NHL 2018-19 Season

[Vince, Pt. II]

Feels like highway robbery to come out of that with a win, but I'll take it with both hands.

[Chief Rum]

Good heaven. I'm not one to normally buy into conspiracy theories and I have no idea why the NHL would so like for this to happen, but holy.cow, are they trying to push the Sharks to the Cup.

[tarcone]

Well, San Francisco and Boston TV markets or St. Louis and Charlotte markets. Which would you prefer?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Good heaven. I'm not one to normally buy into conspiracy theories and I have no idea why the NHL would so like for this to happen, but holy.cow, are they trying to push the Sharks to the Cup.

No, just terrible replay review rules. Bruins got screwed on a similar play earlier in the postseason where the puck hit the netting but it wasn't reviewable either. Once you're checking zone entries from minutes later and you have the central replay system I don't see why a hand pass or the puck going out of play wouldn't be reviewable.

[Chief Rum]

Yea seeing that now too. Seems like a stupid thing to not make reviewable.

[Vince, Pt. II]

There's a slo-mo clip where the puck looks like it MIGHT have barely grazed his stick after he bats it with his hand. The puck doesn't seem to change direction, so I don't think it actually hit his stick, but there's at least a semblance of a chance.

Edit: and apparently there's a pretty good clip of it grazing Bouwmeester's leg, which would also negate the hand pass. Neither are conclusive, but either or both of them could have happened.

[JonInMiddleGA]

We've (not so) secretly replaced NHL refs with Tim Donaghy clones.

Let's see if anyone notices.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

There's a slo-mo clip where the puck looks like it MIGHT have barely grazed his stick after he bats it with his hand. The puck doesn't seem to change direction, so I don't think it actually hit his stick, but there's at least a semblance of a chance.

Edit: and apparently there's a pretty good clip of it grazing Bouwmeester's leg, which would also negate the hand pass. Neither are conclusive, but either or both of them could have happened.

I'm not sure grazing a player's leg would negate an offensive zone hand pass. The rule just says it has to go directly to a teammate. If a player hand passes it directly to a teammate and it grazes a defensive player, it still went to the offensive player. There's a 100% chance that gets reversed if it is eligible for a review.

[Arles]

In terms of a policy change, the NHL should just be like the NFL on touchdowns. All goals get a 30-40 second review by an off-ice official who calls down if anything egregious was missed. By the time the teams are ready for the face-off, the official should have his result. If he can't see enough in those 30-40 seconds to change, then the on-ice call stands.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not sure grazing a player's leg would negate an offensive zone hand pass. The rule just says it has to go directly to a teammate. If a player hand passes it directly to a teammate and it grazes a defensive player, it still went to the offensive player. There's a 100% chance that gets reversed if it is eligible for a review.

Yeah, I re-read the rulebook last night and I think it actually declares that the puck needs to be possessed by the other team before the hand-pass is negated. So even if it bounced right off him, unless Bouwmeester got possession it's still a hand pass.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Arles

In terms of a policy change, the NHL should just be like the NFL on touchdowns. All goals get a 30-40 second review by an off-ice official who calls down if anything egregious was missed. By the time the teams are ready for the face-off, the official should have his result. If he can't see enough in those 30-40 seconds to change, then the on-ice call stands.

Yeah, I think this would be infinitely better than the "we can review a few things for 10+ minutes on a tiny iPad but there's a bunch of other things we can't review", it's such a no brainer I think it will definitely get implemented in the offseason.

I thought football had it right at the start with the time limit on reviews, but then the refs just started to ignore it in the name of "getting it right". Have a referee see a high def replay of the play for a minute tops, if they can't conclusively overturn the call on the ice in that time then the call stands. It should be pretty simple. Hell, show it on the Jumbotron like they do in Rugby.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Arles

There's a 100% chance that gets reversed if it is eligible for a review.

There is no doubt about it... and to think 4 officials didn't see it is beyond comprehension.

Now, it never should have made it to this point. The Blues are one of the worst teams closing out games when a team pulls their goalie. Petrangelo icing the puck over and over is not a smart tactic. The Blues deserve this loss for not hitting the empty net when they had the chance.

That being said.. I'm still furious over the non call.

Just give the cup to the Sharks already.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I've never understood why we need the guys on the field to make the call for reviews anyway. Why not have dedicated officials somewhere centralized who make the call on reviews? If something needs to be reviewed, let rules officials with access to large monitors designed for visibility look at all the angles and make the call. On-the-field (or ice, as it were) refs call in, get the verdict, and we move on.

[Carman Bulldog]

I'd say that was a much worse call (or non-call in this case) then the Pavelski-Eakin one.

Having said that, I hate this push for replay. In a hand pass scenario, what becomes the cut-off point for negating the play? Is it the next stoppage in play? What if a hand-pass occurs that is missed and then play goes on back and forth for a few minutes without a whistle, with both teams enjoying some shots on goal and then a goal is scored? Does the goal get called back and three or four minutes get put back on the clock? What if the same team that made the hand pass later gets scored against? Can they challenge because the play should have been whistled dead earlier and their earlier hand pass essentially can be used to negate the goal they later gave up?

Do you say that it's a change in possession then? What if Team A makes a hand pass but Team B is able to get possession afterwards but not clear the zone? If that's the case, what if the team clears the zone but quickly turns it over and the team that made the original hand pass then scores? Or they only clear the zone by chipping it out and Team A gets it right back and goes in and scores?

Let's say the rule is a stoppage and Team A makes a hand pass that is missed and the stoppage comes as a result of Team B then icing the puck. Team A gets a face-off deep in Team B's zone and scores shortly afterwards. Can Team B go back and say that they never would have had to ice the puck (and had a face-off deep in their zone without the ability to change lines) if the hand pass had been called before they iced it?

It's this latter scenario that also really leads me to hate the offside call. I've seen goals happen where Team A takes the puck in on a play that looks offside. They don't immediately score but they get a face-off deep in Team B's zone shortly afterwards as a result of the missed offside, either from the goalie covering it up or Team B icing it. Then off the faceoff, prior to Team B ever clearing their zone, Team A scores. Why should that not be reviewable? Team B never actually cleared the zone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Just give the cup to the Sharks already.

They're trying as fast as they can.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They're trying as fast as they can.

Sorry guys but the Bruins may have something to say about that.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

I'd say that was a much worse call (or non-call in this case) then the Pavelski-Eakin one.

Having said that, I hate this push for replay. In a hand pass scenario, what becomes the cut-off point for negating the play? Is it the next stoppage in play? What if a hand-pass occurs that is missed and then play goes on back and forth for a few minutes without a whistle, with both teams enjoying some shots on goal and then a goal is scored? Does the goal get called back and three or four minutes get put back on the clock? What if the same team that made the hand pass later gets scored against? Can they challenge because the play should have been whistled dead earlier and their earlier hand pass essentially can be used to negate the goal they later gave up?

Do you say that it's a change in possession then? What if Team A makes a hand pass but Team B is able to get possession afterwards but not clear the zone? If that's the case, what if the team clears the zone but quickly turns it over and the team that made the original hand pass then scores? Or they only clear the zone by chipping it out and Team A gets it right back and goes in and scores?

Let's say the rule is a stoppage and Team A makes a hand pass that is missed and the stoppage comes as a result of Team B then icing the puck. Team A gets a face-off deep in Team B's zone and scores shortly afterwards. Can Team B go back and say that they never would have had to ice the puck (and had a face-off deep in their zone without the ability to change lines) if the hand pass had been called before they iced it?

It's this latter scenario that also really leads me to hate the offside call. I've seen goals happen where Team A takes the puck in on a play that looks offside. They don't immediately score but they get a face-off deep in Team B's zone shortly afterwards as a result of the missed offside, either from the goalie covering it up or Team B icing it. Then off the faceoff, prior to Team B ever clearing their zone, Team A scores. Why should that not be reviewable? Team B never actually cleared the zone.

I would say once the opposing team gains possession of the puck, it no longer becomes an issue.


The problem with non call was the Blues never touched the puck and the Sharks scored from a hand pass, so to me it was a simple call to make, play dead when the Sharks player touched it after the hand pass.


Just like the offside review.. they only review it if it was in question and a goal is scored.

[MizzouRah]

Wow.. what a dominating game today boys!

Let's wrap this up Tuesday!!!

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Sorry guys but the Bruins may have something to say about that.

The Sharks may have something to say about it too. That was a terrible game of hockey. Credit to the Blues for shutting them down; Binnington is really good.

Karlsson has to be injured. I can't believe DeBoer keeps putting him out there.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Wow.. what a dominating game today boys!

Let's wrap this up Tuesday!!!

Yeah, getting robbed in game 3 may have given the Blues an "us against the world" outlook as they've played great D the past two games.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, getting robbed in game 3 may have given the Blues an "us against the world" outlook as they've played great D the past two games.

Berube has done one hell of a job and continues to adapt to what's in front of him.

[bhlloy]

Not taking anything away from the Blues, but I do wonder if the opposite is also true for the Sharks - there was an article in the Athletic about how indignant they were at being called "lucky" for having 3 decisions go for them at such critical times of games, and I wonder if that has had an impact on them. More likely to be injuries and just regular old postseason attrition of course (I'm particularly interested to see if Sharks fans turn on Karlsson if they are eliminated next game and what effect that has on his upcoming UFA) but hockey always seems to be a sport where the psychology narratives are half true and what happens in the locker room does genuinely have an effect.

Also, one of the most fun things about hockey is random goalies becoming all world out of nowhere. Take a bow Jordan Binnington, a guy who was putting up relatively middling numbers in the AHL a couple of seasons ago. Very cool story, and I'd love to see the Blues win it all.

[bhlloy]

DOLA - as this is the catch all hockey thread, Great Britain came back from 3-0 down against France to win in OT and stay in the elite division for next year's world championships. Pretty impressive for a country that has a league with very few professional teams and only had their first GB trained player drafted last year in the seventh round.

[tarcone]

Blues are a better team, and now that San Jose is banged up, I imagine game 6 is the last one. At least, I hope.

LETS GO BLUES!!!!

[tarcone]

Blues up 2-0 in the 2nd.

And are dominating. Sharks missing those 3 guys that are injured.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Grats Blues - been a long time coming for you guys.

[MizzouRah]

Thanks.. it sure has!

Should be a good series against Boston. LGB!!!

[Arles]

Yeah, pumped for the win. Boston will be tough but it's exciting to finally have a chance at the cup!

[molson]

I can't say I remember the last Bruins/Blues Cup final, but I know this happened:



Should be fun. We'll be on an island off Mexico the first two games, but, I think there's a little sports bar owned by Canadians there, and my girlfriend has suddenly gotten into hockey, so that should be a cool venue to check it out.

[tarcone]

What a great story the Blues are this season. Worst record in the league in late December, call up a rookie goalie in January, Stanley Cup Finals in May.

LETS GO BLUES!!!

[MizzouRah]

Binnington vs Rask

[tarcone]

LETS GO BLUES!!!!!!

[MizzouRah]

Great start but Boston stormed back after our 2-0 lead. Hopefully we can win Game 2 and come home tied, 1-1.

[tarcone]

Boston is the fastest team we have faced these playoffs. That is worrisome.

[Arles]

We need to tighten up the stick play and reduce the penalties. If we give them 5 power plays, we will be in trouble. It was impressive that we held them to 1-5 on the power play given their speed.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Arles

We need to tighten up the stick play and reduce the penalties. If we give them 5 power plays, we will be in trouble. It was impressive that we held them to 1-5 on the power play given their speed.

Agreed.. we go into OT if we don't give them 5 PP opportunities. I expect us to come out more disciplined and play a much better 60 minutes.


Boston is damn good though.

[MizzouRah]

Now that's the team I love, WOO HOO!!!

Gunny hits one off the post, then buries the next one!!! What a game!

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Now that's the team I love, WOO HOO!!!

Gunny hits one off the post, then buries the next one!!! What a game!

What a resilient team. They are 6-2 in these playoffs after a loss.

So much fun to watch this team.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What a resilient team. They are 6-2 in these playoffs after a loss.

So much fun to watch this team.

They have been a fun team to watch!


Gloria!

[Galaril]

That was more like it Bruins. Play tough but smart.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Galaril

That was more like it Bruins. Play tough but smart.

I think the Bruins are a better team. The Blues have to play perfect to win. That didnt happen tonight.

We need our stars to step up. Its time.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I think the Bruins are a better team. The Blues have to play perfect to win. That didnt happen tonight.

We need our stars to step up. Its time.

I think both teams are even when it's 5 on 5. The problem is, we take way too many stupid penalties. Boston was 4-4 on the PP.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I think both teams are even when it's 5 on 5. The problem is, we take way too many stupid penalties. Boston was 4-4 on the PP.

I agree at least with your second sentence. I am not sure truly they are even at 5 on 5.

[tarcone]

Damn, this Blues team is unbelievable. They need to get game 5. If they do, Im extremely optimistic.

LETS GO BLUES

[Young Drachma]

Big win by the Blues. Binnington is slowing down as hot rookie goalies often do, but if they can score enough goals to support him, they might be able to get two more. Blues had a ton of chances tonight, glad it paid off.

[MizzouRah]

We have a habit of bouncing back, now we need to grind out a Game 5 W.

Like I've said before, if we can stay 5 on 5 I really like our chances.

[molson]

My girlfriend keeps calling the Blues "The Notes" (based on their logo), and now I can't stop doing that.

Bruins and Notes, all tied up at 2.

[Galaril]

I think Berube's whining to the league definItaly affected Redding but the Blues did what they had to do. Now it is reported Chara is out and we already had Grz out on D. I think the Blues roll now in 6.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I think Berube's whining to the league definItaly affected Redding but the Blues did what they had to do. Now it is reported Chara is out and we already had Grz out on D. I think the Blues roll now in 6.

Im not sure if it was whining or letting your frustrations out. The reffing has been pretty bad towards the Blues. And the team and coach hasnt said much about it until after the last game.

It may have been gamesmanship also. Berube knew the Blues had no chance short handed.

[molson]

It's crazy to me that Chara has a broken jaw and the word is still that he "could" miss the rest of the series. Can one play hockey with a freshly broken jaw?