the player runs for a touchdown but he stepped out of bounds at the 40? You're damn right you do because it was the wrong call and it should take points off the board.

Would you like hockey stopped as often as football is to confirm inches? It's an entirely different game.

I agree that it looked like the wrong call (though there are people in here that would probably know more explicitly than I, and they seem to think it was the right call, so...). My issue is that it's the wrong call on an event (being one inch offside) that had no practical impact on the result (the goal).

I sympathize with a) wanting to get every call right and b) wanting to win, but I just cannot bring myself to get upset over being 'robbed' by a decision that awarded a team a goal that was legal in all respects but for one inch. The Blackhawks were not unable to stop that goal because of that one inch. They were unable to stop it because they ****ed up, themselves.

As far as the PP that resulted, we disagree on the new rule, and that's fine. I'd simply say they had the opportunity to kill it off. It's not like the refs just put anothr goal on the board automatically.

 

[BobbyJet]

That is not carrying the puck. Carrying the puck in the context of hockey implies he has control of the puck, which he did not.

Correct again. Seabs, at no time had possession of that puck from the time Toews through that ugly high pass to him at the blue line. Actually Toews was the last Hawk to have puck possession.

 

[WinterHawk88]

Disagree with you bk, context of the game has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the definition and interpretation of legally carrying the puck and having it deflect of a player's body fits that criteria

Bull. If that were the case you could just have someone cherry pick all game while bouncing pucks into the zone off the defenders.

Possession matters.

 

[Backyard Hockey]

Lots could be said about this game but the reality is the what happened to the Hawks was criminal. Someone - man people actually - within the NHL need to be fired for that.

Oh and Keith was bad and Seabrook was an absolute disaster. Quite possibly the slowest D man in the NHL

 

[BK]

Disagree with you bk, context of the game has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with the definition and interpretation of legally carrying the puck and having it deflect of a player's body fits that criteria

Yeah are we interpreting this rule 100% different, agree to disagree?

 

[thesaadfather]

I think rule 83.2 is actually the key here. If an offensive player makes contact with a defensive player that causes the puck to deflect into the offensive zone, it’s offside. To me, after looking at the replays it seems like Zucker definitely makes contact with Seabrook, and since the rule book explicitly states physical contact as a reason to call the play offside, I have a hard time seeing the argument that they got the call right.

 

[Rooh]

I'd like to see the D-parings be
Keith - Rutta
Kempny - Seabrook
Forsling - Murphy

 

[BK]

I think rule 83.2 is actually the key here. If an offensive player makes contact with a defensive player that causes the puck to deflect into the offensive zone, it’s offside. To me, after looking at the replays it seems like Zucker definitely makes contact with Seabrook, and since the rule book explicitly states physical contact as a reason to call the play offside, I have a hard time seeing the argument that they got the call right.

This as well.

 

[ref19]

That is not carrying the puck. The puck hitting a player and bouncing into the zone is not carrying the puck. Seabrook did not carry or pass the puck into the zone. If it were intended to be interpreted how you are the wording would be "legally re-enters the zone".

It was a bad call and your interpretation is wrong in the context of the game.

You are overthinking it. I explained it to you correctly. Trust me we go over situations like this a lot in our training and I'm not even an NHL ref.

 

[BK]

I'd like to see the D-parings be
Keith - Rutta
Kempny - Seabrook
Forsling - Murphy

I like Murphy and Kempny together.

 

[Backyard Hockey]

Lots of back and forth on the rule. Can anyone justify what Q did pulling Crow with 4 min left?

 

[BK]

You are overthinking it. I explained it to you correctly. Trust me we go over situations like this a lot in our training and I'm not even an NHL ref.

Not at all. I am thinking about it in the context of the game. Context is everything and in no way was Seabrook carrying the puck into the zone (obviously he did not pass it). You have to think in relation to the game of hockey. Honestly, if you are not thinking about it in the context of the game then you are underthinking it.

 

[BK]

Lots of back and forth on the rule. Can anyone justify what Q did pulling Crow with 4 min left?

It was dumb but in the grand scheme, it means nothing.

 

[featherhawk]

Agreed fully

I think those are the best pairings and seabrook should get plenty of days in the press box eating nothing but kale

I'd like to see the D-parings be
Keith - Rutta
Kempny - Seabrook
Forsling - Murphy

 

[JaegerDice]

I like Murphy and Kempny together.

It kind of feels like Kempny is the magic elixir for less dynamic dmen.

 

[BK]

It kind of feels like Kempny is the magic elixir for less dynamic dmen.

Dynamic skaters will do that.

 

[JaegerDice]

Lots of back and forth on the rule. Can anyone justify what Q did pulling Crow with 4 min left?

It's a tactic that's been gaining traction in the NHL since Roy really put it on the map in his first year in Colorado. It actually has a really positive track record if you have a quick team. Unfortunately, said quick team also needs to be good in man-advantage situations. Which the Blackhawks are not. So I'm not sure it's a good strategy for THEM.

 

[featherhawk]

Forsling and Murphy should be tried together, they will work will together IMO

 

[thesaadfather]

It kind of feels like Kempny is the magic elixir for less dynamic dmen.

He can skate or pass the puck up the ice. Helps when he’s playing with guys that can only do one or neither. Still wish we had Campbell back. I’d be curious to see how Gustafson would do if given free reign to skate with the puck.

 

[BobbyJet]

Tie game in the 3rd and then Seabs took over.

Look again. Toews knee-high pass left Seabs in no man's land.

 

[magnificent]

If Seabrook's touch the puck they can consider as a possesion so why, with a delayed penalty, a rebound from skates or stickes is not considered as a possesion?

 

[ref19]

Not at all. I am thinking about it in the context of the game. Context is everything and in no way was Seabrook carrying the puck into the zone (obviously he did not pass it). You have to think in relation to the game of hockey. Honestly, if you are not thinking about it in the context of the game then you are underthinking it.

My last post on the topic. I gave you a great explanation earlier and you chose to deny it with ideas that are not the rules. It's a black and white situation and the call was correct.