GDT: Game #2: Blackhawks @ Blues

[SirPaste]

Why is this team so allergic to scoring goals?

We scored 3 last night

 

[TruBlu]

Technically we scored as many goals as the Blackhawks. We just didn't get to keep one of them. I would also add that one of Chicago's goals was an empty netter, so if you are going to say that, Chicago was allergic to scoring last night, too.

 

[Daley Tarasenkshow]

Why is this team so allergic to scoring goals?

It's blues vs. hawks, I don't know how many goals you were expecting but I don't consider scoring the problem for the blue at this point. It's going to be a hard fought series and every game is and will be close.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

Told you that this team can't beat Chicago in a series. We have same scoring issues like every year and I don't think it will be any easier in Chicago.

Also I'm laughing at the guys who said we wouldn't be better with Stamkos instead of Shattenkirk. Adding someone like Stamkos could just be the piece we need to beat them. We still have Pie, Parayko and J-BO on D.

So you're suggesting we would be better with a player that is currently recuperating from having a clot in his arm?

If we are going to try and play the hindsight game, I think you should take a look at all the relevant information.

 

[Vladdy the Impaler]

This challenge **** is going to ruin hockey and drive a lot of casual fans away. Great job Bettman.

 

[MissouriMook]

Question about the review of the offsides. Do you lose the ability to call a challenge once the puck comes out of the zone? I was just thinking that as long as they went and were still able to review it, what would stop a coach from using one several minutes later after catching an offsides that a linesman missed, as kind of an insurance piece if the other team scores first.

Once the puck leaves the zone, the play is back onside. The idea is that if a play is offside at the line, it continues to be offside until it isn't, which normally happens when the puck leaves the zone or they blow the play dead. Only when a goal is scored while the play is still offside can it be challenged successfully. Similarly, if there is a stoppage in the zone unrelated to the play being offside, that hits the reset button, too, so if the attacking team wins the ensuing face off and scores after the play has been stopped, the goal cannot be overturned because the scoring entered the zone offside before the stoppage.

 

[fishsandwichpatrol]

After reading the offside rule again it seems that the skate DOES have to be in contact with the ice. It's not the clearest wording ever but yeah they made the right call. Really sucks though, I mean you could be barely over the line and offside because your back skate is off the ice or way over the line and barely toe dragging and be onside. Oh well, let's see how they respond in the next game.

 

[TheDizee]

Long and hearty lol at some posters saying they are not going to watch any more games or that the series is over and the Blues cannot beat the hawks after 1 loss. Did you really expect a sweep? Talk about mentally fragile/losing attitude

you need to read better. has nothing to do with losing a game. some of us just dont like to watch ref fests playoff series.

enjoy your tim peel officiated game 3.

 

[slappipappi]

A few seem to disagree about the literal interpretation of the wording but it's pretty clear to me. Yes the NHL may not have intended it as such, but you can't deny that the wrong call was made according the rulebook.

Then it's been worng for all time.

The refs have always interpreted they way they did last night.

This was not new.

Otherwise, you wouldn't see a million skaters drasgging their skates across the line.

What would be bizarre would be deciding the call based on something that has never been done.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I really liked Hitchcock's comments post-game. He made it clear that he disagreed with the calls, communicated that to the league and the public, without whining or allowing the team to look backwards. To win this series, the response has to be determination. If the team gets stuck feeling cheated and looking wistfully back at a game they should have won, its mental defeatism. But if they look at it and come out and find a higher level of play, this could end up taking them to the series victory.

Anyway, I felt like Hitchcock set a really good tone. I want to believe this is a special group this year. I think their response to last night's game is going to show the answer one way or another. If they win the next game, they'll win the series.

 

[Blanick]

I really liked Hitchcock's comments post-game. He made it clear that he disagreed with the calls, communicated that to the league and the public, without whining or allowing the team to look backwards. To win this series, the response has to be determination. If the team gets stuck feeling cheated and looking wistfully back at a game they should have won, its mental defeatism. But if they look at it and come out and find a higher level of play, this could end up taking them to the series victory.

Anyway, I felt like Hitchcock set a really good tone. I want to believe this is a special group this year. I think their response to last night's game is going to show the answer one way or another. If they win the next game, they'll win the series.

I basically said the same thing right after the game. The winner of Game#3 will win the series IMO. One of the biggest problems of Blues teams past was getting past adversity.

 

[Lord Helix]

<snip>I want to believe<snip>

Tread softly.

 

[TruBlu]

My main problem, having been at the game, was that the Hawks had several obvious penalties not called. Anytime we did get the benefit of a call, we got an offsetting call to go with. I have a problem with the way embellishment is called. I think that embellishment should only be called if there is no real penalty against you and you try and draw one. I don't care how a player reacts when they take a clear penalty, it's still a penalty. The whole premise behind embellishment is silly anyway. It is basically saying that refs don't really see what happened, but they call penalties based on how "hurt" guys act. In regards to the offsides call. It was technically offsides, but if you are going to nitpick that, I think we will see a drop in scoring leaguewide as players will be more concerned with staying two feet behind the line to ensure no offsides. breakaways will become a thing of the past. No other sport clarifies the line as being just the spot where your feet touch. It should be an imaginary line that runs from the ground up to infinity.

 

[542365]

I thought we played better than game 1, so I can't be too upset about it. We just need to win one in Chicago. It's not the end of the world. Only call I REALLY disagreed with was the embellishment on Fabbri. That was total BS.

If we play that well the rest of the way I like our chances.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Reading through this thread the day after is so depressing.

Does anyone else remember when the Hawks scored with the 6th man on the ice (Kane) while their goalie was still in net? I'm pretty sure it was against Nashville last year. Kane had just jumped off the bench to receive a pass in the neutral zone and got a breakaway. The goal celebration had 6 players on the ice hugging - with the goalie in net.

I was right - it was a playoff game:

 

[TruBlu]

Reading through this thread the day after is so depressing.

Does anyone else remember when the Hawks scored with the 6th man on the ice (Kane) while their goalie was still in net? I'm pretty sure it was against Nashville last year. Kane had just jumped off the bench to receive a pass in the neutral zone and got a breakaway. The goal celebration had 6 players on the ice hugging - with the goalie in net.

I was right - it was a playoff game:

I think stuff like this is why I personally get so frustrated. You see stuff like this every once in a while for every team, but chicago is consistently getting crazy "luck." It makes it hard to watch a game with the hawks because you are constantly waiting for the axe to fall.

 

[Borderbluesfan]

Then it's been worng for all time.

The refs have always interpreted they way they did last night.

This was not new.

Otherwise, you wouldn't see a million skaters drasgging their skates across the line.

What would be bizarre would be deciding the call based on something that has never been done.

The point is that the rule is clearly written and doesn't require skaters to drag their skate as written. Change one word "or" to "and" then it would require the foot to be on the ice and on their side of the blue line. As written it only requires one or the other. Either in contact with the line or on their own side of the line. According to the rule the skate doesn't have to be in contact as long as it is behind the line. What you are saying is that the refs don't have to apply the rule as written, they can use their own accepted interpretations of the rule. It is either a rule or it isn't, in a disputed review, the rule as written has to be applied not one ref's interpretation of the rule. Just because NHL officials have been improperly enforcing the rule doesn't change what the rule says as written. Those officials last night should be required to go back and read Rule 83.1 because they didn't consider the rule as written. The NHL also needs to review the rule and decide what they want it to be. If they want the skate on the ice then they need to change the language of the rule so that it says that the skate must be in contact and behind the blue line.

 

[oPlaiD]

The point is that the rule is poorly written and doesn't require skaters to drag their skate as written. Change one word "or" to "and" then it would require the foot to be on the ice and on their side of the blue line. As written it only requires one or the other. Either in contact with the line or on their own side of the line. According to the rule the skate doesn't have to be in contact as long as it is behind the line.

According to the rule, Lehtera wasn't off-side, but he wasn't on-side either.

Proof that the Refs and league favor the Hawks, since they get to interpret the rule in their favor, since they need hard evidence to refute the call on the ice!

(I agree the rule has always been interpreted one way, but that way is not the way its written, and the way its written makes a situation like this one pretty nebulous)

 

[Munber1]

Why can't the people in charge think thru these new rules before they make them? The disallowed goal against Chicago should have counted. If a ref doesn't call offside then to overturn the non call, the video evidence should show that the ref should have made the call in real time but missed it. That is what the new rule is supposed to be for, not to look at fractions of a second or inches which can't normally be picked up by a ref in real time. If you're going to use a camera to help pick up calls that should have been made, the cameras should have a time counter and there should be a line on the boards about six inches inside of the blue line. If the ref doesn't call an offside and a goal is challenged due to a possible offside infraction, to disallow the goal, the video evidence should show that the player was over that extra line on the boards and the player should also be over the blue line for a set time (say about .5 seconds) according to the timer on the camera...if both those conditions are met, then it could be determined that was an offside call that could or should have been made by a ref in real time...otherwise, it would be too close for a ref to call in real time and that has to be accepted as a fair part of the game...if a camera shows a player offside for a tiny amount of time or distance which can't be expected to be called in real time by a person, then the ref's non offside call should stand.

 

[TruBlu]

Looking back at the offside rule, I think that the ruling to have the skate on the ice should be rewritten to say that the skate doesn't have to be on the ice. When the rule was written, they didn't have the knowledge that they were going to be using blue line cameras and were probably relying on the fact that calls were going to be made based on the lineman having an easier time being able to differentiate the skates position in contrast to the line with the skate being down. Using the current setup, they are able to look frame by frame. If they are going to be scrutinizing by the "millimeter," then they can easily differentiate if a part of the skate is onside and don't need the skate to be on the ice to see that.

 

[fishsandwichpatrol]

I think the rule is worded badly but that the intent is that the player has to have that skate on the ice. It's a pretty silly stipulation in my mind, why should it matter whether the back skate is on the ice or not? I guess it's to make it easier for the officials to call but with video review now it shouldn't matter.

 

[Meatwagon]

Tomorrows game will determine the series winner. Let go blues

 

[TruBlu]

Had 15 fans kicked out of game 1 in St. Louis, not sure how many were tossed in game 2.

 

[Captain Creampuff]

Tomorrows game will determine the series winner. Let go blues

Pretty much. If there is a must win game in the series for this team, tomorrow's game is it.

 

[bluesfanforlife1992]

I've argued my interpreation of the rules on the main board thread and I am still confident that the play was onside. Here is what I said:

---

In regards to the overturned goal by #91, let's be clear:


(Reference, page 123)

It does not explicitly say the skate must touch the ice for it to be onside. The skate can instead be over the blue line in the air when the puck crosses. The specific bolded section of the rulebook above does not require a players skate to touch the ice to be onside. He must simply have his skate above the plane of the front edge of the blue line (text: "his own side of the [blue] line) to be "onside." The picture below shows this (the puck in the picture has crossed the line and is not visible as it's behind Lehtera. The replay video will confirm the puck is hidden behind Lehtera in the still picture.

Therefore it was onside per the rules, and the call was incorrectly overturned. You can argue that the rule has been interpreted differently in the past, but the wording is clear. It was onside. The NHL must update the rule's text if it intends to call a player offside if their back foot is in the air in the future. With the war room having ample time to review this play but still making the incorrect call is simply unacceptable, especially considering they overturned the call.

---

A few seem to disagree about the literal interpretation of the wording but it's pretty clear to me. Yes the NHL may not have intended it as such, but you can't deny that the wrong call was made according the rulebook.

I got ripped for posting exactly what you said on blues talk. Brutal told I have no knowledge of the game. I get they mean drag the skate has been interpretation for years, but the rules clearly does not say drag it or contact. It just says on your side of the line.

NHL needs to change the wording. I'm sticking to hfboards for now.