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

[JohnnyZ]

Wouldn't matter. It appears Zucker didn't touch it prior to the offensive zone, but the play is a delayed off-side anyway due to rule 83.2:

"However, any action by an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be signaled by the Linesman."

When Zucker pursued/touched the puck in the offensive zone, the play should have been blown dead.

Anyway you look at it, the Hawks got jobbed. The NHL doesn't even know its own rulebook.

I think the war room will say that Seabrook initiated the action of physical contact by trying to swipe at the puck in front of Zucker at the blue line. We'll see. I look forward to a detailed explanation tomorrow. Tough loss, fellas.

 

[BrianE]

Remember this call??? Probably the worst call ever made in hockey. Refs just make it up as they go along with NO ACCOUNTABILITY. That's why I DESPISE them!

Yep, do agree with ya Matt.

 

[BrianE]

So when does Schmaltz come back?

 

[CallMeShaft]

Remember this call??? Probably the worst call ever made in hockey. Refs just make it up as they go along with NO ACCOUNTABILITY. That's why I DESPISE them!

This was the correct call. Saad taking a swing at the Wings player is what drew the whistle. The only problem with that call is the very unfortunate timing. But technically speaking, it was correct.

 

[Backyard Hockey]

I think it's awesome that a rule requires a Supreme Court Justice to understand it.

Even better when the refs door explain it. Not even to the coach when he asks for an explanation

This is a time I would have liked Ed Hochuli.

But we got that same joker with the weird accent. That's the same ' The Chicago player head butted it on' guy from the Shaw head but 'goal'

 

[State of Hockey]

I think the war room will say that Seabrook initiated the action of physical contact by trying to swipe at the puck in front of Zucker at the blue line. We'll see. I look forward to a detailed explanation tomorrow. Tough loss, fellas.

But there's no provision for that. Initiation doesn't matter (and Zucker initiated it anyway). Any such claim would be a complete fabrication of the rules. The puck clearly was accelerated over the line by the deflection off a defending player which was caused by physical contact with an attacking player. Delayed off-side. The NHL blew it again. They don't even know their own rules.

 

[CallMeShaft]

If you guys want to feel better, watch the Q post game presser. Don't remember the last time he's been that PO'd after a game. He called out the refs, saying that a deflection isn't a legal way for the puck to go in, and the rules consider that offsides. I love when Q calls out shit. He doesn't even care that he's going to get fined.

Was at the game and here's some thoughts and opinions about the game:

• Forsling looked best he's been outside of his miscue on the Wild's first goal. Maybe getting stitches last game has taken a bit of that fear away, because he was no longer cowarding out of plays like he's been doing this year.
  
• No problem with pulling the goalie that early. Teams have had success with doing it. We were down by two. I blame the team for playing like shit with the extra attacker, not on Q for pulling Crow.
• Kane's best shifts came away from Anisimov. When Kero was between Hartman and Kane, that line scored and started producing. If only someone called that in the Leafs game...
• That last point doesn't matter as much now that Schmaltz should be back. Our first line is fast, and having Schmaltz as 2C, that 2nd line is just as quick. Helps a lot with a team that's trying to play a more north/south game.

 

[magnificent]

This was the correct call. Saad taking a swing at the Wings player is what drew the whistle. The only problem with that call is the very unfortunate timing. But technically speaking, it was correct.

Anyway we know the winner so it's easy to accept it now. Imagine if we lost..
I miss this team

 

[JohnnyZ]

At the end of the day, I think a lot of us would appreciate simplified rules such as: If the puck is not in the zone before both skates are, you're offside no matter what inconvenient incidents lead up to that.
In a perfect world...
Sensors in skates, sensors in puck, and laser technology at the blue line. Linesmen get a buzz in their pocket if offsides tech is triggered and they blow the whistle (or don't blow whistle if the attacking player has control while skating backwards into zone) Problem solved. No need for stupid offside challenges.
Might be too complicated and expensive to implement though.

 

[Rollyb]

This is really bush league...the offside is so evident

 

[Marotte Marauder]

At the end of the day, I think a lot of us would appreciate simplified rules such as: If the puck is not in the zone before both skates are, you're offside no matter what inconvenient incidents lead up to that.
In a perfect world...
Sensors in skates, sensors in puck, and laser technology at the blue line. Linesmen get a buzz in their pocket if offsides tech is triggered and they blow the whistle (or don't blow whistle if the attacking player has control while skating backwards into zone) Problem solved. No need for stupid offside challenges.
Might be too complicated and expensive to implement though.

How would the sensor know if you're attacking or defending the blue line?

 

[BobbyJet]

After watching the post-game interview, I'm not sure how Q is going to react going forward after Forsling's brutal gaffe. His statement "one bad play cost us the game" was brutally honest. Q usually suger coats those responses. I feel bad for 42 but he just can't do that. Look where Gus has found himself in the scheme of things. That blunt comment was probably a direct result of Q being so hot under the collar, but you never know for certain.

 

[BK]

After watching the post-game interview, I'm not sure how Q is going to react going forward after Forsling's brutal gaffe. His statement "one bad play cost us the game" was brutally honest. Q usually suger coats those responses. I feel bad for 42 but he just can't do that. Look where Gus has found himself in the scheme of things. That blunt comment was probably a direct result of Q being so hot under the collar, but you never know for certain.

Q is typically really composed but he was furious last night.

 

[Hawkaholic]

After watching the post-game interview, I'm not sure how Q is going to react going forward after Forsling's brutal gaffe. His statement "one bad play cost us the game" was brutally honest. Q usually suger coats those responses. I feel bad for 42 but he just can't do that. Look where Gus has found himself in the scheme of things. That blunt comment was probably a direct result of Q being so hot under the collar, but you never know for certain.

Was he not referring to the offside as the "one bad play"?

Forsling had a pretty good game outside of that, so I don't imagine Q will sit him for it.

 

[hawksfan50]

After watching the post-game interview, I'm not sure how Q is going to react going forward after Forsling's brutal gaffe. His statement "one bad play cost us the game" was brutally honest. Q usually suger coats those responses. I feel bad for 42 but he just can't do that. Look where Gus has found himself in the scheme of things. That blunt comment was probably a direct result of Q being so hot under the collar, but you never know for certain.

But Forsling probably had his best game defending and saved them on a couple of scoring chances by his back-check. . He finished with 1 GV the same as Keith had (and if memory serves me I think Minn scored after a Keith turnover...sp which "gaffe" was Q cities g...or maybe he was referring to Seabrook falling down and deflecting the puck back into iur zone that controversial offsides goal theygave Minn...if Q were to be "brutally honest"...then I think he should say horrible play ALL MIGHT by 2 and 7 cost us the game .."Brutally Honest" woukd admit that Seabrook cannot skate at an NHL level anymore ..Slow and poor agility...he is a poor defender now..and Keith at 34 is not the Keith if 24...skills lost (can't shoot...more puck fumbles and gets beat more often ..but it does nit help he is paired with Seabrook who is an albatross to try covering for ..

The game is 60 monutes ....you cannotvsonglenout 1 gaffe costing us the game. .there were lots of bad plays (missed scoring opportunities (Panik botched open net chance
..AA hois 2 goalposts on his shot with a gaping net ....lots of things that could have changed the game). Again we did not play a goid 2st period..We effort ed in the 2nd period and played better ...We hot screwed in the 3rd period by the offside ruled inside call and tge subsequent failure to kill off the penalty for list challenge. STUFF HAPOENS more than 1 gaffe only to "cost us the game" I would rather look at the fact that in total Forsling played a lot better than the $12 million #1 pair combo did over the total game ..Keith and Seabrook spent too much time back in our zone running around chasing pucks they did not get out and not exactly playing #1 pair competent hockey per their pay grade ...so if I were Q ,I woukd be harder o them than putting Forsling into some kind of yute doghouse on tge Q trustsvhosvgeezer vets morevtheorybof coaching than he trusts a yute who made pnly 1 gaffe this game.Yes it was a brutal gaffe and hopefully he learns from it..but #7 and#2 were in competently brutal this game and forth at matter the last 3 games ...Let us be real "honest" about that.

 

[JohnnyZ]

How would the sensor know if you're attacking or defending the blue line?

Maybe each team's sensors are programmed to give off 2 different signals to the linesman. Maybe at the end of each blue line there's a traffic light device that flashes when they enter the zone with puck. If it doesn't flash, they're offside.
Between periods the traffic lights are switched to flash for each team's attacking zone. The d-men skating back wont trigger the flash. If the attacking team in the attacking zone loses the puck over the blue line (only pucks trigger the light coming out of the zone) the traffic light will flash signalling the team to tag up.

Let me know if this seems plausible. Would be pretty cool. Sorry for being off topic.

 

[Teppo]

https://www.nhl.com/news/minnesota-wild-chicago-blackhawks-game-recap/c-291871828?tid=282287648

Watch the second video of Stewart's goal. The puzzle piece everybody is missing is that Toews passed this puck through neutral zone that inadvertently came off Seabrook alone. The Seabrook deflection is ruled incidental. Seabrook technically never had possession but Toews did.

RULE 83.1: If a player legally carries or passes (Toews) the puck back into his own defending zone while a player of the opposing team (Zucker) is in such defending zone, offsides is waved off.

Brutal rule.

I think in this situation, playing it back into their zone by the Hawks was accidental so the rule seems brutal. But if the rule was not in place, teams could do some crazy things to take advantage of it. Teams in the lead needing a breather could cause intentional offside or delayed offside very easily. It would be a great way to kill penalties.

 

[Putt Pirate]

Remember this call??? Probably the worst call ever made in hockey. Refs just make it up as they go along with NO ACCOUNTABILITY. That's why I DESPISE them!

Worst call ever is in the WCF against the Kings when the tying goal in game 7 was a foot offsides.

 

[ChiHawks10]

I know the rule... Reffing is my career man. They got it right.

Then you need to read the rule again or reffing won't be your career much longer.

Deflections / Rebounds - If a puck clearly rebounds off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all attacking players are eligible to play the puck. However, any action by an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be signaled by the Linesman.

The deflection off Seabrook was caused by an attacking player in the neutral zone making physical contact with Seabrook. This should have been offside. No debating it.

Watch the video titled "Goal of the Game" in the link below. Again, a Wild player made physical contact with Seabrook, causing him to fall, and without ever having any control of the puck, deflect it into his zone. It's offside. Period. End of story. You're wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but the fact is that the wrong call was made based upon the NHL's rules. That's Rule 83.2 btw.

https://www.nhl.com/news/minnesota-wild-chicago-blackhawks-game-recap/c-291871828?tid=282287648

 

[BobbyJet]

Then you need to read the rule again or reffing won't be your career much longer.

Deflections / Rebounds - If a puck clearly rebounds off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all attacking players are eligible to play the puck. However, any action by an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be signaled by the Linesman.

The deflection off Seabrook was caused by an attacking player in the neutral zone making physical contact with Seabrook, causing the deflection. This should have been offside. No debating it.

Watch the video titled "Goal of the Game" in the link below. Again, a Wild player made physical contact with Seabrook, causing him to fall, and without ever having any control of the puck, deflect it into his zone. It's offside. Period. End of story. You're wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but the fact is that the wrong call was made based upon the NHL's rules. That's Rule 83.2 btw.

https://www.nhl.com/news/minnesota-wild-chicago-blackhawks-game-recap/c-291871828?tid=282287648

Except Zucker didn't do anything physically against Seabs. Seabs was scrambling in no man's land to gain control and failed, leaving the puck for Zucker just over the blue line.

EDIT: After looking at it several times, I can see how you interpreted that Zucker made contact. He skated in front of him but it wasn't much.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Except Zucker didn't do anything physically against Seabs. Seabs was scrambling in no man's land to gain control and failed, leaving the puck for Zucker just over the blue line. Zucker didn't touch Seabs as you suggest.

Bobby watch the video... there's clear physical contact... which according to the rule, makes it offside.

 

[BobbyJet]

Bobby watch the video... there's clear physical contact... which according to the rule, makes it offside.

Yah,,, edited above.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Yah,,, edited above.

Yeah, saw that. He leaned into him to try and battle for body position. The fact that Seabs was already going down really doesn't matter, as Zucker made physical contact, and it could even be argued that his contact is what spun Seabs around on the ice, putting his skate in a position for the puck to deflect off it into the zone.

 

[BobbyJet]

Yeah, saw that. He leaned into him to try and battle for body position. The fact that Seabs was already going down really doesn't matter, as Zucker made physical contact, and it could even be argued that his contact is what spun Seabs around on the ice, putting his skate in a position for the puck to deflect off it into the zone.

I can see that interpretation now. It certainly isn't black and white as some suggested. Hawks didn't get a bounce go their way all night and this was just another example.

 

[ref19]

Then you need to read the rule again or reffing won't be your career much longer.

Deflections / Rebounds - If a puck clearly rebounds off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone, all attacking players are eligible to play the puck. However, any action by an attacking player that causes a deflection/rebound off a defending player in the neutral zone back into the defending zone (i.e. stick check, body check, physical contact), a delayed off-side shall be signaled by the Linesman.

The deflection off Seabrook was caused by an attacking player in the neutral zone making physical contact with Seabrook. This should have been offside. No debating it.

Watch the video titled "Goal of the Game" in the link below. Again, a Wild player made physical contact with Seabrook, causing him to fall, and without ever having any control of the puck, deflect it into his zone. It's offside. Period. End of story. You're wrong. I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but the fact is that the wrong call was made based upon the NHL's rules. That's Rule 83.2 btw.

https://www.nhl.com/news/minnesota-wild-chicago-blackhawks-game-recap/c-291871828?tid=282287648

I guess the NHL and myself have no idea what we are doing