|
onemillionzombies posted:Giving the Rangers a power play was pretty much punishing them at that point. A lot of us joke about the teams we cheer for being bad on the PP, so much so that they are better off declining them. Rags fans can say it pretty legitimately though, which is impressive. As a non-fan anyway.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Anyone else looking forward to game 4 where the Rangers are down 0-3 in the series and Daniel Carcillo leads the Rangers to hoisting the cup with 10 goals in 4 games?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Shyfted One posted:Anyone else looking forward to game 4 where the Rangers are down 0-3 in the series and Daniel Carcillo leads the Rangers to hoisting the cup with 10 goals in 4 games? I would very much like this, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:You can mosey into the crease. Attacking players are allowed to be in the crease. Mosey into the crease, on a course with their goalie, obstructing a shot on goal? No, even if you do get contacted by a defensemen. You're acting like King got thrown across the crease into the goalie, the rule is meant to allow positioning but it still doesn't give you a bump the goalie and stop his save for free card.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Re: Brad Richards, I feel like if the Rangers win the cup there's a pretty good chance he stays because Sather, but if they lose or God forbid get swept, I would think they toss what's left of his career into the East River for whatever dumb team wants to fish it out. I hope I am wrong and they both win the cup and send Richards to Toronto or something. Also, what game were the refs watching last night!? rabble rabble
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Mosey into the crease, on a course with their goalie, obstructing a shot on goal? No, even if you do get contacted by a defensemen. You're acting like King got thrown across the crease into the goalie, the rule is meant to allow positioning but it still doesn't give you a bump the goalie and stop his save for free card. Oh come on. He wasn't on a course for the goalie until the collision. The overhead replay is very clear. You're totally misrepresenting what I said, which was also clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
In the GIF McDonagh comes in and makes initial contact diagonally away from the crease. The Kings player then seems to make sure to fall towards Lundqvist on that contact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:In the GIF McDonagh comes in and makes initial contact diagonally away from the crease. The Kings player then seems to make sure to fall towards Lundqvist on that contact. I kind of agree with you. To me, it looks like King intentionally heads into the crease after the initial contact. Now I can understand why because he is trying to make a play, but it still doesn't mean he can contact the goalie and get away with it. My real problem with it is that if you are going to call the Rangers for interference earlier in the game, then you have to call King for the interference on that play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Chicago had both a netting goal called against them In the replay the netting didn't bounce, did someone do some sort of forensics and prove that it actually did hit the netting or what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Doesn't matter because the Scrappy kings would've come back some other way
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
I think the Rangers are going to destroy the Kings in Game 3 at MSG. Game 4 is probably going to be the craziest (read: most controversial, scrappiest) game of the series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:In the GIF McDonagh comes in and makes initial contact diagonally away from the crease. The Kings player then seems to make sure to fall towards Lundqvist on that contact. Watch as Dwight King moves back, and to the left as he falls into Lundqvist...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
There was a second defenseman in the crease. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Obviously, Magneto was responsible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Quick has pretty good magic puck luck, Magneto makes as much sense as anything for the Kings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Make NHL refs give post-game pressers so they can explain to everyone why they made whatever controversial call. I'm sure it would clear up a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Zybl0re posted:Make NHL refs give post-game pressers so they can explain to everyone why they made whatever controversial call. I'm sure it would clear up a lot of things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Alright people, since I toxxed myself into using "Nazi-Fighting Hockey Nostradamus"* as my next title(and my playoff toxx is over since Montreal have been eliminated) I need a fancy image to go with the text. Död Snö 1 didn't use hockey equipment against nazis but I haven't seen Död Snö 2, anyone know if it's in that movie? Or any other fitting stuff? *http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3625761&pagenumber=10&perpage=40#post430205097
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Rutkowski posted:Do this and then make Torts a ref. "No, you're a bad call, Jonesey! You gently caress!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:In the GIF McDonagh comes in and makes initial contact diagonally away from the crease. The Kings player then seems to make sure to fall towards Lundqvist on that contact. Because it is pretty hard to fall away from where you are being pushed. Rangers still had the lead after that goal and had the whole third, first OT and half of the second OT to make a goal and couldn't. Every game has some bad calls, just have to move on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Zybl0re posted:Make NHL refs give post-game pressers so they can explain to everyone why they made whatever controversial call. I'm sure it would clear up a lot of things. i liked 24/7 a few years back when it showed the refs room after a game with a controversial call and one guy said to the guy who made the call "yeah that was alright, i wouldnt have done it differently" then they slam some beers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSE5sV8V1WI
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Rutkowski posted:Alright people, since I toxxed myself into using "Nazi-Fighting Hockey Nostradamus"* as my next title(and my playoff toxx is over since Montreal have been eliminated) I need a fancy image to go with the text. Död Snö 1 didn't use hockey equipment against nazis but I haven't seen Död Snö 2, anyone know if it's in that movie? Or any other fitting stuff? What the gently caress, there's a sequel? McDragon fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
So I'm always interested in sports lines, especially in the playoffs. Seeing where the money is moving can tell you about the series, or at least what a broad spectrum of people expect to see happen. I just too this screenshot of the current series lines on a book: I checked the same lines on Sunday morning and at that time the 3-4 (i.e. Rangers win in 7) paid 13.00 ($13 to every $1 wagered). Today it pays 8.50. That tells me that there are a lot of people who think the Rangers can come back and win this thing. Very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
HOW COULD YOU posted:i liked 24/7 a few years back when it showed the refs room after a game with a controversial call and one guy said to the guy who made the call "yeah that was alright, i wouldnt have done it differently" then they slam some beers ahaha that's awesome "EH BOYS"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know, for all the talk of the Kings being the team of cockroaches that keeps coming back, the Rangers have had a similar "get beaten within an inch of death and refuse to die" mentality for the past two months, although I think tonight is about as close to a must-win game as you can get if you have any hope to win the series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Zybl0re posted:Make NHL refs give post-game pressers so they can explain to everyone why they made whatever controversial call. I'm sure it would clear up a lot of things. They did this in the World Series once and it was the coolest loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Zybl0re posted:Make NHL refs give post-game pressers so they can explain to everyone why they made whatever controversial call. I'm sure it would clear up a lot of things. Refs are going to start demanding a hell of a lot more money if this turns into a thing. They aren't paid to be PR guys at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:Refs are going to start demanding a hell of a lot more money if this turns into a thing. They aren't paid to be PR guys at the moment. If it means some accountability on their part it's well worth the money. As it is now, it's a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Emetic Hustler posted:If it means some accountability on their part it's well worth the money. As it is now, it's a joke. They're human and make mistakes, but I've read reports that say they're usually pretty drat good at making the correct decision. I don't think it's fair putting a particular referee under the microscope for a bad call, they have a million things to pay attention to at any given time and calling them out for one thing they get a split second to look is pretty cruel. I'm alright with expanded video review for things like goaltender interference so long as it doesn't slow the game down (I think giving the coaches one challenge each per game is a decent middle ground), but reviewing every scoring play for things that are essentially subjective will be just as controversial if not more so (see how much debate the King goal thing has caused here, how is the ref supposed to decide one way or another even if he's watching the replay?). Refs do a tough job, but that's part of the game. I wouldn't want hockey called by perfect referee robots, because that would take some of the human element out of the game. If a team can't recover from one unfortunate instance going against them, it's their failing not the refs. In the long run these things balance out anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
R-Lam with a real interesting statement on Puck Daddy today, which essentially broke down to if the Rangers didn't score 2 goals early each game, then this series wouldn't be a contest at all. Let me just give you the inverse of that: if the Kings didn't score 2 goals late each game, then this series wouldn't be a contest at all. R-Lam is really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:I'm alright with expanded video review for things like goaltender interference so long as it doesn't slow the game down (I think giving the coaches one challenge each per game is a decent middle ground), I support video review, but I'd like it to be similar to measuring an opposing player's stick. If the review is conclusively against you, you get a delay of game penalty. If the replay is inconclusive or goes your way, you do not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Loqieu posted:R-Lam is really dumb. Your goalie sucks and your team is only winning because they're so deep or their opponent sucks, but none of this has anything to do with your goalie because he sucks. Oh Lundqvist is getting lit up? This wouldn't be close at all if Quick didn't suck. Ryan Lambert signing off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Let's all discuss our thoughts on rlam again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
he sucks
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:If the review is conclusively against you, you get a delay of game penalty. If the replay is inconclusive or goes your way, you do not. Perfect, I like that idea. Care to submit it to the competition committee for consideration?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
ThinkTank posted:They're human and make mistakes, but I've read reports that say they're usually pretty drat good at making the correct decision. I don't think it's fair putting a particular referee under the microscope for a bad call, they have a million things to pay attention to at any given time and calling them out for one thing they get a split second to look is pretty cruel. I think reviewing every scoring play is a must. Most of the times it's nothing unclear about them and they move one, but when things like pucks bouncing of the netting and then gets whacked into the goal can't be reviewed because reasons, it's just silly, when it's clear that such a goal should not count. A lot of the whinging caused by dodgy goals has to do with the ambiguous rules too. But knowing the GMs and board of governors they will enact changes at a glacial pace and we'll get the improvement by around 2030.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
The difference in the series is clearly that not enough of the Rangers chose the correct brand of equipment   fancy stats posted:Let's all discuss our thoughts on rlam again. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I remember when r-lam posted here and had his twolinepass blog. Whenever somebody made an interesting point here, it would end up in his blog, unattributed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Emetic Hustler posted:I think reviewing every scoring play is a must. Most of the times it's nothing unclear about them and they move one, but when things like pucks bouncing of the netting and then gets whacked into the goal can't be reviewed because reasons, it's just silly, when it's clear that such a goal should not count. A lot of the whinging caused by dodgy goals has to do with the ambiguous rules too. But knowing the GMs and board of governors they will enact changes at a glacial pace and we'll get the improvement by around 2030. I think reviewing every single scoring play would take too much time but instead of reviewing, hockey could follow football's example and use the new Goal Line techology that they're implementing in the World Cup this year just so there's a clear, captured moment of when the puck crosses the line. Even tennis, which is the ideal sport to allow for review because of the sheer number of stoppage breaks available, doesn't allow for every point to be looked at; it has a small, finite number of reviews available and the rest is made with human judgment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
Aren't all those different hockey brands owned by the same company or two?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 19:25
|
|