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

[BK]

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

I am going to assume you are a Junior A/D1 ref. It is not that you need work because this is not personal, it is that the wording needs to be clarified because your interpretation is the opposite of the game and the context of it. If it was meant to be interpreted how you are then it would be worded that way. Players and refs view things much differently and this is one of those instances.

 

[BobbyJet]

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

We didn't hear the NHL interpretation. If they acknowledge that they were indeed checking the contact between Seabs and Zucker and assessed that the contact was not enough, I can accept that.

 

[CallMeShaft]

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

I guess the coach with the 2nd most wins in this league's history doesn't know what he's talking about in comparison to a couple idiot refs (idiots being the ones at the UC last night, not you). Very rarely is he as passionate about a call in a post game presser as he was last night. But that's obviously just theatrics.

 

[BobbyJet]

I guess the coach with the 2nd most wins in this league's history doesn't know what he's talking about in comparison to a couple idiot refs (idiots being the ones at the UC last night, not you). Very rarely is he as passionate about a call in a post game presser as he was last night. But that's obviously just theatrics.

Q had the same reaction BK and I had .... thinking the offside should have been called because Zucker didn't have control of the puck. The biggest problem with that interpretation was that Zucker never had the puck, nor did any Wild player.

I'm sure he has heard the explanation and is probably okay with it

 

[ChiHawks10]

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

I don't know you. So I can't say anything about you.
What I can say, though, is that by the definition of the rule itself, it should have been offside.

The NHL? Yeah we all know they have no clue. Which is why there's absolutely no consistency when it comes to this stuff. Just like the suspension stuff.

 

[Hawkaholic]

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

I guess not. Because there is nothing in the rule book that makes this play onside. Find me an excerpt that says (If the Defending team accidently deflects the puck into the Dzone, it is deemed onside), becasue all I see is that the defending player has to carry or pass the puck into the zone for it to not be offside. Seabrook didn't pass nor carry the puck. This argument is over.

 

[BobbyJet]

I guess not. Because there is nothing in the rule book that makes this play onside. Find me an excerpt that says (If the Defending team accidently deflects the puck into the Dzone, it is deemed onside), becasue all I see is that the defending player has to carry or pass the puck into the zone for it to not be offside. Seabrook didn't pass nor carry the puck. This argument is over.

But, as I said, it was Toews who had last possession, hence no offside unless there was real contact by Zucker near the blue line.

 

[ref19]

I guess not. Because there is nothing in the rule book that makes this play onside. Find me an excerpt that says (If the Defending team accidently deflects the puck into the Dzone, it is deemed onside), becasue all I see is that the defending player has to carry or pass the puck into the zone for it to not be offside. Seabrook didn't pass nor carry the puck. This argument is over.

Think of it this way... If the Hawks Seabrook had mad a pass from his own zone on a breakout to Kane entering the neutral zone and it deflected off his skate back in to the zone while Wild players were still in the zone it would be a legal goal as well.. Hope that helps in clarifying.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Think of it this way... If the Hawks Seabrook had mad a pass from his own zone on a breakout to Kane entering the neutral zone and it deflected off his skate back in to the zone while Wild players were still in the zone it would be a legal goal as well.. Hope that helps in clarifying.

Yeah that's a rule, but that's not what happened here.

 

[Hawkaholic]

But, as I said, it was Toews who had last possession, hence no offside unless there was real contact by Zucker near the blue line.

Yes, but Toews' pass stopped before the blueline, and Seabrooks skate put it into our zone. So it was not passed into our zone, it was deflected.

 

[BK]

Think of it this way... If the Hawks Seabrook had mad a pass from his own zone on a breakout to Kane entering the neutral zone and it deflected off his skate back in to the zone while Wild players were still in the zone it would be a legal goal as well.. Hope that helps in clarifying.

But that completely ignores 83.2 (I think it is 83.2). Even ignoring 83.2, 83.1 states "If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own defending zone", did Seabrook not carry or pass the puck back into the zone? No. Not to mention Zucker made contact with Seabrook.

It is clear that we should all agree to disagree.

 

[BobbyJet]

No question that it was an odd-ball kind of play. I've watched a lot of hockey and haven't come across anything like it, that I can recall.

 

[BobbyJet]

Yes, but Toews' pass stopped before the blueline, and Seabrooks skate put it into our zone. So it was not passed into our zone, it was deflected.

True, but deflected from a Hawk player's original pass. Not a Wild player's.

 

[ChiHawks10]

True, but deflected from a Hawk player's original pass. Not a Wild player's.

But that's moot due to the contact by Zucker on Seabs, which caused the deflection.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Anyone who says it's clear one way or the other is probably biased.

 

[ColdSteel2]

Hayden broke Foligno's cheekbone in the fight so something good came of this game.

 

[ThatGuy22]

But that's moot due to the contact by Zucker on Seabs, which caused the deflection.

I've seen a lot a talk about the contact with Zucker, and it made it over to our board from here. So this should probably be said. The Zucker contact is 100% irrelevant.

It's clearly defined in 83.2 that it is only dealing with situations where the puck is already in a zone, comes out and deflects back into the zone before offsides are cleared. You can't just take the end snippet and ignore the qualifications on what scenerio it is valid for.


83.2 Deflections / Rebounds – When a defending player propels the puck
out of his defending zone and the 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.

83.2 does not apply at all, as the puck started in the hawks attacking zone.

 

[CallMeShaft]

I've seen a lot a talk about the contact with Zucker, and it made it over to our board from here. So this should probably be said. The Zucker contact is 100% irrelevant.

It's clearly defined in 83.2 that it is only dealing with situations where the puck is already in a zone, comes out and deflects back into the zone before offsides are cleared. You can't just take the end snippet and ignore the qualifications on what scenerio it is valid for.


83.2 Deflections / Rebounds – When a defending player propels the puck
out of his defending zone and the 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.

83.2 does not apply at all, as the puck started in the hawks attacking zone.

Problem with that is if Toews was the guy who passed it back, and no player touches the puck until Seabs knocks it into our zone, then it wasn't a defending player that propelled the puck back, because at the point of that pass, Toews was an attacking player (he was in the Wild's zone at that point). So if this is what the refs looked at, they obviously decided to call it a good goal, not because of a rule in the official rulebook, but because there is no clear rule one way or the other. Which would make this an extremely rare play at the very least. Something the league will likely have to sort out in the future.

 

[Blackhawks]

Hawks looking like their old slow 2016 trying too hard but can't keep up with any team's speed selves again, they can hold on in the regular season but this play will not get you far in the playoffs, when Debrincat is the only player on the team that looks focused and hustling that's when you know you have a problem...

 

[ThatGuy22]

Problem with that is if Toews was the guy who passed it back, and no player touches the puck until Seabs knocks it into our zone, then it wasn't a defending player that propelled the puck back, because at the point of that pass, Toews was an attacking player (he was in the Wild's zone at that point). So if this is what the refs looked at, they obviously decided to call it a good goal, not because of a rule in the official rulebook, but because there is no clear rule one way or the other. Which would make this an extremely rare play at the very least. Something the league will likely have to sort out in the future.

Right, that's what i'm saying. 82.3 is irrelevant because it's not the scenario that happened, because Toews and Seabrooke were in the attacking zone and moved it into their defensive zone. So the Zucker contact doesn't matter at all with regards to the offsides.

It's 100% down to whether or not Toews/Seabrook combined to possess or pass the puck into their own defensive zone as specified in 83.1. Refs ruled they did. It's easy to see how many of you disagree with that sentiment, but the Zucker contact doesn't matter.

 

[CallMeShaft]

Right, that's what i'm saying. 82.3 is irrelevant because it's not the scenario that happened, because Toews and Seabrooke were in the attacking zone and moved it into their defensive zone. So the Zucker contact doesn't matter at all with regards to the offsides.

It's 100% down to whether or not Toews/Seabrook combined to possess or pass the puck into their own defensive zone as specified in 83.1. Refs ruled they did. It's easy to see how many of you disagree with that sentiment, but the Zucker contact doesn't matter.

Personally, I never felt that the contact mattered that much. The big thing for me is that the rules state it would've been onside if Seabrook skated the puck back in or passed it. Obviously hitting Seabrook's skate is neither and I don't see a rule that says anything about a player (toews) whose currently in the offensive zone passing it back to a defensemen (seabs) who deflects it in said teams defensive zone with his skates.

There is a rule about a player tossing the puck out of his zone, it bouncing off a teammate, and going back in. That is deemed legal. But that's not what happened last night. Like I said, this seems like something the league will have to add into the rules, because it's not currently addressed.

 

[Crow]

Hayden broke Foligno's cheekbone in the fight so something good came of this game.

Any videos of that?

Never mind. Found this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...layer-with-vicious-haymaker-during-fight/amp/

 

[BobbyJet]

Any videos of that?

It was a good heavyweight scrap. A video will show up somewhere

 

[LDF]

Any videos of that?

Never mind. Found this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...layer-with-vicious-haymaker-during-fight/amp/

wow !!!!! what a hay-maker that punch was.

great find

 

[Crow]

Yeah Hayden was taking some shots for a while there before he landed that bomb. Broke his face. I hope he gets into it with reaves someday. When you are up 8-1 or whatever it was the timing isn't right.