GDT: Round 3 (Can You Believe It?!) Game 1: EDM @ COL aka Mc v. Mac (8PM ET)

[Turbonium]

Hey, by all means, knock yerself out.

I mean, I see no harm in laughing at that potential matchup of goalies. I promise to still cheer just the same tomorrow, no distractions.

 

[Bill Peckerskull]

If Bednar was a troll he would have said "I thought we were sloppy tonight defensively and took the third period off. We scored 7 goals in two periods, they can't be happy with that."

Something tells me the Avs will use that quote from Woodcroft as a motivation tool for game 2.

 

[dahrougem2]

This is exactly how Game 1 vs the Oilers/Flames went.

Horribad defending on both sides. Horrible goaltending. Horrible interpretation of the rules leading to a goal (in this case two) that shouldn't have mattered, but almost did given the Oilers storming back.

Should be a good series

For the record, the NHL got the call wrong on BOTH goals (Coleman and Makar). In both cases because the phrasing of the rule has allowed one to interpret it however you want. As a purist, that's what drives/drove me bonkers.

NHL rules, should not make phrases like these difficult to interpret:
"distinct kicking motion"
"incedental contact with the goalie"
"possession"
If they are difficult to interpret they should be spelled out and defined in the front of the rule book. Possession cannot be defined or enforced differently for a delayed penalty, a zone entry, or a penalty shot/shoot out. You either have the puck or you don't. We should be able to know what is possession and what is control. It should not be mutable by the ref interpretation.

No, the NHL didn't get the call wrong on the Makar goal. There has been plenty of evidence throughout just this past season alone let alone the last few years where that exact play is deemed onside.

It was not a delayed offside like so many Oiler fans want to point out. A delayed offside would require the puck actually having been in the offensive zone. It was not. It was in the neutral zone, thus making it a tag-up offside. Since Makar never touches the puck with Nichushkin in the zone, the play is deemed onside.

It is 100% the correct call.

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

Something tells me the Avs will use that quote from Woodcroft as a motivation tool for game 2.

We are going to win 7-5! Keeping it under 6GA

 

[SaltySkywalker]

Eye issues can take a while to resolve. One of my kids managed to scratch my eye while they were having a tantrum and my eyes been irritable and blurry for three weeks.

Damn kids!

If Sturm was a video game boss his special attack would be called Better than Jost. And it wouldn't actually do anything. Much like real life where being better than Jost doesn't mean you're a positive contributor. Just better than Jost.

Hey, you might have to change your name here soon, pal.

 

[RampoSanta]

So much griping on the offsides. Surprising given how clearly its been explained from every major outlet.

 

[ASmileyFace]

Sorry you are wrong. And the precendent the NHL has been setting is not written in the rule. That's the issue.

83.1 refers to fair zone entries. What matters is when the puck crosses the line. 83.1 has been clarified, the only time a player can be in the zone before the puck is if he is carrying it and has CONTROL. Nuke is offside when the puck crosses.

If the NHL, in its wisdom, deemed Makar to have the puck in CONTROL it would be offside at the moment the puck crosses the line.

Because the NHL deemed Makar to not be in controlled possession (wrong IMO, but it doesn't matter). Then it is a delayed offside under 83.3 and Nuke must tag up before Makar can: i) touch the puck, ii) enter the zone, or iii) attempt to possess the puck.

The NHL is RIGHT that under 83.3, (i) and (ii) did not happen. but how can they argue that (iii) did not happen. Makar is in full stride, he's moving the puck from backhand to forehand. If that isn't "in control" then it is at very least "attempt to possess".

This is not the same as the McAvoy example. In that case he stops skating forward at the blue line AND does not touch the puck. It is free for all. He doesn't possess it. Therefore he can touch it as soon as his teammate tags.

That is not the case here.

There are only two choices in the rules, as written. Either:
1) Offside under 83.1 since Makar has control and Nuke entered before the puck and hasn't tagged up when the puck crosses with control, or
2) Offside under 83.3 since Makar does not have control, but Nuke is still offside when Makar "attempts to possess" the puck. Moving the puck into your own path to put it on your forehand is (clearly control or) at the very least "attempt to possess".

Keep in mind that the play is blown dead 30 times per night when a player dumps the puck, and pursues it before his teammate tags. You never see the player get within 10 feet of the puck in his "attempt to possess".

You might get more sympathy on the Oilers board bud. This has been explained dozens of times now by just about every major outlet.

Basically you can just f*** off please

 

[Pokecheque]

My God it's not like this is the first time this rule has been interpreted this way. It's been called like that before.

If you want to gripe about the rule or the interpretation thereof, fine, but that can't be changed until this offseason at the earliest. They made the right call, and it was a call they've made many times before.

 

[dahrougem2]

Sorry you are wrong. And the precendent the NHL has been setting is not written in the rule. That's the issue.

83.1 refers to fair zone entries. What matters is when the puck crosses the line. 83.1 has been clarified, the only time a player can be in the zone before the puck is if he is carrying it and has CONTROL (ie if the puck carrier skates backwards over the line or spins etc). Control is defined and clearly Makar has control. Nuke is offside when the puck crosses.

If the NHL, in its wisdom, deemed Makar to have the puck in CONTROL it would be offside at the moment the puck crosses the line.

Because the NHL deemed Makar to not be in controlled possession (wrong IMO, but it doesn't matter). Then it is a delayed offside under 83.3 and Nuke must tag up before Makar can: i) touch the puck, ii) enter the zone, iii) impact the defending team from exiting with the puck, iv) push the defending team back in the zone or v) attempt to possess the puck.

The NHL is RIGHT that under 83.3, (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) did not happen. but how can they argue that (v) did not happen? Makar is in full stride, he's moving the puck from backhand to forehand. If that isn't "in control" then it is at very least "attempt to possess".

This is not the same as the McAvoy example. In that case he stops skating forward at the blue line AND does not touch the puck. It is free for all. He doesn't possess it. Therefore he can touch it as soon as his teammate tags.

That is not the case here.

There are only two choices in the rules, as written. Either:
1) Offside under 83.1 since Makar has control and Nuke entered before the puck and hasn't tagged up when the puck crosses with control, or
2) Offside under 83.3 since Makar does not have control, but Nuke is still offside when Makar "attempts to possess" the puck. Moving the puck into your own path to put it on your forehand is (clearly control or) at the very least "attempt to possess".

Keep in mind that the play is blown dead 30 times per night when a player dumps the puck, and pursues it before his teammate tags. You never see the player get within 10 feet of the puck in his "attempt to possess".

You can point to rule 83.1 all you want. It's been proven by all of the insiders that this rule had no effect on the play.

Makar does not possess the puck with Nichushkin in the zone. The offside is tag-up, not delayed. Therefore the puck CAN enter the zone and Nichushkin only has to touch the very outer edge of the blue line to tag up before Makar can legally touch the puck, which is exactly what happened.

Just because you personally interpret the rule incorrectly does not make the league's call incorrect. They got the call correct.

 

[Freudian]

Avs are very inconsistent when playing with a lead in the third period. Some games they shut it down, barely allowing anything close to a scoring chance and sometimes they go full clown on us.

I guess it depends a bit on which side of the bed our low hockey IQ guys wake up on and if you add smart players like Toews giving the puck away for free things might escalate quickly.

 

[EdAVSfan]

Avs are very inconsistent when playing with a lead in the third period. Some games they shut it down, barely allowing anything close to a scoring chance and sometimes they go full clown on us.

I guess it depends a bit on which side of the bed our low hockey IQ guys wake up on and if you add smart players like Toews giving the puck away for free things might escalate quickly.

Oddly, they’ve been significantly better closing out games in the 3rd on the road.
The bigger the lead, the sloppier they play. Small lead and they are defensive wizards.
At home, it’s been a little… wooof the past 2 home games.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

I would tell some people reading this thread to go back to Edmonton. But our mods ban hateful speech. And I am not a cruel person.

 

[niwotsblessing]

I would tell some people reading this thread to go back to Edmonton. But our mods ban hateful speech. And I am not a cruel person.

Very sporting of you, old boy.

 

[bucks_oil]

No, the NHL didn't get the call wrong on the Makar goal. There has been plenty of evidence throughout just this past season alone let alone the last few years where that exact play is deemed onside.

It was not a delayed offside like so many Oiler fans want to point out. A delayed offside would require the puck actually having been in the offensive zone. It was not. It was in the neutral zone, thus making it a tag-up offside. Since Makar never touches the puck with Nichushkin in the zone, the play is deemed onside.

It is 100% the correct call.

Apologies, I didn't know I was in the COL version of the GDT thread. The titles are the same and I entered from the front page not realizing I was in COL territory.

If you'd like to continue, I'll be in the NHL thread, but one point on the rule. Your 2nd paragraph refers to "tag up" which is only described in 83.3: Delayed Offside - A situation where an attacking player (or players) has preceded the puck across the attacking blue line


Page 127

https://media.nhl.com/site/asset/public/ext/2021-22/2021-22Rules.pdf

 

[Bender]

It's about how you win. I see same pattern happening as Vs the Calgary. We went full stupid here. You can't let in 6 goals.

For me, my biggest takeaway from this game is the first period and how we played - Manson giving up a breakaway to EKane notwithstanding. We were up 14-3 in shots on net with around 3 minutes left in the period and that includes Kane's shot that went in. We were giving them nothing. A poor failure to clear and a subsequent faceoff loss led to their 2nd goal late in the period but I thought we dominated them the way we were playing even though the score was tied before Makars goal.

That's the way the Avs have played most of the year and it's our recipe for success.

There's no reason why we don't come out like that again tomorrow.

“I thought today, defensively, we were sloppy. But I’m going to go back to the six goals we scored on that team,” Woodcroft said. “I don’t know if they can be happy with that. That’s up for them to figure out.”

Colorado had Stevie Wonder in net for half the game and his team gave up 8 goals, but for some reason Woodcroft is confident.

Clutching at straws, really. (See above) It was 7-3 when we took our foot off the gas and anyone who's played the game understands that this is just normal and engrained within a player to 'let up' a bit with a frikkin' 4 goal lead. Problem is, there was like 30 minutes left in the game and not 10 (you don't see that everyday). By letting up, you gave them control of the puck and allowed them to make plays and thats a team that will thrive on that for sure.

Overall though, I liked what I saw from the Avs and their forecheck for the 1st half of the game and how we were able to get to loose pucks first in their end. Keep playing like that for the majority of the series and the Avs will win.

 

[Bill Peckerskull]

We are going to win 7-5! Keeping it under 6GA

I'm ok with every game being 7-5, as long as the Avs have the 7. Will I stress and bitch and complain about it? Absolutely. However, if the Avs win, it matters not what the score is.

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

I'm ok with every game being 7-5, as long as the Avs have the 7. Will I stress and bitch and complain about it? Absolutely. However, if the Avs win, it matters not what the score is.

I'd personally be happy with a bunch of 2-0 wins all the way to the cup. There's still some intensity in the game, but there's a bit of a cushion to reduce the stress, it's not just a gong show of bad goaltending either.

 

[HartKinnon]

How the hell Draisaitl didn’t get interference penalty before Oilers sixth goal? He blatantly picks Avs player with his stick extended sideways.

 

[StLAvsFan]

“I thought today, defensively, we were sloppy. But I’m going to go back to the six goals we scored on that team,” Woodcroft said. “I don’t know if they can be happy with that. That’s up for them to figure out.”

Colorado had Stevie Wonder in net for half the game and his team gave up 8 goals, but for some reason Woodcroft is confident.

Stevie Wonder!!! LOL!!!

 

[Perratrooper]

Jack Johnson was horrendous and needs to be benched for Murray. I really don’t get why we don’t have JJ in instead of him. Towards the end of the season Murray and Manson were finding chemistry.

 

[SaltySkywalker]

Jack Johnson was horrendous and needs to be benched for Murray. I really don’t get why we don’t have JJ in instead of him. Towards the end of the season Murray and Manson were finding chemistry.

I really think Bednar is looking at it like Murray hasn't played in a game in a long, long time and isn't in game shape and doesn't want to throw him out there in a WCF playoff game. However, whether that version of Murray is better than the current version of JJ is yet to be determined. But there's really nothing to lose when JJ has been this bad. It might take a couple of games for Murray to clean up his game, but it feels like a risk we should be taking right now.

 

[blue_n_copper]

We got 6. Just like game 1 last series. Then Woody made some adjustments and we won the next four. We don't need to stop the Avs attack just slow it down a bit so they don't outscore us again which is quite doable. It is not going to be easy but we can win this. Because we got 6.

 

[Goulet17]

We got 6. Just like game 1 last series. Then Woody made some adjustments and we won the next four. We don't need to stop the Avs attack just slow it down a bit so they don't outscore us again which is quite doable. It is not going to be easy but we can win this. Because we got 6.

Are you trying to convince yourself?

 

[Mr Zappalanche]

I was one of the few people that didnt mind JJ in regular season but now he is horrendous. I guess Murray is in next game. Also by far the worst Manson game with Avs.

 

[SaltySkywalker]

I was one of the few people that didnt mind JJ in regular season but now he is horrendous. I guess Murray is in next game. Also by far the worst Manson game with Avs.

Why do you guess that Murray is in next game? Literally nothing suggests that Bednar will take that chance, even If I, and many of you, agree.