The Gritty [NHL] Thread - The Blues Kinda Forgot They Were Dead Last in January...

Jayricho

Hockey slang recap;

leaf [leef] verb leaf-ed, leaf-ing
1. To lose in spectacular fashion after victory was nearly guaranteed: They almost made it to the second round, but they Leafed game seven.
2. A sudden and unexpected loss of momentum: I hope they don't Leaf this one!
3. To lose a game after leading 4-1: They are totally Leafing this game!

Cloutier [kloo-chee-ey] verb Cloutier-ing, Cloutier-ed
1. To allow an improbable, series changing goal in incompetent fashion: If I'm the Bruins, I'm worried that Tuuka Rask just Cloutiered it on that Hagelin goal.
See also:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLco0k3kYBY

Steve Smith [steev smith] verb Steve Smith-ed, Steve Smith-ing
1. To end your season by putting the puck in your own net: That was a terrible move that just Steve Smithed their season.
Synonyms: Chris Phillips verb [kris fil-ips]

Martin Gelinas [mahr-tn zhel-in-na] verb Martin Gelinas-ed, Martin Gelinas-ing
1.To consistently score the series winning goals for your own team: He's Martin Gelinasing his team's way to the finals!

MAF [maf] verb MAF-ed, MAF-ing
Acronym for: Marc-André Fleury [mahrk ahn-drey flur-ee]
1. To consistently allow a goal on one of the first three shots of every game: I can't believe how bad he's been MAF-ing it up lately.

14 Minutes of Pissed Off Goalies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9wZF-aQ9U

Some upcoming dates of note;

Stanley Cup Finals
Game 1 - Monday May 29, 8PM EST
Game 2 - Wednesday May 31, 8PM EST
Game 3 - Saturday June 3, 8PM EST
Game 4 - Monday June 5, 8PM EST
Game 5 - Thursday June 8, 8PM EST
Game 6 - Sunday June 11, 8PM EST
Game 7 - Wednesday June 14, 8PM EST

NHL Awards/Expansion Draft
Wednesday June 21, 8PM EST

NHL Entry Draft
Friday June 23-24

wunderbar

The only game of the finals I'm unable to watch is Game 1. Sucks, but rather miss Game 1 than say, 5, 6 or 7.

Go Preds!

Jragghen

MAF definition is a bit out of date given this year, I think.

quovadis13

We could replace it with "Capping" it. Which means underperforming so consistently that underperforming becomes your expected level of performance

Jayricho

quovadis13 wrote: »

We could replace it with "Capping" it. Which means underperforming so consistently that underperforming becomes your expected level of performance

See also; "Sharking".

UnbrokenEva

Jayricho wrote: »

quovadis13 wrote: »

We could replace it with "Capping" it. Which means underperforming so consistently that underperforming becomes your expected level of performance

See also; "Sharking".

I thought that was when what you thought was just gas turns out to be something solid

Maguano

lets go smashville.....
i guess.

quovadis13

Video review solves everything always

Magell

That was a terrible review and i hate everything.

Jragghen

Gutsy review and I hope the refs had a camera we couldn't see, because that was not much evidence to overturn.

That being said, having an ice-level camera on the blue line would make a lot of sense. Wonder if they do.

Aridhol

not enough there to overturn it in my opinion. Blown call.

Aridhol

Refs are playing pretty well.

Aridhol

Interference....

if i was the preds i'd be pissed.


edit:
blown no goal call by TO
blown call on a "trip"
blown call on a crosscheck embellishment
missed interference call


Good game so far...

Magell

The fix is in!

quovadis13

Preds need to get this period over asap

quovadis13

Just one of those nights for Nashville

Shadowhope

Well.

This is getting my hopes up.

I wonder if the Penguins can outscore the Blackhawks in one game?

Frankiedarling

No.

quovadis13

First shot in two periods is gonna be the game winner??????

quovadis13

So do we think Pittsburgh can keep up their 50% goal scoring rate for the rest of the series?

Edit: Sorry, 45%

Jragghen

Pens stealing this one. They've been outplayed all game. Not going to complain, but yeah.

quovadis13

That was "Martin Brodeur dropping his stick and having a puck bounce in off it", but for a whole game.

Cobalt60

Luckily for the Pens the only player to play worse than every Penguin was Pekka Rinne.

Shadowhope

Cobalt60 wrote: »

Luckily for the Pens the only player to play worse than every Penguin was Pekka Rinne.

He was probably bored for most of the game. They could have pulled him for a sixth skater in the second period.

Le_Goat

Jragghen wrote: »

Pens stealing this one. They've been outplayed all game. Not going to complain, but yeah.

Totally outplayed, and not even in a close manner. It was a fun game to watch, but the 3-goal frenzy that ensued in the 1st period combined with what I thought was the wrong call in the Coach's Challenge, meant an uphill battle for the rest of the game.

That challenge was fucked up. To overturn, there has to be clear proof and I honestly could not tell if the guy's skate was up or down when the puck crossed over. If there is doubt, the call on the ice has to stand. Maybe they saw a different angle or better quality film than I did, because I sure couldn't tell from what we were being shown. It just looked too close to really call, which therefore means the original call should stand.

A better correction is to just get rid of coach's challenge because I hate it with a passion. Then again, I still loathe hybrid icing and they aren't going to change that, so maybe it's another thing I just need to get used to.

Burtletoy

Yeah, they were outplayed, but the preds were also really bad that game.

The pens and preds both had only 3 5v5 shots on goal in the entire third period. Three!

Preds held an 11 SOG advantage in the game at 5v5 hockey. This is the 6th time the penguins have been out shot that badly or worse this post season, and they are 5-1 in those games

Jragghen

Honestly "skate on the ice" is a horrible way to do that rule, anyway. Just have "some part of the player's body over the plane of the line" and it's a hell of a lot easier to both tell and enforce.

But this one was particularly egregious because the Pens had possession before the goal. There needs to be some sort of statute of limitations on those sorts of calls.

Le_Goat

Jragghen wrote: »

Honestly "skate on the ice" is a horrible way to do that rule, anyway. Just have "some part of the player's body over the plane of the line" and it's a hell of a lot easier to both tell and enforce.

But this one was particularly egregious because the Pens had possession before the goal. There needs to be some sort of statute of limitations on those sorts of calls.

The statute in this case is so long as the play is in the offense zone and there is not a stoppage in play. This could mean 15 seconds, or it could mean 3 minutes, depending on what happens in the offensive zone. If the puck goes into the neutral zone, then the alleged offsides would not matter anymore, as it has to be an offsides which leads to a goal. I don't think there is a time limit, at least one that I have heard of or seen. What I think matters most in the case of a coach's challenge is that the offsides contributed towards the goal.

BlindPsychic

That lack of limitation has honestly soured me on my hockey watching during the regular season, especially when I see something that looks slightly offsides go uncalled. I can't even get excited about a goal because I know they'll try to turn it around.

LD50

It's pretty dumb. I think this goal and challenge in particular highlights what is so bad about it, and that's ignoring the random halt of the game in the middle of the first period that is just great and exciting for the people watching the game.

Le_Goat

Even when a challenge has gone in my team's favor, I still think the idea needs to be banned.

BlindPsychic

Also do they put time back on the clock when something gets overturned? Because they're effectively saying that entire playtime was pointless.

wunderbar

BlindPsychic wrote: »

Also do they put time back on the clock when something gets overturned? Because they're effectively saying that entire playtime was pointless.

They do. and the best quirk of that, if a penalty happens to be called during that time, the penalty is still called, even though the time the foul occurred technically hasn't happened yet.

My belief on the challenge is that they should keep it, but do 2 things to it. Tweak it so it's the plane of the blue line, not whether skate was on the ice to simplify that, but the real thing is I think the penalty for getting the call wrong should be just that, a penalty. If you fail on a challenge you are assessed a 2 minute delay of game bench minor. That'll eliminate 95% of the "close" challenges because coaches won't risk having to kill a penalty. They'll only challenge it when it's an egregious one that is 100% certain.

Wrizzik

Was good to see Guentzel get back in his groove. I was convinced they were going to bench him to make room for Hornqvist. I'm not sure where Hagelin possibly fits in atm, with some of the recent role players stepping up (i.e. Romney) and others coming back from injury.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe Murray is one of those types of goalies that gets better when he faces a lot of shots; so I get nervous when there's an extended period of time where he doesn't see a shot. Luckily, he stood up well when needed.

What a saw of Nashville was pretty damn good, and the extra rest showed itself in the second period. Honestly, I'm content if either team wins, and I'm looking forward to a fantastic series.

facetious

I genuinely don't understand why people don't like challenges. My mindset is I would rather as many calls be made correctly as possible.

enlightenedbum

Because the offsides rule as currently interpreted is fucking ridiculous.

Burtletoy

I don't know if it is people not liking the challenge. Sometimes refs make mistakes and those mistakes should be challenged and corrected when they happen.

But offsides reviews take too long and slow the game down. They also remove goals in a game most people think doesn't have enough offense.

Offsides reviews should be made to ensure the call on the ice is correct. However, I also think the rules should be changed to increase game speed and offense.

Also known as #EndOffsides

wunderbar

facetious wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand why people don't like challenges. My mindset is I would rather as many calls be made correctly as possible.

I am all for challenges where the result is that the correct call is made. This does not happen in too many cases in the way that challenges are currently done. Too many coaches use it as a long timeout, or a "hail mary" to see if maybe they get lucky on the call.

I think if you take away the ability for the referees on the ice to make the final call, and increase the penalty for being wrong on the challenge, and you'll see both the instances of challenges go down, and the consistency of the result of the challenges increase.

That should be the goal.

Cobalt60

A skate raised 1cm above the blueline, while technically offside, had absolutely no bearing on whether that goal was scored.

LD50

I think the offsides rule is ultimately good, but that its enforcement and definition is too strict. The point of the offsides rule is to give the defending team an advantage by preventing the opposing team from setting up in their zone. A 'close' offsides does not accomplish that. IMO the offsides rule should be adjusted to only take effect in situations where the defending team isn't getting an advantage any longer. It should require much more egregious attacker presence before a play can be called offsides.

Cobalt60

The challenge was brought in because of that Duchene goal which you should absolutely be able to challenge. However, like someone mentioned previously (I cannot find your comment for the life of me..) coaches just use their challenge on anything that looks like it has even the slimest chance of being offside because the value of a goal vastly outweighs the value of just a timeout.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7pN56VZOfM)