GDT: #54| St. Louis Blues @ New York Islanders | January 25th | 1:00pm | F/SOL 4-3

[rikker]

You seem to forget we were playing a damn good team. Putting the blues away is not easy. They want the points to, you know.

Anyway, they did take care of it themselves. They scored a fourth goal. Toronto took it away, basically because they could. Whatever happened up until that point in time is moot.

This.

It was a tough team to play against. We had good moments, and bad. Got screwed by the refs, but we have had that bias all year, IMO. Some people think that we should smile and say "thank you" as they are driving us from behind. I say BS. pulling a Torts is not the way to do it, but we should voice our displeasure. Tactfully, firmly.

 

[Surfrat]

Hate to disagree, but I'm a 50 yr. old rooting for this team since '75, and that was the worst, and will almost certainly never be surpassed.

I was at that game, they should have taken him off in cuffs. This ingrained my hatred of the Caps. At least he was suspended.

 

[IslandersFan17]

End of the day the Islanders blew two leads. I am just as frustrated by the disallowed goal as the next fan.

However, we should have never let the game get to that point to begin with.

Our record after having a two goal lead is, in many ways, embarrassing. This has to wear mentally on this club. Having to either play from behind or struggle to hold leads.

 

[The Lighthouse]

End of the day the Islanders blew two leads. I am just as frustrated by the disallowed goal as the next fan.

However, we should have never let the game get to that point to begin with.

Our record after having a two goal lead is, in many ways, embarrassing. This has to wear mentally on this club. Having to either play from behind or struggle to hold leads.

Exactly. Islanders put themselves in positions where we're at the mercy of a review by Toronto. Should not be constantly blowing leads in the third.

 

[Lek]

I seldom get cranky about bad calls, they happen. Unfortunately this one was soooo blatantly wrong that it ranks right up there with the best of them. They called the game correct in the arena, so much so that everyone in that arena including the Blues knew it.

It has nothing to do with what lead we gave up, blah blah blah... so really tired of hearing it was their own fault for not holding the lead. They had won and had it taken away for........for...well hell, no one REALLY knows why. Sad.............

 

[TeamKidd]

I seldom get cranky about bad calls, they happen. Unfortunately this one was soooo blatantly wrong that it ranks right up there with the best of them. They called the game correct in the arena, so much so that everyone in that arena including the Blues knew it.

It has nothing to do with what lead we gave up, blah blah blah... so really tired of hearing it was their own fault for not holding the lead. They had won and had it taken away for........for...well hell, no one REALLY knows why. Sad.............

oh believe me, i think we all know....even Vanek knows.

 

[stranger34]

Still can't hold a lead. Still can't get a call. Still sellers at the deadline.

 

[YearlyLottery]

Sucks that we lost. Get ready for the next one. A big win could bring us to four points out. Still very disappointed we are out of it due to Snow not doing anything in the offseason. Right now we should be saying "7 points in. Just hold on until the Olympics boys". Instead we have a cartoon character for our coach and a backup goalie for GM.

Toronto ****ed us out of a point yesterday. Terrible call. They need to let the on ice refs do the looking and NOT the war room. Just get rid of it.

 

[louie lighthouse]

Exactly. Islanders put themselves in positions where we're at the mercy of a review by Toronto. Should not be constantly blowing leads in the third.

Peter Regin lost the game for NYI. Lazy play with one minute left. He could have skated the puck out his zone and score the empty netter instead of icing the puck. What he was doing on the ice with a minute left in the game I will never know ...

 

[borisbadenough]

Peter Regin lost the game for NYI. Lazy play with one minute left. He could have skated the puck out his zone and score the empty netter instead of icing the puck. What he was doing on the ice with a minute left in the game I will never know ...

That and another (probably the 20th) ? goal that was scored, that a established top 20 goaltender would have stopped. Lost the last game on a similar goal too and probably 10 games before that. Our young goaltender has great potential but he needs to master his trade as a backup. If we had a guy like Miller in net from the beginning of the year we would be playoff bound right now because we lose half of the games in that streak. Add a couple of d to that and oh my. Such a shame.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Sucks that we lost. Get ready for the next one. A big win could bring us to four points out. Still very disappointed we are out of it due to Snow not doing anything in the offseason. Right now we should be saying "7 points in. Just hold on until the Olympics boys". Instead we have a cartoon character for our coach and a backup goalie for GM.

Toronto ****ed us out of a point yesterday. Terrible call. They need to let the on ice refs do the looking and NOT the war room. Just get rid of it.

That's impossible. Columbus and Carolina play each other Monday, and one of them is guaranteed 2 points. We're either 5 or 6 points out (assuming we win), after tomorrow.

Basically a win helps us to tread water: that's why the playoffs aren't that realistic for us to make.

 

[nyscene]

That's impossible. Columbus and Carolina play each other Monday, and one of them is guaranteed 2 points. We're either 5 or 6 points out (assuming we win), after tomorrow.

Basically a win helps us to tread water: that's why the playoffs aren't that realistic for us to make.

Wild card. Carolina win hops ahead of both Philly & Columbus. Wild Card would have 56 points.

The one thing we have going for us is we're chasing 2-3 spots, not just 1.

 

[Islander Prophet]

The way I see it, there are 5 spots available for playoffs now. The following are the teams that are in the mix as of now, if just half of these teams win approximately the same amount of games as they lose from now until the end of the season, reaching 89-90 points would be enough for us to make the playoffs:

TOR, MTL, DET, NYR, CBS, PHI, CAR, NJ

 

[MartyC]

Wasn't comparing severity of Hunter vs.last night.
Was relating my anger to the 2 instances.
Hunter didn't work for the NHL

 

[simbo042]

Well that was sucky!

Regin sucked, Toronto sucked and our ability to hold a lead at all continues to suck.

Onwards and upwards...

 

[borisbadenough]

oh believe me, i think we all know....even Vanek knows.

So TV has the b----s to call it what it was and Cappy backs him up.

 

[giddy up*]

Still not over it

 

[Tres Peleches]

I posted this in the main board thread involving the no-call at the end of the game... Does it make sense or am I grasping at straws here...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold Snepsts
you left out the most important and problematic word:

"distinct"
[Rant]
[Logic]

Exactly. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "distinct" means...

"distinguishable to the eye or mind as discrete"

Or

"presenting a clear unmistakable impression"

Source: http://i.word.com/idictionary/distinct

For the first definition, I interpret this rule to mean that this can be directly related to a players natural skating stride. If, within the normal stride of skating (be it due to ones own movement or being coerced/hit into such motion) the puck hits off the skate and is directed into the net it is a good goal because the kicking motion would need to be "distinguishable as a discrete motion" aka obviously a motion to drive the pick towards the net with ones skate separate from the normal fluid motion of skating (aka distinct)

The second definition basically falls into line with that line of thinking as well. Basically, it states that to be "distinct", it needs to be more or less obvious. Given the reaction from the players, on-ice refs, pundits, and most fans (both of the Isles and otherwise) it becomes clear that it is not obvious and should not have been overturned, especially when grounds for overturning a ruling on the ice is supposed to be based on "clear and indisputable evidence"... In other words, 100% sure.

So what the people on here saying that over-turning the call was the correct call are saying is that you are 100% sure (grounds for overruling a call) that Vanek went out of his way to make a clear and discernible (aka distinct) motion to kick at the puck and propel it into the net and that even if his skate did move in the direction of the goal that this motion was not influenced by either

1) Steen checking him from behind

And/Or

2) Attempting to avoid a sprawled out Halak

If either/both of these ocurred, then it becomes a case where the so called "kicking motion" Vanek performed would no longer be able to be considered "distinguishable to the eye or mind as discrete" (aka "distinct") from Vanek's natural skating motion and therefore unable to be ruled as a no-goal.

And that is why, in my opinion, the video review officials completely missed this call and directly and indisputably cost the Islanders a point and a ROW.

Also

[/logic]

IM STILL FUMING FROM THE GAME

[/rant]

Mainly at the last part... But not completely haha

 

[PK Cronin]

I just got back home from my 4 day trip to NY for the Pens and Blues games.

Absolutely disgusted at the replay system. It needs to be revamped in some manner because there is no consistency around the league with these calls. It's incredibly frustrating. Blowing 2 goal leads is a problem, but they still deserved to win the game and get a +1 in the ROW column. Instead, they got a loser point in a shootout. Horrid.

 

[stranger34]

Honestly a call like that really leaves a sour taste in my mouth regarding the NHL and it's validity as a league.

 

[rollin109]

I posted this in the main board thread involving the no-call at the end of the game... Does it make sense or am I grasping at straws here...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold Snepsts
you left out the most important and problematic word:

"distinct"
[Rant]
[Logic]

Exactly. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "distinct" means...

"distinguishable to the eye or mind as discrete"

Or

"presenting a clear unmistakable impression"

Source: http://i.word.com/idictionary/distinct

For the first definition, I interpret this rule to mean that this can be directly related to a players natural skating stride. If, within the normal stride of skating (be it due to ones own movement or being coerced/hit into such motion) the puck hits off the skate and is directed into the net it is a good goal because the kicking motion would need to be "distinguishable as a discrete motion" aka obviously a motion to drive the pick towards the net with ones skate separate from the normal fluid motion of skating (aka distinct)

The second definition basically falls into line with that line of thinking as well. Basically, it states that to be "distinct", it needs to be more or less obvious. Given the reaction from the players, on-ice refs, pundits, and most fans (both of the Isles and otherwise) it becomes clear that it is not obvious and should not have been overturned, especially when grounds for overturning a ruling on the ice is supposed to be based on "clear and indisputable evidence"... In other words, 100% sure.

So what the people on here saying that over-turning the call was the correct call are saying is that you are 100% sure (grounds for overruling a call) that Vanek went out of his way to make a clear and discernible (aka distinct) motion to kick at the puck and propel it into the net and that even if his skate did move in the direction of the goal that this motion was not influenced by either

1) Steen checking him from behind

And/Or

2) Attempting to avoid a sprawled out Halak

If either/both of these ocurred, then it becomes a case where the so called "kicking motion" Vanek performed would no longer be able to be considered "distinguishable to the eye or mind as discrete" (aka "distinct") from Vanek's natural skating motion and therefore unable to be ruled as a no-goal.

And that is why, in my opinion, the video review officials completely missed this call and directly and indisputably cost the Islanders a point and a ROW.

Also

[/logic]

IM STILL FUMING FROM THE GAME

[/rant]

Mainly at the last part... But not completely haha

This is a direct quote from Mike Murphy from a live QandA he did a couple of years ago.

"There are always plays that require subjectivity, and when that is the case someone has to make a decision on a very difficult play. When you look back after the fact, you realize you could probably make an argument for either side of it."

First of all am I alone in feeling that subjectivity has no place here. It should be black and white going by dictionary definition of the words. The rules are very carefully worded so that there is no confusion as to what the rule actually is. There is no room for interpretation.

Second of all If what he said here (2 years ago) is true then why overturn a call on the ice. If in your experience a call where you used "subjectivity" will ultimately come back to bite you whereas it could have gone either way then why overrule the call on the Ice? Doesn't it make more sense to say yes you could make an argument either way which is why it is not conclusive which is why the call on the ice has to stand.

****ing idiot!!!

 

[BTrotts19]

This is a direct quote from Mike Murphy from a live QandA he did a couple of years ago.

"There are always plays that require subjectivity, and when that is the case someone has to make a decision on a very difficult play. When you look back after the fact, you realize you could probably make an argument for either side of it."

First of all am I alone in feeling that subjectivity has no place here. It should be black and white going by dictionary definition of the words. The rules are very carefully worded so that there is no confusion as to what the rule actually is. There is no room for interpretation.

Second of all If what he said here (2 years ago) is true then why overturn a call on the ice. If in your experience a call where you used "subjectivity" will ultimately come back to bite you whereas it could have gone either way then why overrule the call on the Ice? Doesn't it make more sense to say yes you could make an argument either way which is why it is not conclusive which is why the call on the ice has to stand.

****ing idiot!!!

If a play is that subjective, how can overturn a call on the ice? I thought the booth is for clear and distinguishable mistakes? Still pissed about this.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

I felt Chris King's explanation during last night's broadcast was anything but clear or understandable. I cannot figure out what was 'distinct' about the way in which the puck found its way into the net. To then say that this situation is one in which there is gray area about overturning a call that was made on the ice...

It was all about peddaling around an incorrect and unwarranted decision.

 

[stranger34]

This call may have been the final crushing blow of the season