The Official Horrible Trade Proposals Thread: Part 3, Still Drinking...

[Svechhammer]

I sat in the 200 level for the 2009 playoff run and my seats for at least the Devils series was directly in front of the visiting management suite. I vividly remember Lou L. peacing out of the area the second that puck went past Brodeur. Didn't even wait for the review. And Jussi had every right to be where he was, Brodeur only gets the space in the crease for protection and contact was initiated outside of it. He was trying to draw a penalty and it backfired. Too bad so sad. And working for a Boston based company, having it be Walker of all people who scored the OT series winner made work the next month just that much better.

 

[Joe McGrath]

I have no idea, so I assume you're correct...but I give the NHL full marks for their discretion on that little bit of bull**** from Ward. They could have gone strictly by the book, but looked at it play out and likely decided "Ward fronted, Walker obliged...Ward got what he asked for."

You can’t just drop your gloves and swing on a guy whose gloves are still on because you are losing. Even Nathan Horton had the decency to rag doll Gleason for 2 minutes instead of breaking his eye socket when he wouldn’t fight him.

You can’t break a guys eye socket with your bare hand when the guys gloves are still on. That seems like common sense.

If he did that in the regular season he would’ve been suspended. If he did that I’m 2018 he’d probably get an in person hearing type suspension.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Yeah, I'd definitely be more willing to chalk up the 2009 run to "luck and good goaltending" than the 2006 one. The series against the Devils could have gone either way (and was like 1:20 from doing so), and obviously Game 7 OT against Boston.

Any discussion about 2006 in that regard is just salty fans that can't let their misguided beliefs go, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Yep

2006 was a legit contender winning it all

2009 was an annoying little brother messing with your stuff

 

[WreckingCrew]

Yep

2006 was a legit contender winning it all

2009 was an annoying little brother messing with your stuff

Hey now, I represent that remark...

 

[tarheelhockey]

Brodeur only gets the space in the crease for protection

That’s not how the rule works. A skater can’t initiate contact with the goalie, regardless of location. While you can certainly argue that Brodeur was standing way out of his net to try and set up a penalty, the fact remains that Jussi skated into him. That’s not just a no-goal, it’s a penalty as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m SUPER glad it happened. I’d much rather be on the right end of an epic win because of a bad call, than be perma-bitter over an epic loss because of a bad call.

 

[RodTheBawd]

Can't tell if THH is one-upping me or....

 

[Joe McGrath]

That’s not how the rule works. A skater can’t initiate contact with the goalie, regardless of location. While you can certainly argue that Brodeur was standing way out of his net to try and set up a penalty, the fact remains that Jussi skated into him. That’s not just a no-goal, it’s a penalty as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m SUPER glad it happened. I’d much rather be on the right end of an epic win because of a bad call, than be perma-bitter over an epic loss because of a bad call.

f*** Brodeur, won the goddamned lottery getting to play behind those Devil teams.

 

[WreckingCrew]

That’s not how the rule works. A skater can’t initiate contact with the goalie, regardless of location. While you can certainly argue that Brodeur was standing way out of his net to try and set up a penalty, the fact remains that Jussi skated into him. That’s not just a no-goal, it’s a penalty as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m SUPER glad it happened. I’d much rather be on the right end of an epic win because of a bad call, than be perma-bitter over an epic loss because of a bad call.

Is this epic trolling or serious? Brodeur literally skated out into the line Jussi was taking and tried to push him. He failed so he flopped. Jussi wasn't looking at him and skating into him, he skated backwards into open ice he had as much right to as Brodeur. Incidental contact at it's finest. Brodeur was the Crosby of goalies, really good but all-time flopper and whiner.

EDIT: I really think some of y'all are just trying to f*** with the rest of us...and it's working...

 

[Chrispy]

That’s not how the rule works. A skater can’t initiate contact with the goalie, regardless of location. While you can certainly argue that Brodeur was standing way out of his net to try and set up a penalty, the fact remains that Jussi skated into him. That’s not just a no-goal, it’s a penalty as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m SUPER glad it happened. I’d much rather be on the right end of an epic win because of a bad call, than be perma-bitter over an epic loss because of a bad call.

Brodeur skated into Jokinen as much as Jokinen skated into Brodeur. Brodeur was still moving up ice when the contact happened.

 

[DaveG]

That’s not how the rule works. A skater can’t initiate contact with the goalie, regardless of location. While you can certainly argue that Brodeur was standing way out of his net to try and set up a penalty, the fact remains that Jussi skated into him. That’s not just a no-goal, it’s a penalty as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m SUPER glad it happened. I’d much rather be on the right end of an epic win because of a bad call, than be perma-bitter over an epic loss because of a bad call.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

That’s not how the rule works. A skater can’t initiate contact with the goalie, regardless of location. While you can certainly argue that Brodeur was standing way out of his net to try and set up a penalty, the fact remains that Jussi skated into him. That’s not just a no-goal, it’s a penalty as well.

Is this in reference to that one time Andersen of the Leafs set a pick while Skinner was chasing the puck carrier around the net, and somehow Skinner ended up with a goalie interference penalty?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is this epic trolling or serious? Brodeur literally skated out into the line Jussi was taking and tried to push him. He failed so he flopped. Jussi wasn't looking at him and skating into him, he skated backwards into open ice he had as much right to as Brodeur. Incidental contact at it's finest. Brodeur was the Crosby of goalies, really good but all-time flopper and whiner.

EDIT: I really think some of y'all are just trying to **** with the rest of us...and it's working...

Goaltenders are allowed to skate into the path a skater is taking. The onus is on the skater not to collide.

Imagine what the sport of hockey would look like if the onus was on the goalie to get out of the way of an oncoming skater.

 

[Svechhammer]

Goaltenders are allowed to skate into the path a skater is taking. The onus is on the skater not to collide.

Imagine what the sport of hockey would look like if the onus was on the goalie to get out of the way of an oncoming skater.

Rule 69 (Nice)

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. 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. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 78)

That Jussi goal was deemed incidental contact, and the fact that Brodeur initiated contact was enough to allow it. You can't run a goalie outside the crease, but the rules are far more lenient when the goalie wanders. Brodeur should have played the puck, not the flop.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Rule 69 (Nice)

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. 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. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), but may be subject to a Coach’s Challenge (see Rule 78)

That Jussi goal was deemed incidental contact, and the fact that Brodeur initiated contact was enough to allow it. You can't run a goalie outside the crease, but the rules are far more lenient when the goalie wanders. Brodeur should have played the puck, not the flop.

Did Jokinen make a reasonable effort to avoid contact?

Did he make ANY effort to avoid contact?

It was a close, blown call. Brodeur’s body language didn’t help his case, but there’s absolutely no way that skaters are allowed to just back directly into the goalie. This board would have imploded if we lost a Game 7 after someone had skated backward into Cam leading directly to a goal.

 

[WreckingCrew]

Did Jokinen make a reasonable effort to avoid contact?

Did he make ANY effort to avoid contact?

It was a close, blown call. Brodeur’s body language didn’t help his case, but there’s absolutely no way that skaters are allowed to just back directly into the goalie. This board would have imploded if we lost a Game 7 after someone had skated backward into Cam leading directly to a goal.

You can't make an effort to avoid a goalie when you're skating backwards across an area 6 feet in front of the net where nobody was at previously. Brodeur made a concerted effort to skate out of the crease along the path Juice was moving in intentionally to draw a penalty. It wasn't even close to a bad or controversial call. It was his fault 100%. If Ward or Darling or any other goalie on our team did this, I would be furious at him for making such a moronic move/dive, not the opposing player.

 

[RodTheBawd]

 

[tarheelhockey]

You can't make an effort to avoid a goalie when you're skating backwards across an area 6 feet in front of the net where nobody was at previously.

So... he didn’t make an effort to avoid contact.

Per the above: provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

Again, players can’t just float around backward and collide with the goalie, then argue incidental contact. If any of us saw a player do that to a Canes goalie, we’d be (rightfully) screaming for a call.

 

[GoldiFox]

Marty Brodeur is smart enough to set his own pick in open ice in the last seconds of a game to eliminate any chance of scoring due to "interference".

Reminds me of the stupid NFL rule where a game cannot end on an offensive penalty, so teams will commit egregious holding and interference penalties to run out the clock and avoid loss of possession (example: Ravens commit intentional holding to beat Bengals).

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

So... he didn’t make an effort to avoid contact.

Per the above: provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

Again, players can’t just float around backward and collide with the goalie, then argue incidental contact. If any of us saw a player do that to a Canes goalie, we’d be (rightfully) screaming for a call.

But there's also a common sense element involved when the goaltender is the one initiating contact, no?

For example, if a goalie were to just start hacking guys in the back of the knee that crossed within 5 feet of the crease, then cried "he didn't try to avoid it!", we'd all know that's BS, because he didn't have TIME to avoid it.

However, if his stick is already there and in position, and the forward runs into it, it's more cut and dry.

The question boils down to whether Brodeur drew the contact in such a way as to establish that that was "his ice."

 

[tarheelhockey]

But there's also a common sense element involved when the goaltender is the one initiating contact, no?

For example, if a goalie were to just start hacking guys in the back of the knee that crossed within 5 feet of the crease, then cried "he didn't try to avoid it!", we'd all know that's BS, because he didn't have TIME to avoid it.

However, if his stick is already there and in position, and the forward runs into it, it's more cut and dry.

The question boils down to whether Brodeur drew the contact in such a way as to establish that that was "his ice."

It WAS his ice. As the goalie, Brodeur is entitled to any space he wishes to occupy which isn’t already taken by a skater. Jokinen does not have a right to come in at the last second and co-occupy that space, for any reason, unless the contact is incidental and he’s making a reasonable effort to avoid it. It doesn’t matter if both he and Brodeur are skating on the same trajectory; the onus is on Jokinen to avoid contact if possible. That clearly wasn’t the case here. It should have been called, but it wasn’t, which I’m totally OK with as a Canes fan.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

It WAS his ice. As the goalie, Brodeur is entitled to any space he wishes to occupy which isn’t already taken by a skater. Jokinen does not have a right to come in at the last second and co-occupy that space, for any reason, unless the contact is incidental and he’s making a reasonable effort to avoid it. It doesn’t matter if both he and Brodeur are skating on the same trajectory; the onus is on Jokinen to avoid contact if possible. That clearly wasn’t the case here. It should have been called, but it wasn’t, which I’m totally OK with as a Canes fan.

How dare you.

 

[A Star is Burns]

Season can't get here fast enough.

 

[JCLA]

I thought we were discussing trades

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I thought we were discussing trades

Hi welcome to the Canes section of HFBoards, I’m Anton Dubinchuk, I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.