Re: GAME DAY: Tampa Bay Lightning @ Ottawa Senators - 7:30pm EST - Thu. Nov. 5th, 2009

by **SpezDispenser** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:33 pm

wprager wrote:St. Louis had over 8 minutes of PP time; Lcavalier over 7. Between the two of them they had two assists. Yet St. Louis is given the third star over Leclaire? Hell, give it to Frasier if you're going to do that.

Look, I'm not suggesting that Marty did not have a heck of a game, but if a forward plays over 8 minutes on the PP registering just a single assist, yet plays well enough to get 3rd star considerations, in a game that ends up 3-2 in OT, well, what about the winning goalie? If the winning goalie didn't deserve it then how in hell can the forward who gets 8+ minutes on the powerplay and only gets a single assist in the game? Either Leclaire didn't deserve it because Marty and Vinny were crap out there, or Marty didn't deserve it because he got outplayed by the 5th penaly killer -- Leclaire.

I only got to watch a tiny bit of the game; couldn't recrod it either. Saw the TSN highlights. So, yes, I'm trolling the stats only. So I can understand why Alfredsson, with just that garbage goal gets 1st star over Spezza's three-point night including the OT winner -- there are things the stats don't show. But in the case of St. Louis over Leclaire, I just don't understand how that can be. Unless St. Louis also played goal when he wasn't out on the PP.

Someone, please, explain it to me.

I was wondering how they were going to give out the 3 stars (Mel was sick and we had to leave).

I would have said:

1.Alfredsson
2.Spezza
3.St.Louis

Or a mix and match of Alfie and Spez. To see Alfie up close is to see him dominate that game from start to finish. Forget his goal, he was flying tonight. Amazing.

And St.Louis was doing the same. Every time he touched the puck something happened. Little monkey. He's a lock for Team Canada.

by shabbs on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:33 pm

SeawaySensFan wrote:
wprager wrote:
This hit was perfect. It was shoulder to chest (not a head shot by any stretch), he didn't jump or even hit up, it was dead-on straight, there was no charge as he coasted in from the face off circle all the way behind the net.

I have absolutely no problems with hits like this one. To even begin to compare it against the Liambas hit is a travesty.

You pretty much described the Liambas hit right there, though.

I think there are some big differences in the mechanics of how it happened. Hedman didn't go into the boards, he just went backwards because the hit was straight on. That was not the case with the Liambas hit.

by **SpezDispenser** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:35 pm

shabbs wrote:And from the "shut your trap" category... Downie sounds off on Neil's hit...

http://www.ottawasun.com/sports/hockey/2009/11/05/11652881.html

Ha ha. What a loser.

Holy cow that guy's an amazing loser. Diddle I wish we were winning 5-2 in the 3rd so we could have taken care of him once and for all.

by **SpezDispenser** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:37 pm

Dash wrote:Zenon Konopka also commented on the hit saying 'if I was the commissioner, I would be making more money, but I would be taking a serious look at the hit'...

He also commented on the OHL hit, trying to compare the two.

Neil defended the hit saying he thought it was legal, never left his feet and even if he had he would not have hit Hedman in the head cause he is '8 feet tall'. Said it is his job to finish his checks and hopes Hedman is okay.

My thought - legal hit, perfectly acceptable. Too bad for Hedman - welcome to the NHL. Neil did everything he is supposed to do. He also did the right thing and fought that punk Wing Dang Doodle Downie.

Exactly. Welcome to the NHL, that's one of the reasons that Karlsson isn't here right now. There's a lot that can happen in a fraction of a second. 100% clean. Tampa Bay nerds need to stop whining.

by **SpezDispenser** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:38 pm

SeawaySensFan wrote:
Vandelay wrote:
shabbs wrote:Damn I wish I was Mike Fisher...

Not that you'd be getting any, even if you were....edit: nevermind....too slow on the draw...

The one with the dark hair would look good with a riding crop and a choker.

Hilarious.

by shabbs on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:42 pm

Latest Sens news from today:

From: http://twitter.com/NHL_Sens

Michalek and Volchenkov are not skating with the Sens today.

Lines at practice today: Shannon-Spezza-Alfredsson; Foligno-Fisher-Kovalev; Cheechoo-Regin-Neil; Ruutu-Kelly-Donovan-Winchester.

by **SensFan71** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:47 pm

shabbs wrote:Latest Sens news from today:

From: http://twitter.com/NHL_Sens

Michalek and Volchenkov are not skating with the Sens today.

Lines at practice today: Shannon-Spezza-Alfredsson; Foligno-Fisher-Kovalev; Cheechoo-Regin-Neil; Ruutu-Kelly-Donovan-Winchester.

just a rest day for Michalek? he had a rough game last night, being hauled down a lot when he tried to turn on his jets.

by shabbs on Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:47 pm

Clouston post-practice presser from today:

http://senators.nhl.com/v2/ext/Audio/091106_Clouston.mp3

by Vandelay on Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:00 pm

SpezDispenser wrote:
Dash wrote:Zenon Konopka also commented on the hit saying 'if I was the commissioner, I would be making more money, but I would be taking a serious look at the hit'...

He also commented on the OHL hit, trying to compare the two.

Neil defended the hit saying he thought it was legal, never left his feet and even if he had he would not have hit Hedman in the head cause he is '8 feet tall'. Said it is his job to finish his checks and hopes Hedman is okay.

My thought - legal hit, perfectly acceptable. Too bad for Hedman - welcome to the NHL. Neil did everything he is supposed to do. He also did the right thing and fought that punk Wing Dang Doodle Downie.

Exactly. Welcome to the NHL, that's one of the reasons that Karlsson isn't here right now. There's a lot that can happen in a fraction of a second. 100% clean. Tampa Bay nerds need to stop whining.

To T-bay's credit, Tocchet told the media after the game that he didn't see anything wrong with the hit, just a good clean hockey hit. I'm sure the players will shut their yaps once they realize their own coach didn't have anything bad to say about the hit.

by **SensFan71** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:19 pm

I don't expect downie to ever shut his mouth, between his mouth and his brain, there are zero connections/synapses.

by **SpezDispenser** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:32 pm

Vandelay wrote:
To T-bay's credit, Tocchet told the media after the game that he didn't see anything wrong with the hit, just a good clean hockey hit. I'm sure the players will shut their yaps once they realize their own coach didn't have anything bad to say about the hit.

Good on him then. He's been there, he knows what a good clean hit is and what's dirty.

by shabbs on Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:34 pm

SensFan71 wrote:I don't expect downie to ever shut his mouth, between his mouth and his brain, there are zero connections/synapses.

He has a brain?

by **wprager** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:47 pm

SeawaySensFan wrote:
wprager wrote:
This hit was perfect. It was shoulder to chest (not a head shot by any stretch), he didn't jump or even hit up, it was dead-on straight, there was no charge as he coasted in from the face off circle all the way behind the net.

I have absolutely no problems with hits like this one. To even begin to compare it against the Liambas hit is a travesty.

You pretty much described the Liambas hit right there, though.

Liambas charged, plain and simple. Also the kid turned and Liambas hit him from behind. Now, I realize that hockey is a fast game and when someone turns like that the hit from behind cannot be avoided, but he still could (should) have pulled up, not followed through with extending his arms. And the kid should have had his helmet on better than that. It still would have been a charge but if Liambas, perhaps, lets up a little, no broken orbital bone (not charging in the first place helps in that respect as well). And, of course, the worst part of the injury is the fractured skull, which would not have happened if the helmet had stayed on.

Bottom line, Liambas' hit was charging and from behind. A suspension I understand, but a full year is way over the top. What if that had been Taylor Hall doing the charging?

The Neil hit was perfect.

by **SeawaySensFan** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:52 pm

Keith "Face Like a Frying Pan" Jones broke down the video of the Liambas hit in slow motion and he did indeed glide into that hit. It wasn't a charge.

As you pointed out, the helmet wasn't secured. Another instance where equipment played a role. This is usually the case as equipment is often used incorrectly as either a weapon or as nothing more than a fashion accessory.

by jamvan on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:09 pm

Sens are teh second most penalized team in the league. If they can just change that stat alone, it will make the team even better.

They average 18.8 minutes a games, which is pretty much a full period a game.

by **SpezDispenser** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:12 pm

jamvan wrote:Sens are teh second most penalized team in the league. If they can just change that stat alone, it will make the team even better.

They average 18.8 minutes a games, which is pretty much a full period a game.

Yeah, they need to bring that number way down and they'll start to get more and more dangerous.

by **wprager** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:16 pm

SeawaySensFan wrote:Keith "Face Like a Frying Pan" Jones broke down the video of the Liambas hit in slow motion and he did indeed glide into that hit. It wasn't a charge.

As you pointed out, the helmet wasn't secured. Another instance where equipment played a role. This is usually the case as equipment is often used incorrectly as either a weapon or as nothing more than a fashion accessory.

He took about a dozen strides before he "glided" though. It was a charge. In my opinion.

The rule book, however, is very loosey-goosey:

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

No wonder there is no consistency between refs. It would appear that stiff checks are against the rules of the game

by **SeawaySensFan** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:19 pm

wprager wrote:He took about a dozen strides before he "glided" though. It was a charge. In my opinion.

The rule book, however, is very loosey-goosey:

No wonder there is no consistency between refs. It would appear that stiff checks are against the rules of the game

Fair enough. As long as we both agree that I'm right and that Keith Jones has a face like a frying pan.

by **SensFan71** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:26 pm

shabbs wrote:
SensFan71 wrote:I don't expect downie to ever shut his mouth, between his mouth and his brain, there are zero connections/synapses.

He has a brain?

well I figured his low end monkey type might have something resembling of a brain, guess I was wrong though.

by ddt on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:39 pm

shabbs wrote:
jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

There was a discussion this morning on TGOR with Pierre McGuire, where Steve Warne said the rules used to be that as soon as someones touches the puck the play would be whistled dead, but that lately some referees seem to wait for the team to gain control being calling it. That got me curious, so I went to the NHL.com web site to check the rule book, and this is what I found in section 15.1 (the part in bold is my emphasis):

Should an infraction of the rules which would call for a minor, major, misconduct, game misconduct or match penalty be committed by a player or goalkeeper of the team not in possession of the puck, the Referee shall raise his arm to signal the delayed calling of a penalty. When the team to be penalized gains control of the puck, the Referee will blow his whistle to stop play and impose the penalty on the offending player or goalkeeper.

by jamvan on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:50 pm

ddt wrote:
shabbs wrote:
jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

There was a discussion this morning on TGOR with Pierre McGuire, where Steve Warne said the rules used to be that as soon as someones touches the puck the play would be whistled dead, but that lately some referees seem to wait for the team to gain control being calling it. That got me curious, so I went to the NHL.com web site to check the rule book, and this is what I found in section 15.1 (the part in bold is my emphasis):

Should an infraction of the rules which would call for a minor, major, misconduct, game misconduct or match penalty be committed by a player or goalkeeper of the team not in possession of the puck, the Referee shall raise his arm to signal the delayed calling of a penalty. When the team to be penalized gains control of the puck, the Referee will blow his whistle to stop play and impose the penalty on the offending player or goalkeeper.

Therefore it should have been a GOAL!!!!!!

by Guest on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:51 pm

wprager wrote:St. Louis had over 8 minutes of PP time; Lcavalier over 7. Between the two of them they had two assists. Yet St. Louis is given the third star over Leclaire? Hell, give it to Frasier if you're going to do that.

Look, I'm not suggesting that Marty did not have a heck of a game, but if a forward plays over 8 minutes on the PP registering just a single assist, yet plays well enough to get 3rd star considerations, in a game that ends up 3-2 in OT, well, what about the winning goalie? If the winning goalie didn't deserve it then how in hell can the forward who gets 8+ minutes on the powerplay and only gets a single assist in the game? Either Leclaire didn't deserve it because Marty and Vinny were crap out there, or Marty didn't deserve it because he got outplayed by the 5th penaly killer -- Leclaire.

I only got to watch a tiny bit of the game; couldn't recrod it either. Saw the TSN highlights. So, yes, I'm trolling the stats only. So I can understand why Alfredsson, with just that garbage goal gets 1st star over Spezza's three-point night including the OT winner -- there are things the stats don't show. But in the case of St. Louis over Leclaire, I just don't understand how that can be. Unless St. Louis also played goal when he wasn't out on the PP.

Someone, please, explain it to me.

St. Louis was the best player on the ice last night. No question. They could have given him 1st star in a losing effort and I wouldn't have blinked.

by Guest on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:55 pm

jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

worst reffed game of the year. That play was just one in a series of them starting in the first minutes and ending at the final whistle...just a horribly reffed game.

by shabbs on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:57 pm

ddt wrote:
shabbs wrote:
jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

There was a discussion this morning on TGOR with Pierre McGuire, where Steve Warne said the rules used to be that as soon as someones touches the puck the play would be whistled dead, but that lately some referees seem to wait for the team to gain control being calling it. That got me curious, so I went to the NHL.com web site to check the rule book, and this is what I found in section 15.1 (the part in bold is my emphasis):

Should an infraction of the rules which would call for a minor, major, misconduct, game misconduct or match penalty be committed by a player or goalkeeper of the team not in possession of the puck, the Referee shall raise his arm to signal the delayed calling of a penalty. When the team to be penalized gains control of the puck, the Referee will blow his whistle to stop play and impose the penalty on the offending player or goalkeeper.

Exactly. No way he had control as the puck simply was deflected a bit by his stick... therefore, should have been a goal. But this is all for nothing... the call on the ice in that situation is what matters and is not even reviewable because the play is called dead.

by Guest on Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:59 pm

jamvan wrote:
shabbs wrote:
jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.
CLouston said he didn't touch it and I assume that's after looking closely at the tape.

Clouston said in the post-game presser that the reffed explained it and admitted to jumping the gun. He assumed that veilleux would get possession and preemptively blew the play down. Still, him getting hammered with a puck was some satisfying karmic relief

by Guest on Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:01 pm

My understanding is that it states explicitly elsewhere in the rules that touching the puck does not signify possession. That was a blown call and the ref knew it.

by shabbs on Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:02 pm

Gohan wrote:
jamvan wrote:
shabbs wrote:
jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.
CLouston said he didn't touch it and I assume that's after looking closely at the tape.

Clouston said in the post-game presser that the reffed explained it and admitted to jumping the gun. He assumed that veilleux would get possession and preemptively blew the play down. Still, him getting hammered with a puck was some satisfying karmic relief

Wonderful. Now we have refs predicting the future? Diddle that Dung.

I looked at the replay and his blade did touch it but only slightly.

by Bramlet07 on Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:04 pm

jamvan wrote:
ddt wrote:
shabbs wrote:
jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

There was a discussion this morning on TGOR with Pierre McGuire, where Steve Warne said the rules used to be that as soon as someones touches the puck the play would be whistled dead, but that lately some referees seem to wait for the team to gain control being calling it. That got me curious, so I went to the NHL.com web site to check the rule book, and this is what I found in section 15.1 (the part in bold is my emphasis):

Should an infraction of the rules which would call for a minor, major, misconduct, game misconduct or match penalty be committed by a player or goalkeeper of the team not in possession of the puck, the Referee shall raise his arm to signal the delayed calling of a penalty. When the team to be penalized gains control of the puck, the Referee will blow his whistle to stop play and impose the penalty on the offending player or goalkeeper.

Therefore it should have been a GOAL!!!!!!

Maybe its just payback for that goal against NYI were it clearly went off the netting. Either way they still got and failed to score on the powerplay they got.

by shabbs on Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:24 pm

It all comes out in the wash...

by **SeawaySensFan** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:43 pm

shabbs wrote:It all comes out in the wash...

Indeed.

by shabbs on Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:57 pm

SeawaySensFan wrote:
shabbs wrote:It all comes out in the wash...

Indeed.

Take me away!

How many people on here actually remember that commercial?

*raises hand*

by **SeawaySensFan** on Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:08 pm

shabbs wrote:
SeawaySensFan wrote:
shabbs wrote:It all comes out in the wash...

Indeed.

Take me away!

How many people on here actually remember that commercial?

*raises hand*

This one is actually "Ancient Chinese secret!" lol

by shabbs on Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:24 pm

SeawaySensFan wrote:
shabbs wrote:
SeawaySensFan wrote:
shabbs wrote:It all comes out in the wash...

Indeed.

Take me away!

How many people on here actually remember that commercial?

*raises hand*

This one is actually "Ancient Chinese secret!" lol

I sit corrected.

*still raises hand*

by shabbs on Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:54 am

GO SENS GO!!!

by **wprager** on Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:35 pm

Wrong thread?

by shabbs on Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:38 pm

wprager wrote:Wrong thread?

Yeah.

But still.

GO SENS GO!!!