|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:nice, if by some miracle the pens make the SCF i'll only "miss" games 3 and 4 due to this stupid work conference (u going again jamwad?) Ya I'll be there. Starting tomorrow, actually. Sessions are done well before puck-drop times even if Pittsburgh has home ice, so you should be fine unless you're planning on going to receptions and networking events or whatever.
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Schlesische posted:I think it's cool and good. I just want them to take offsides out of the equation. That's dumb as hell, offside is a clear cut black and white rule. There's no judgment involved, those are the best kind of rules to have reviewed by video.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Let everything be reviewable. If a coach asks for a review of something and the original call stands, his team should get a 2 min penalty for delay of game
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:That's dumb as hell, offside is a clear cut black and white rule. There's no judgment involved, those are the best kind of rules to have reviewed by video. I agree. I think that overturned goals like Drouin's (and other similar plays) could spark reconsideration of how the offside rule should function, though. Tampa didn't get any advantage because Drouin's skate was off the ice so it seems dumb to kill the play on a strict technicality. I don't know how to fix that, though.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Coaches Challenge should be eliminated. The momentum swing of a goal being called back is too great. As soon as Tampa had that goal revoked, I knew Pittsburgh was going to win the game.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Coach's challenge can stay, eliminate Mike Babcock.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:I agree. I think that overturned goals like Drouin's (and other similar plays) could spark reconsideration of how the offside rule should function, though. Tampa didn't get any advantage because Drouin's skate was off the ice so it seems dumb to kill the play on a strict technicality. I don't know how to fix that, though. The alternative is to allow refs to make a judgment call wether an infraction affected the play or not, and that is definitely a road no one wants to go down. Or just get rid of the refs and use tech to instantly determine things like offsides.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
No robot is perfect. You don't want the Stanley Cup decided on a .001 margin of error, do you?!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
I don't hate the coach's challenge in principle, but the punishment is pretty light for getting it wrong and too often it's just a shot in the dark rather than a legitimate attempt to reverse a bad call. Why are teams charged a timeout for it? That's just copying the NFL rule for some reason even though it doesn't make sense in hockey. A timeout in football is way more significant than one in the NHL. Make it a delay of game penalty if the call stands, then at least coaches will hesitate to use it unless they're pretty sure/the game comes down to it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
If there's one thing the NHL needs, it's more reason to call delay of game penalties.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Coach's Challenge: Did the puck hit an attacking player's stick before going over the glass during a PK?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Coach's Challenge: Did the puck hit an attacking player's stick before going over the glass during a PK? Solution: e-sticks that flash when a puck hits them. Or the thermal cameras they use in cricket to detect hits on the bat.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Neitherman posted:Maybe it was this one? Yes! Thank you!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Solution: e-sticks that flash when a puck hits them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Does MAF have a no trade clause? I'm laughing today at the people who think an off-season trade will be anything more than a couple low draft picks with the Penguins retaining salary.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:If there's one thing the NHL needs, it's more reason to call delay of game penalties. They don't call any other penalties, so they might as well go with an automatic one.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:Does MAF have a no trade clause? I'm laughing today at the people who think an off-season trade will be anything more than a couple low draft picks with the Penguins retaining salary. He has a limited no-trade. IIRC he can list something like 12 teams he can't be traded to. If the Penguins win the Cup with Murray then I guess they probably are going to have to trade MAF, but anything short of that, even a Game 7 Finals loss, and they'll keep him and let Murray back him up for at least one more year, I think. They really really love him.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:Does MAF have a no trade clause? I'm laughing today at the people who think an off-season trade will be anything more than a couple low draft picks with the Penguins retaining salary. He has a modified no trade (gives 18 teams he can be traded to) and a nmc, and has 3 years left on his deal.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:They really really love him. Not just the owners, but I hear he's a real popular locker room guy. Trading a guy like that can really gently caress up your team.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
He wasn't great in game 5, but it's not like the guys in front of him were playing stellar defense either (let alone the fact that it was his first game back in almost two months).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:I agree. I think that overturned goals like Drouin's (and other similar plays) could spark reconsideration of how the offside rule should function, though. Tampa didn't get any advantage because Drouin's skate was off the ice so it seems dumb to kill the play on a strict technicality. I don't know how to fix that, though. Yeah, that's fair. The thing I like about the offsides rule as it stands is that it's prettttttttty black and white. If you allow the trailing foot to be in the air, I could imagine that there will be cases where 99% of the trailing foot is off-sides but maaaaaaaaaaybe the very tip of the toe is still hovering over the blueline. It's a corner case, sure, but I like that there's not really anything controversial about the offsides reviews -- they're just annoying because of the delay of game and momentum shifts. I like the idea of making the penalty stiffer for losing a challenge, but I don't know if I could support a full 2-min minor. If a coach loses a challenge, that could mean that a goal stands AND then they immediately go on the PK? IMO that swings the momentum too far in the other direction. I don't know what the solution should be, but maybe something like a lost timeout and an automatic defensive zone faceoff for the losing team? Or, just spitballing here, lost timeout, automatic d-zone draw, and they have to ice 4 skaters until they legally clear the puck out of the zone? Kind of like a hybrid PK... Also I think improving the challenge process (i.e., having centralized reviews) could really speed things up and mitigate the delay of game annoyance that comes from a bunch of refs squinting at an iPad.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Implement the mini penalty, 30 or 60 seconds if you lose a challenge. Or maybe take 60 seconds off your next PP. Or the soft penalty, you can keep five skaters on the ice but only four can be in your defensive zone and icing still counts. If on the attack you have to leave one skater in your defensive zone. Because that would never confuse anyone!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
or OR stay with me here we could keep the game the same as it has always been, and not bring the game to a screeching halt with 10 minute long reviews that call back goals due to things like offsides that had absolutely no bearing on the goal just spitballing
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
That would never work, we need more insane convoluted systems to protect the speed of the game!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Getting the right call is really important but maybe a guy raising his back foot half a ballhair off the ice while crossing the blue line during a 3-on-1 and then doing nothing on a scoring play isn't the sort of thing we should be taking ten minute breaks for. It's like the toe in the crease nonsense, and it'll be patched out for the same reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:He has a limited no-trade. IIRC he can list something like 12 teams he can't be traded to. The coach doesn't love him and his agent is basically already shopping him.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
So Team A scores and Team B challenges. Video review shows there was no offsides so the goal stands and Team B goes shorthanded for 2 minutes? That sounds dumber than Delay of Game for a puck over the glass.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
No see what you do is make a single goal worth 7 points. Then as penalties you can award the other team a point or two. Imagine the fun when someone wins a cup off penalty points from a bad challenge!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Flyinglemur posted:So Team A scores and Team B challenges. Video review shows there was no offsides so the goal stands and Team B goes shorthanded for 2 minutes? That sounds dumber than Delay of Game for a puck over the glass. The solution for that is not to dick the officials around by protesting marginal offside calls that had no effect on the play so you can buy time for another kind of appeal or rest your players, which seems to be what most of these challenges are being used for. Drop the puck.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
DOOMocrat posted:I'd rather be broke and Californian than drunk and midwestern, go Sharks that's a really loving weird statement coming from a dallas fan
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:
good luck getting the ref union agreeing to that though
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Getting the right call is really important but maybe a guy raising his back foot half a ballhair off the ice while crossing the blue line during a 3-on-1 and then doing nothing on a scoring play isn't the sort of thing we should be taking ten minute breaks for. If a guy's got ballhairs on his foot, maybe it's time to shave Brent Burns.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Waaaaaah a rule was correctly applied to the benefit of a team I hate let's blow up the rulebook
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:Waaaaaah a rule was correctly applied to the benefit of a team I hate let's blow up the rulebook - Mario Lemieux.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
I think the idea of having challenges as opposed to having the refs initiate review is a meaningless addition that's just blindly copying the NFL. If they wanted to expand replay they could've done it through the refs too.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:Waaaaaah a rule was correctly applied to the benefit of a team I hate let's blow up the rulebook the real issue is it brings the game to an ugly poo poo filled grinding halt and "GETTING THE CALL RIGHT" really isn't that important most of the time what we don't want, people, is for pro hockey to become like the NFL
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:Waaaaaah a rule was correctly applied to the benefit of a team I hate let's blow up the rulebook Nah man. People have been critiquing the review of these offside goals all season. This just happens to be the highest profile one because it was a) in the most important game thus far in the season and b) clearly had a gigantic impact on the game's momentum. You're not wrong about the call. Them's the rules and the Pens won fair and square. But things could be better (and the Pens shouldn't be hosed by this stuff either).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
If teams don't want goals called back, maybe they should score onside.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
How about nothing changes in game, but for every challenge where the ruling is upheld, the team loses $100,000.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
INSPECTAH DECK posted:I think the idea of having challenges as opposed to having the refs initiate review is a meaningless addition that's just blindly copying the NFL. If they wanted to expand replay they could've done it through the refs too. i don't trust refs to ask themselves if they hosed up and decide, maybe they did, on their own. it would be cool if toronto could just automatically review all this poo poo while play continued though and if they had to announce a change in score or whatever just wait until the next stoppage of play.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 17:40
|
|