Author Topic: Official NHL 2015-2016 Thread (Read 93224 times)

jingle.boy · « **Reply #840 on:** May 11, 2016, 09:25:45 PM »

I'm with the haters on the coach's challenge rule. Nick, the way the coach's challenge rule is worded is the issue - not the rule of something being off-sides or not. The coach's challenge rule is the one that sucks. Was the right "offsides" call made tonight - sure. Was it the right use of the coach's challenge rule - no. Coach's are using it when grasping at straws. The challenge is to be used "if an offside play leads to a goal". Like Birere a few years ago; like Duchene. Not like the 1" difference tonight or against Chicago in Round 1. Either way... when it's the difference of a game winning or series clinching OT goal (ala Hull against Buffalo in '99) you'll see the rule changed. No way the refs were gonna overrule that one, even though they should've.

Either way, I was happy as shit when they got the 2nd goal to make it irrelevant anyway.

Congrats to the Blues and city and fans. Tomorrow's game should be good - and it's on at a reasonable hour!

@ Kev... they did on the feed I was watching, and it was a matter of an inch or less.

KevShmev · « **Reply #841 on:** May 11, 2016, 09:31:04 PM »

Yep, that's what I mean by too close to call. Thank God it didn't matter, because had the game turned on that negated goal...I cannot even imagine.

I don't care who wins tomorrow night. The Blues can beat either.

jingle.boy · « **Reply #842 on:** May 11, 2016, 09:32:05 PM »

Quote from: KevShmev on May 11, 2016, 09:31:04 PM

I don't care who wins tomorrow night. The Blues can beat either.

I really want it to be the Sharks, but a small part of me wants it to be Nash so that there aren't any 10pm ET games!

Jarlaxle · « **Reply #843 on:** May 12, 2016, 01:24:58 AM »

For the offside discussion: I think that once an alotted amount of time passes, say 10 or 15 seconds, then the play is unreviewable for offside. Some of these offsides called back, like when a team cycles the puck for 30-45 seconds and then scores, while the play is offside if is not the reason the goal went in, it's another defensive breakdown that leads to it. And these close plays, you have to realize teams have people watching it on bigger monitors than the refs are reviewing them with, and telling the coach to challenge a play. I doubt if any coach this year challenged a play before somebody in their organization said it was close enough to risk it. I didn't see the play in question tonight, but I think there's no doubt that a video coach is watching it and tells Lindy Rush he should challenge it.

Challenging goalie interference is much more agreeable IMO. It's pretty clear when contact with a goalie interferes with his ability to stop the puck.

jingle.boy · « **Reply #844 on:** May 12, 2016, 05:19:48 AM »

I could get on board with that. I also think (and mentioned earlier) that the consequence for a failed challenge should be more than just losing a timeout - it should be a delay of game penalty... because that's exactly what the coach has done. That will make people think hard about whether they should challenge or not.

1 - the wording needs to be reworded
2 - failed challenge is a delay of game
3 - limit the amount of time the linesman can review the play - that StL/Chi one was brutal... almost 5 minutes to review it. If you can't tell after 5 minutes of studying replays, then it wasn't meaningful enough to impact the play
4 - limit the lapsed time between entering the zone, and scoring a goal that allows for a challenge

Yes, a rule is a rule, but there is some limit to how much importance/benefit there is of 100% enforcement of every rule with the help of technology vs letting the refs/linesmen do their job in real-time

LieLowTheWantedMan · « **Reply #845 on:** May 12, 2016, 05:55:12 AM »

Quote

With the Elimination of the Dallas Stars, the winner of the Western conference is guaranteed to be a team who has never won a game in the Stanley Cup finals

Crazy. Something I like a lot though!

gmillerdrake · « **Reply #846 on:** May 12, 2016, 07:23:44 AM »

Quote from: jingle.boy on May 12, 2016, 05:19:48 AM

I could get on board with that. I also think (and mentioned earlier) that the consequence for a failed challenge should be more than just losing a timeout - it should be a delay of game penalty... because that's exactly what the coach has done. That will make people think hard about whether they should challenge or not.

1 - the wording needs to be reworded
2 - failed challenge is a delay of game
3 - limit the amount of time the linesman can review the play - that StL/Chi one was brutal... almost 5 minutes to review it. If you can't tell after 5 minutes of studying replays, then it wasn't meaningful enough to impact the play
4 - limit the lapsed time between entering the zone, and scoring a goal that allows for a challenge

Yes, a rule is a rule, but there is some limit to how much importance/benefit there is of 100% enforcement of every rule with the help of technology vs letting the refs/linesmen do their job in real-time

all of this and:

The simplest way to 'fix' this rule is to give the blue line the same properties as the end zone line in football. It extends straight up. When the player is past the line and horribly offside...the reason the rule was written.....it'll be very easy to see and plays like last night and in game two where we're talking fractions of an inch with the player still being on the blue line but just above it....your're still onside.

You could literally call offside on probably 90% of the entries into the zone based off the technical reading of this rule.

jingle.boy · « **Reply #847 on:** May 12, 2016, 07:27:27 AM »

That's a great point Gary... the blueline being measured in 3 dimensions is a better solution. If leagues are going to use technology to analyze the intent, then perhaps some rules also need to evolve with the times.

mike099 · « **Reply #848 on:** May 12, 2016, 09:35:08 AM »

Quote from: gmillerdrake on May 11, 2016, 08:06:15 PM

Quote from: Rattlehead on May 11, 2016, 08:03:10 PM
Don't mean to "jinx" you guys, but it's all but impossible for them to lose.

I will hunt you down.......

Ok, so would you rather play the Preds or the Sharks. Of course factoring in the Brother in law.

Mr. Ister · « **Reply #849 on:** May 12, 2016, 09:44:31 AM »

Personally I would MUCH rather face the Predators, but after reading DownGoesBrown's Sharks playoff failures post from this morning I'm not so scared of the Sharks either

gmillerdrake · « **Reply #850 on:** May 12, 2016, 09:46:22 AM »

Quote from: mike099 on May 12, 2016, 09:35:08 AM

Quote from: gmillerdrake on May 11, 2016, 08:06:15 PM
Quote from: Rattlehead on May 11, 2016, 08:03:10 PM
Don't mean to "jinx" you guys, but it's all but impossible for them to lose.

I will hunt you down.......

Ok, so would you rather play the Preds or the Sharks. Of course factoring in the Brother in law.

Honestly, I'd rather play the Preds for a couple reasons. 1. The Sharks are scary and basically play the same game as the Blues. I think the advantage goes to the Blues in the goaltending though...so I still think the Blues would fair well. 2. I'd like to beat the Preds just so I can flip the script on my bro in law and rub his face in it. 3. In all but one game this year the Blues utterly dominated the Preds and I think they could beat them in 5 games.

that being said, playing the Preds and losing to them would be a nightmare only because of the Bro in Law.

Certainly don't want to take anything for granted and know that every team left is capable of winning a series, but like Backes said last night. If the Blues play the game they know they're capable of playing....I don't see a team left on either side that can beat them. It's really up to them. If they are knocked out I do not think it'll be because a team beat them, I think it'll be because they lost the games...not the other team winning them. To me there's a difference.

TAC · « **Reply #851 on:** May 12, 2016, 09:56:49 AM »

I said a page or so ago. This is the Blues' shot at this thing. This is it.

gmillerdrake · « **Reply #852 on:** May 12, 2016, 10:07:29 AM »

Quote from: TAC on May 12, 2016, 09:56:49 AM

I said a page or so ago. This is the Blues' shot at this thing. This is it.

It is. And this is a weird spot to be in as a Blues fan. getting this far 'feels' like it's "meant to be".....but there are (3) other teams that will have that same feeling and attitude and that are more than capable of winning 4 or 7 games against any team. I like our team, I like our chances. All I can hope for is that IF they Blues are eliminated that they've played their best hockey and were just beat. It'd suck to go home at this point because of them laying an egg and 'handing' it over.

TAC · « **Reply #853 on:** May 12, 2016, 03:33:22 PM »

Quote from: gmillerdrake on May 12, 2016, 10:07:29 AM

Quote from: TAC on May 12, 2016, 09:56:49 AM
I said a page or so ago. This is the Blues' shot at this thing. This is it.

It is. And this is a weird spot to be in as a Blues fan. getting this far 'feels' like it's "meant to be".....but there are (3) other teams that will have that same feeling and attitude and that are more than capable of winning 4 or 7 games against any team. I like our team, I like our chances. All I can hope for is that IF they Blues are eliminated that they've played their best hockey and were just beat. It'd suck to go home at this point because of them laying an egg and 'handing' it over.

Oddly, this is also the best chance the Sharks will ever have again as well.

KevShmev · « **Reply #854 on:** May 12, 2016, 08:53:59 PM »

Quote from: jingle.boy on May 12, 2016, 05:19:48 AM

I could get on board with that. I also think (and mentioned earlier) that the consequence for a failed challenge should be more than just losing a timeout - it should be a delay of game penalty... because that's exactly what the coach has done. That will make people think hard about whether they should challenge or not.

Could not agree more.

Looks like it's gonna be Blues/Sharks. Gonna be a long, physical series.

LieLowTheWantedMan · « **Reply #855 on:** May 12, 2016, 09:17:11 PM »

I feel bad for Rinne. He's been fine, but Nashville has played just despicably. Weber and Josi are up there with the best D pairings in the league and they're a complete and utter joke tonight.

gmillerdrake · « **Reply #856 on:** May 12, 2016, 09:20:22 PM »

Gonna be a lot of ice baths after those Blues/Sharks games. And, I'm going to lose a ton of sleep with 9:00 (St. Louis time) starts in San Jose.

DragonAttack · « **Reply #857 on:** May 12, 2016, 09:20:47 PM »

I had hoped for a Caps-Blues finals, but Penguins-Blues wouldn't be so bad.

Nick · « **Reply #858 on:** May 12, 2016, 09:37:22 PM »

I had hoped that Nashville wouldn't leave a steaming pile on the ice tonight as well.

Can't believe both the Western games ending in such dominance. Like the Blues last night, the Sharks came in and played and amazing game. I only got to see 1.5 period of this one, as I finally got to see Civil War tonight, but the highlights and stats seem to backup what I saw the rest of the game. Congrats to the Sharks and Blues, I look forward to a good series there.

Quote from: gmillerdrake on May 12, 2016, 09:20:22 PM

And, I'm going to lose a ton of sleep with 9:00 (St. Louis time) starts in San Jose.

Wah.

I'm one time zone over, don't have a horse in the race, and will still be up to watch those games.

KevShmev · « **Reply #859 on:** May 12, 2016, 09:43:06 PM »

Quote from: gmillerdrake on May 12, 2016, 09:20:22 PM

Gonna be a lot of ice baths after those Blues/Sharks games. And, I'm going to lose a ton of sleep with 9:00 (St. Louis time) starts in San Jose.

I could be wrong, but with only one game per night, I suspect the games in SJ at night will start at 8:00 STL time. The NHL and NBC wants ratings, and they aren't going to get them with games starting at 9 p.m. on the East coast.

TheCountOfNYC · « **Reply #860 on:** May 13, 2016, 05:09:18 AM »

Fuck yeah! This is the Western Conference Finals I was hoping for. Along with Chicago, St. Louis and San Jose are part of my top three from the West but with the modern Blackhawks already earning their place among the all time great dynasties, I wanted to see someone different. This will ensure a new Conference champion and give me a 50% chance that a team I like will win it all and a 100% chance of there being a team that I like in the finals. This should be a great, hard hitting series and one that I'm looking forward to immensely.

jingle.boy · « **Reply #861 on:** May 13, 2016, 05:11:40 AM »

Hard to believe that both Game 7s were so lopsided. Pretty weak on both the Stars and the Preds. I don't want to take anything away from how good the Blues/Sharks played, but seriously... it was a combination of how strong they were AND how weak their opponents were.

Gary... have some fun with you BiL.

gmillerdrake · « **Reply #862 on:** May 13, 2016, 07:48:29 AM »

Quote from: jingle.boy on May 13, 2016, 05:11:40 AM

Hard to believe that both Game 7s were so lopsided. Pretty weak on both the Stars and the Preds. I don't want to take anything away from how good the Blues/Sharks played, but seriously... it was a combination of how strong they were AND how weak their opponents were.

Gary... have some fun with you BiL.

I agree that both the Stars and Preds didn't help their cause by the effort they gave. Both teams had spurts of ambition but that's when the Blues/Sharks quickly extinguished those efforts....further frustrating them. Early in game 7 when Dallas had that 'home team push' going on the opportunities they did have Elliot rose to the task of making big saves.

And....giving my bro in law a hard time would mean I'd actually have to speak to him so that's not gonna happen. We haven't said a word or texted each other since January....long story but prior to that we probably spoke once a week.

Hyperplex · « **Reply #863 on:** May 13, 2016, 08:06:47 AM »

Those game sevens reminded me much of DET/COL in 2002. Still had some rivalry going on, Hasek vs Roy, was supposed to be the strength of the Avs vs the firepower of the Wings and it wound up being a 7-0 rout.

dparrott · « **Reply #864 on:** May 13, 2016, 08:51:01 AM »

SHAAAAAAAAAAAAAARKS!!!

Now it's REALLY time for Sharks fans to be scared based on their playoff history.

Accelerando · « **Reply #865 on:** May 13, 2016, 06:47:19 PM »

No no no no!!!! Bishop was just carted off the ice. He's such a key piece for us

Accelerando · « **Reply #866 on:** May 13, 2016, 06:58:25 PM »

With Johnson, that's the third injury of this game! This is crazy!

Rattlehead · « **Reply #867 on:** May 13, 2016, 07:04:40 PM »

Really hate to see injuries like that, both looked like they were in a lot of pain

gmillerdrake · « **Reply #868 on:** May 13, 2016, 07:45:14 PM »

Quote from: Accelerando on May 13, 2016, 06:47:19 PM

No no no no!!!! Bishop was just carted off the ice. He's such a key piece for us

Not able to watch tonight but just pulled up a clip on my phone and that didn't look good. Not the actual motion that caused the injury but his body language and reactions make it appear that it's pretty serious. That sucks.

gmillerdrake · « **Reply #869 on:** May 15, 2016, 03:29:03 PM »

Let's Go Blues!

Hoping for a series opener win tonight.

KevShmev · « **Reply #870 on:** May 15, 2016, 04:47:22 PM »

Hell yeah. #LetsGoBlues

King Postwhore · « **Reply #871 on:** May 15, 2016, 04:48:10 PM »

gmillerdrake · « **Reply #872 on:** May 15, 2016, 06:40:40 PM »

Wouldn't be a playoff game if the Blues didn't get screwed out of a goal.

gmillerdrake · « **Reply #873 on:** May 15, 2016, 06:54:54 PM »

That slash better be called both ways. Such a BS call

Dark Castle · « **Reply #874 on:** May 15, 2016, 07:30:53 PM »

Quote from: gmillerdrake on May 15, 2016, 06:40:40 PM

Wouldn't be a playoff game if the Blues didn't get screwed out of a goal.

They didn't get screwed out of anything. Clear cut and dry goalie interference.

News: Dream Theater Forums: Biggest Dream Theater online community since 2007.

Author Topic: Official NHL 2015-2016 Thread (Read 93224 times)