GDT: carnyi

[3CanesInTheBox]

TROCHECK. DO SOMETHING.

Now ask him to pay off my student loans

Seriously, love you guys, couldn't survive this team/season without this board.

let's grab 2 more tomorrow!

 

[BB88]

Inconclusive review, call on the ice stands. Thank f***ing god.

Sucks we gave an extra point to the team we're chasing, but we got the win. But we still ain't in a good position, and we can't take the foot off the gas again.

In the end it could be worth it if Tro gets back to his 50+ point pace

 

[CaniacSZN]

Don’t care if it shouldn’t have counted, Canes got robbed in Vancouver. Massive W, keep it rolling tomorrow.

 

[cptjeff]

Call on the ice stands, so it's inconclusive.

Would be very difficult to conclusively call something above the shoulder, when the "shoulder" is so vague anyway (top of the shoulder pad? Does the whole puck have to be above the whole shoulder? What if he's crouching and comes up and his shoulder's now in two different places during the play, etc.)

That said, I didn't know you could review high sticks in the zone (i.e. not the one that actually scored the goal).

It's a new thing- you can review for anything that should have stopped the play before a goal was scored. High stick, puck out of play, etc. Personally I think it's bullshit, a puck bouncing off the net instead of the glass does not actually affect play in any meaningful way.

 

[Vagrant]

Oh my god it went in off Mayfield's face

that had me dying on the first replay. mayfield was being such a tool the whole game that it made it even more hilarious. there's no way this goal should have counted, but i think it's really hard to reverse a game winning goal. sticking with the call on the ice is the less controversial way to go most of the time. the whole building and bench for the islanders had already basically accepted it was over. it almost would have been weird to start it back up.

 

[DaveG]

Woooooooh Vinny Trocheck from my old team FLA, I know the name well. Those points put us in the WC slot right?

2 points back with 1 in hand vs Isles (we have the RW tiebreak currently) and 2 in hand on Columbus for the 2 wild card spots.

 

[SaunaCoach]

I don't get it?

Sure it was a high stick, but that wasn't the play that gave us the goal.

If people are going to cry about it, then every play from the last face off should be reviewable.

Go canes, 2 points closer to the playoffs

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Here's the real question: since when is a high-stick that doesn't score a goal a reviewable play? I know it's always been reviewable if it's the thing that scores the goal, but would this have also been reviewable if there was a high stick back in the defensive zone, then we came up the ice and scored?

It may have been a blown call, but I had no idea it was a reviewable blown call?

EDIT: Yeah, basically what this guy said:

I don't get it?

Sure it was a high stick, but that wasn't the play that gave us the goal.

If people are going to cry about it, then every play from the last face off should be reviewable.

Go canes, 2 points closer to the playoffs

 

[zman77]

 

[zman77]

 

[StrmSurge]

2 points back with 1 in hand vs Isles (we have the RW tiebreak currently) and 2 in hand on Columbus for the 2 wild card spots.

Great. We're in good position to be in as long as we don't totally flop down the stretch. Thanks for the info btw.

Props to Forsberg, he had a solid game, lots of big time saves.

 

[cptjeff]

Here's the real question: since when is a high-stick that doesn't score a goal a reviewable play? I know it's always been reviewable if it's the thing that scores the goal, but would this have also been reviewable if there was a high stick back in the defensive zone, then we came up the ice and scored?

It may have been a blown call, but I had no idea it was a reviewable blown call?

EDIT: Yeah, basically what this guy said:

Since this year. Pucks that should have been out of play or plays that should have been blown dead on a high stick are now reviewable after somebody scored a playoff goal off a puck that hit the netting last year.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

It's a new thing- you can review for anything that should have stopped the play before a goal was scored. High stick, puck out of play, etc. Personally I think it's bullshit, a puck bouncing off the net instead of the glass does not actually affect play in any meaningful way.

So, like, 4 min beforehand, if we high sticked it in the neutral zone, play went on for 4 min, and we scored, that's reviewable?

Boy, this league sure has figured out its replay rules, haven't they.

 

[cptjeff]

So, like, 4 min beforehand, if we high sticked it in the neutral zone, play went on for 4 min, and we scored, that's reviewable?

Boy, this league sure has figured out its replay rules, haven't they.

Yep. Really stupid, ain't it?

 

[DaveG]

So yeah, watching the replays again on the post game:
Behind the Net/Semi Overhead - unable to determine, camera is too high up to get a good read
Camera off Right Wing side - looks like a good goal
Camera off Left Wing side - looks like a high stick

That's the definition of inconclusive evidence if there ever was one

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

So yeah, watching the replays again on the post game:
Behind the Net/Semi Overhead - unable to determine, camera is too high up to get a good read
Camera off Right Wing side - looks like a good goal
Camera off Left Wing side - looks like a high stick

That's the definition of inconclusive evidence if there ever was one

Agreed. I just watched the live angle and it looks pretty even with the shoulder.

 

[cptjeff]

but i think it's really hard to reverse a game winning goal. sticking with the call on the ice is the less controversial way to go most of the time.

Not in Buffalo.

 

[HisIceness]

I've been out and about and focused on other shit than this game. I will take the win.

 

[Vagrant]

what also makes it less egregious is the fact that carolina would have still had a lengthy 4 on 3 to get it done if this one hadn't gone in. they were all over it. not that you ever want to see a "bad" goal counted, but there are enough variables to not feel that terrible about this one.

 

[3CanesInTheBox]

awesome angle. happy for him and this could really get him going.

feels good, man, freakin good .

 

[zman77]

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

To all the Isles fans using that still screenshot of the reverse angle to show "indisputably" that it's a goal, don't you think it's weird that they were playing on a trapezoidal goal the whole game? Weird that the crossbar is so slanted...

...oh wait, you mean that the crossbar is actually level to the ice, and certain camera angles distort certain perceptions of what objects are "higher" than others? Weird.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Fellas .... Skjei’s stick went right underneath Barzal’s skate blade. Don’t be homers. It was a good call.

Don't wreck the narrative. I agree it was a bad play by Skjei, but Barzal felt the stick and stopped skating to make it look good.

So, like, 4 min beforehand, if we high sticked it in the neutral zone, play went on for 4 min, and we scored, that's reviewable?

Boy, this league sure has figured out its replay rules, haven't they.

No. Only plays in the offensive zone that would have stopped play are reviewable.

I can say it now, Forsberg was *really* good. Calm, square, confidence-inspiring. He basically did everything right, including how he managed the game, slowing it down, keeping play moving, etc. Very impressive.

And in the end, I'd like to think we'd have scored in three more minutes of overtime power play time, but ... y'know ... I'm glad we don't have to find out.

 

[zman77]

It was a high stick.......................but the 'Canes deserve the win!!

 

[zman77]

'Canes will make the Play-Offs.
Vatanen is coming to play at the right time!