GDT: Game 24: Florida Panthers (11-9-4) @ Seattle Kraken(15-5-3) - 7:00 p.m. PT / 10:00 p.m. ET

[Toomany7pins]

Depressing! Shades of last year! Kraken can"t take dumb penalties and they have to figure out their PK

Yep, dumb penalties, and crap officiating. Along with a crap defensive effort, and a lack of shot adjustment as Florida goalie was stopping everything low.


This is one I guess is one turd that needs to be flushed.

 

[RayMartyniukTotems]

I have to say Advertisers should not be able to roll their product on NHL boards. It hurts my eyes and my head!!!I wonder about SubLiminal Advertising

 

[RayMartyniukTotems]

Yep, dumb penalties, and crap officiating. Along with a crap defensive effort, and a lack of shot adjustment as Florida goalie was stopping everything low.


This is one I guess is one turd that needs to be flushed.

yep

 

[kihei]

Well, we were due for one of those. In truth, I was mercifully anesthetized for most of it. The Marquis will understand.

 

[gstommylee]

Yep, dumb penalties, and crap officiating. Along with a crap defensive effort, and a lack of shot adjustment as Florida goalie was stopping everything low.


This is one I guess is one turd that needs to be flushed.

Team shouldn't let on how the ref's call the game distract them. I only followed the game for a bit but once i realize its going to be one of those games where some of the fanbase is going to do the finger pointing (not anyone on here though) i just move on and do something else.

 

[UseYourHedman]

The NHL has got to figure out GI! There is no consistency. No one has any clue what is or isn't interference. Then teams get a delay penalty if they're "wrong". It's a coin flip (assuming unbiased officiating on ice and in Toronto) and if the staff guesses wrong they're staring at a good chance of giving up 2 goals in just a few seconds. I'm trying to remember if the delay penalty on GI challenge was added the same time as the offside challenge. Anyone remember?

 

[gstommylee]

The NHL has got to figure out GI! There is no consistency. No one has any clue what is or isn't interference. Then teams get a delay penalty if they're "wrong". It's a coin flip (assuming unbiased officiating on ice and in Toronto) and if the staff guesses wrong they're staring at a good chance of giving up 2 goals in just a few seconds. I'm trying to remember if the delay penalty on GI challenge was added the same time as the offside challenge. Anyone remember?

50/50 subjective calls are the worst no matter how the rule is written. It can be a greatly defined rule and there will still be times where the ref decides against calling it GI. This is exactly why i didn't like the challenge. Accepting the goal is way better than losing a challenge then going down 2-0 cause of the failed challenge penalty.

The problem is you can't be overly protected of the goalies and have everything be GI even outside the crease.

 

[Irie]

The NHL has got to figure out GI! There is no consistency. No one has any clue what is or isn't interference. Then teams get a delay penalty if they're "wrong". It's a coin flip (assuming unbiased officiating on ice and in Toronto) and if the staff guesses wrong they're staring at a good chance of giving up 2 goals in just a few seconds. I'm trying to remember if the delay penalty on GI challenge was added the same time as the offside challenge. Anyone remember?

The coin flip comment was just Edzo trying to save face.

It was not a penalty. Staal has every right to that lane to pursue that puck and take the shot. If Grubauer slides into his lane outside of his crease and contact is made, the ref has to determine only if contact could or could not be avoided. Keep in mind that this does not mean that Staal has to forego playing the puck to avoid contact. He only has to try to avoid contact, if possible, after making his play on the puck. (Had Grubauer been in the crease, it would be a different story).

In this case, Grubauer slid into Staals path outside of the crease and Staal ran into him while playing the puck, and Staal had no chance to avoid contact.

Unfortunately when the broadcast team makes calls like that on the air, especially in new markets, everyone assumes that the refs are wrong. The entire gaggle of green journalist were bringing up the "bad call" in interviews of the players after the game. That is problematic.

Last game Olczyk went off for 45 seconds about how there was an offside call on Beneirs that clearly was not offside, and got everyone riled up. Except if you look at the replay, it is true Beniers is not offside, but Khulman was 4 or 5 feet across the line on the other side of the ice.

Comments like those rile up the fanbase and the fans start to really think the refs have it out for the team, when in reality it is just a color-commentator making comments he should know better than to make.

I like Olczyk on national broadcasts, but lately he has been bringing a real homer angle to the Seattle coverage around officiating that is intolerable.

 

[RainyCityHockey]

Well, a pretty bad defensive effort(not by shots total, but high danger chances allowed) and this time we got punished for it.

Too bad for Grubi who takes a big hit in his SV% even though he made a lot of great saves to keep us at least in it during the first period.

I also laughed pretty hard at them refs giving Florida a power play(while the game was at 2-1) after Dunn reacted because the Panthers dude threw a punch to his head.
Still, you gotta be able to kill off a penalty and the Kraken just aren't as the pk's absolutely terrible.

Anyways, we're still 15-6-3 and have a chance to get make up for this one agains Montreal.

 

[brewski420]

With every game Olczyk is in the booth, the broadcast team sounds more and more like the homers in Vegas or Colorado.

It's getting brutal.

Last year, Forslund and Brown were a breath of fresh air with their unbias game calling. The crew with Olczyk is killing me with the whining.

I was thinking the same thing last night. Eddie O is really hard to take. I will admit I was not a fan before but just putting up with him on national broadcasts was OK. But not every game. Forslund and JT should be the team.

 

[UseYourHedman]

The coin flip comment was just Edzo trying to save face.

It was not a penalty. Staal has every right to that lane to pursue that puck and take the shot. If Grubauer slides into his lane outside of his crease and contact is made, the ref has to determine only if contact could or could not be avoided. Keep in mind that this does not mean that Staal has to forego playing the puck to avoid contact. He only has to try to avoid contact, if possible, after making his play on the puck. (Had Grubauer been in the crease, it would be a different story).

In this case, Grubauer slid into Staals path outside of the crease and Staal ran into him while playing the puck, and Staal had no chance to avoid contact.

Unfortunately when the broadcast team makes calls like that on the air, especially in new markets, everyone assumes that the refs are wrong. The entire gaggle of green journalist were bringing up the "bad call" in interviews of the players after the game. That is problematic.

Last game Olczyk went off for 45 seconds about how there was an offside call on Beneirs that clearly was not offside, and got everyone riled up. Except if you look at the replay, it is true Beniers is not offside, but Khulman was 4 or 5 feet across the line on the other side of the ice.

Comments like those rile up the fanbase and the fans start to really think the refs have it out for the team, when in reality it is just a color-commentator making comments he should know better than to make.

I like Olczyk on national broadcasts, but lately he has been bringing a real homer angle to the Seattle coverage around officiating that is intolerable.

I wasn't repeating Edzo's comment. I've tuned that clown out for years. I'm saying that there has to be some consistency. I've seen less than that called GI dozens of times. I've seen the goalie completely out of the crease and it called GI dozens of times. There will always be a degree of subjectivity but no one, and I mean no one, knows what the outcome of a challenge is going to be except those involved in it. At the very least I'd like the official to state why the decision was made.

 

[Irie]

I wasn't repeating Edzo's comment. I've tuned that clown out for years. I'm saying that there has to be some consistency. I've seen less than that called GI dozens of times. I've seen the goalie completely out of the crease and it called GI dozens of times. There will always be a degree of subjectivity but no one, and I mean no one, knows what the outcome of a challenge is going to be except those involved in it. At the very least I'd like the official to state why the decision was made.

The officials usually do explain why decisions are made, but it is to the coaching staff and unfortunately, broadcast teams and fans aren't privy to that explanation.

There are always going to be varying levels of subjectivity depending on the play, but it usually revolves around contact with defenders before the GI and whether or not a player was a.) pushed in the goalie and b.) could they have avoided contact.

In this particular play, Grubauer was sliding out of the crease and into Staal's path and there was no way to avoid contact. Had Grubauer been stationary, or had he been trying to get back into his crease at the time of the collision, there would be room for the refs to be subjective and the outcome of the call would be uncertain.

How quickly the ruling was made on the review is evidence that there really was not a whole lot to question on that particular play. When they announced there was a coaching challenge, I was yelling at my tv, knowing with certainty the goal would be upheld. It was a really bad idea to challenge.

 

[The Marquis]

The problem is less with the call and more with other calls. So many far less egregious GI calls have been made, yet this alone wasn’t (frankly, it’s closer to not than it is to GI). This SHOULD be GI, but it probably isn’t due to where Gru was on the ice. As is usual with the NHL, the problem is with the rule, not so much the enforcement.

 

[Irie]

The problem is less with the call and more with other calls. So many far less egregious GI calls have been made, yet this alone wasn’t (frankly, it’s closer to not than it is to GI). This SHOULD be GI, but it probably isn’t due to where Gru was on the ice. As is usual with the NHL, the problem is with the rule, not so much the enforcement.

The thing is, most infractions in a game are subjective to the Refs and are often based on whether they feel the infraction influenced the play.

I would argue that well less then 10% of infractions per game are actually called. There are a dozens of crosschecks along the boards in a single game, often zero of them are called. There are often a dozen trips in a game, and usually less than half are called. There are several interference infractions on every shift, but unless they influence the direct play of the puck, most are ignored.

So we are singling out the goalie interference as something different, when in reality, it is actually like the rest of the game, only it happens less and often seems to be more directly related to goals, which makes it feel like a larger issue.

Because GI is also often caused by contact between defensemen bumping forwards into goalies, the interpretation is more likely to be disagreed upon by opposing teams and fan bases.

The league is trying to protect goalies and has even changed how the rules are enforced, but the rule still clearly states that if a goalie is skating outside of his crease and moves into the path of an oncoming player resulting in unavoidable contact, it is not interference.

"Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact."

I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that 1.) Grubauer didn't slide into Staal's path, (which initiated the contact), or 2.) That Staal could have avoided contact. Often I think the refs get it wrong, but I can't see any way that this was GI the way the rule is written or the way it has been consistently enforced for the past 30 years.

 

[gstommylee]

50/50 subjective calls like gi or kicking the puck are the worst since its always up to interpretation of what was the intent of the player or with gi both the intent of the goalie and the skater.

Its not always clear if it is gi or not especially when the goalie leaves crease.

 

[gstommylee]

now with that non GI call, it doesn't help that gru left the crease taking away the automatic protection from contact. The skater has within his right to play the puck in the space he is in as long as he isn't solely intending to impede gru. If gru put himself into the players skating lane making it impossible for the skater to avoid contact with the goalie in order to play the puck he has a right to, how is that exactly GI?

I seen a call that wasn't GI by a long shot cause the goalie went in front the player to impede the skater not to play the puck and the skater gets thrown in the box for GI when the goalie initiated the contact.

now can it be argue yes its GI or no its not is solely up to the interpretation of the refs. 50/50 subjective calls again are the worst.

GI has within its rule what is GI and what isn't GI if contact with the goalie happens. Same with the kicking the puck rule. Just cause players skate happened to touch the puck and it goes into net doesn't mean said player intentionally kicked it in.

There is no definitely that its a penalty or its a no goal no matter what with how GI is defined.

Trouble is GI has two rules in it one that clear defines what is GI and the other that clearly defines what isn't when there's contact with the goalie. Unfortunately the refs may have gotten that correct. Seattle took a risk by challenging in and lost the challenge. For me it was way too soon in the game to take that kind of risk.

 

[wewantyoursoul]

Executive decision has been made. I will no longer make GDT the day before a game. I take full responsibility for the outcome of this one fellas. My bad.

@Irie...I also prefer just John and JT. I think they are/were developing a good chemistry. I hope they don't lose JT. I think he adds a very relevant and fresh take on the games...especially since he played very recently.