GDT: Around the League: Playoff Edition Part VI

What is the SCF matchup?


  • Total voters
    88
Status
Not open for further replies.

joestevens29

Registered User
Apr 30, 2009
52,487
15,056
Went with Boston and STL

Boston-SJ might be better for the league and overall cap space, although I'm not sure how much the finals are going to swing things.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
I went hunting around for an official explanation regarding the no-goal from last night...

Elliotte Friedman tweeted out the NHL's official reasoning. The rule clearly states that a player only needs to touch the blue line with a skate to tag-up, yet their reason for disallowing the goal was that Landeskog did not legally tag up. Essentially, the NHL is claiming that Landeskog never touched the blueline, despite the replay showing his left skate on the blueline as the puck enters the zone.

This is just asinine. How the hell could they watch those replays and determine conclusively that he never touched the blueline? He sure as hell appears to have his left foot on the blueline when the puck enters the zone...yet the replay guys in Toronto determined 100% conclusively that he didn't?!

Really, really hard to still take this seriously. The league can at least claim their hands were tied on the 5 minute major against Vegas. But this latest call defies any explanation. They got it right on the ice, and made it wrong upon review.
 
Last edited:

TB12

Registered User
Apr 5, 2015
3,560
11,638
I went hunting around for an official explanation regarding the no-goal from last night...

Elliotte Friedman tweeted out the NHL's official reasoning. The rule clearly states that a player only needs to touch to blue line with a skate to tag-up, yet their reason for disallowing the goal was that Landeskog did not legally tag up. Essentially, the NHL is claiming that Landeskog never touched the blueline, despite the replay showing his left skate on the blueline as the puck enters the zone.

This is just asinine. How the hell could they watch those replays and determine conclusively that he never touched the blueline? He sure as hell appears to have his left foot on the blueline when the puck enters the zone...yet the replay guys in Toronto determined 100% conclusively that he didn't?!

Really, really hard to still take this seriously. The league can at least claim their hands were tied on the 5 minute major against Vegas. But this latest call defies any explanation. They got it right on the ice, and made it wrong upon review.
I’ve been watching and playing hockey my whole life and thought I knew the offside rule inside and out.

Bringing replay in for offside challenges has shown me that I don’t have a f***ing clue.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
I’ve been watching and playing hockey my whole life and thought I knew the offside rule inside and out.

Bringing replay in for offside challenges has shown me that I don’t have a ****ing clue.

It has shown me that my "tin foil hat" musings over the years are looking more and more probable. The primary purpose behind these reviews is to give the league one more potential avenue of engineering desired outcomes of games. It isn't, and never has been about fixing blown calls. Confusion and inconsistency creates a perfect smokescreen.

The NHL should be taking a lot more heat for this call today than they seem to be. But we've seen so many blown calls and insufficient explanations that I think an apathy towards it is setting in. Still, this seems above and beyond in terms of fishy calls. It's one thing to let a bad call stand...it's entirely different to overturn a correct call that every available replay and cited rule appears to support as a correct call. The NHL may as well have claimed the puck never entered the net; it would be no less absurd than claiming Landeskog never touched the blueline.
 

Hockey Nightmare

Registered User
Oct 25, 2007
5,044
620
The cure is officially worse than the disease. This inexplicable, slavish adherence to policing offsides is a detriment to hockey. And I was cheering for the sharks.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Just shocking that a game being officiated by Marc Joanette is already littered with weak penalty calls.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
How convenient. You can kill the goaltender as long as the puck crossed the line 4 milliseconds before you did so. What a joke.
 

Hynh

Registered User
Jun 19, 2012
6,170
5,345
How convenient. You can kill the goaltender as long as the puck crossed the line 4 milliseconds before you did so. What a joke.
If useless defencemen would stop hitting every player into their net/goalie then forwards would have to actually pretend to avoid them.
 

Messrules11

6 Cups, elbows up.
Nov 23, 2018
4,507
4,247
Bruins are terrible so far. Need to get some hate, some ugliness and wake that crowd up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->