Jump to content

congrats to the 2013-14 Champs, the Kings


msweet

Recommended Posts

Again, King enters the crease of his own volition.  That changes the play entirely.  If King were taking a route outside the crease and were nudged in by McDonagh, then it's a clear goal.  He wasn't, so it isn't.  What happened is that King's presence in the crease impeded Lundqvist from making the save regardless if there was any body contact initiated by King.

 

Whatever, I think the ref still hasn't blown the whistle on King's Cup Finals goal in 2012.

Not relevant.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

 

3.  A PLAYER PUSHES, SHOVES, OR FOULS ANOTHER PLAYER INTO THE GOALKEEPER, WHO IS IN OR OUT OF THE CREASE. A.  The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, makes contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored.

Goal is allowed.
 

Now I agree with your other response earlier where the ref said he made the call because the contact happened after the puck crossed, it clearly hadn't.

But I think it's the overall right call, even it's by dumb luck. If McDonough is not in the picture, King doesn't touch Lundqvist at all, regardless of him grazing through the crease (which is not a penalty in and of itself). McDonough quite frankly doesn't give King anywhere to go.

At  0:04, King is right behind the net. Keep your eyes solely on him, with no McDonough he will peacefully pass to the front of the crease, instead 3s later in that clip McDonough initiates the contact that ultimately ends up with king disrupting Lundqvist.

Edited by squishyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch sports for the excitement of sports, not to see 'the right team' win.  The excitement of sports is the unexpected - goals off brilliant passes, fingertip touchdown catches, close plays at the plate, buzzer-beating shots.  The NFL is losing that in a mire of replay obsession and so I'm losing the NFL, and it seems that MLB is right behind them.

 

You've hit on something here.  On one hand, I want to see the right calls made, and I think most people do.  On the other, I sometimes miss the days when a TD catch was simply that...a catch.  Now we have to view it from 10 different angles to rule whether or not it really was a catch.  Was the ball being juggled, did he have control of it all the way down, did his big toe nick the turf, etc?  Yes, it's great to get things right, but sometimes the time it takes to get these things right is maddening...especially when the evidence is there as to what happened and the right call STILL isn't made. 

 

That being said, the one positive out of baseball's replay system is that some umpires are finally being exposed for how lousy some of them really are.  These guys have been blatantly missing calls for what seems like forever, and even worse, the league never takes umpires to task on their bad calls or makes them answer for their mistakes via the press...so they've become an entitled bunch of confrontational bullies who think they're untouchable, going so far to bait players into confrontations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-OoFfCEhvk)

 

Joe West has been a complete prick for years who clearly makes the games about him (in a brawl involving the Mets and Phillies, he once picked up Phillie reliever Dennis Cook and threw him to the ground...baseball players aren't allowed to so much as graze an umpire (see Pete Rose), but West is allowed to pile-drive players to the turf?!  All that came out of West's actions was NL president Bill White stating that West was now prohibited from further physical contact from players.  No fine, no suspension.  Thank God Cook wasn't injured!)  West has only gotten minor slaps on the wrist, as far as I can recall (typical Joe West crap:  http://www.youtube.com/watchv=c2Nvy3SFs7M ).

 

So anyway, I think replay could ultimately be a good thing for baseball, because for some umps, there's no more hiding.  Hopefully MLB starts finding ways to get rid of some the crappier, more confrontational ones (like Angel Hernandez).

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not relevant.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

 

 

Now I agree with your other response earlier where the ref said he made the call because the contact happened after the puck crossed, it clearly hadn't.

But I think it's the overall right call, even it's by dumb luck. If McDonough is not in the picture, King doesn't touch Lundqvist at all, regardless of him grazing through the crease (which is not a penalty in and of itself). McDonough quite frankly doesn't give King anywhere to go.

At  0:04, King is right behind the net. Keep your eyes solely on him, with no McDonough he will peacefully pass to the front of the crease, instead 3s later in that clip McDonough initiates the contact that ultimately ends up with king disrupting Lundqvist.

 

King is fighting for inside position there and he has to know that McDonagh is there.  Again, he takes a lane that puts him in the crease, and then he impedes the goaltender.  You're not reading the subclauses right here:  "The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact..."  I don't think he made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, by taking an inside lane and stepping into the crease without having been pushed there.

 

The critical part isn't the bumping of Lundqvist, it is the impeding of him from being able to make full extension on a save.  If the goalie initiates contact on a player in the crease who hasn't made a reasonable effort to not be in there, it's not a goal either, and that to me is the overriding call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King is fighting for inside position there and he has to know that McDonagh is there.  Again, he takes a lane that puts him in the crease, and then he impedes the goaltender.  You're not reading the subclauses right here:  "The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact..."  I don't think he made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, by taking an inside lane and stepping into the crease without having been pushed there.

 

The critical part isn't the bumping of Lundqvist, it is the impeding of him from being able to make full extension on a save.  If the goalie initiates contact on a player in the crease who hasn't made a reasonable effort to not be in there, it's not a goal either, and that to me is the overriding call.

What you are talking about are the rules set in place to deal with just 2 actors, the goalie and the attacking player. The only section in the goaltender-interference-goal-being-allowed-or-not that deals with the 3rd actor (ie McDonough) is section 3 (and it's 4 sub-scenarios), so I don't see how the clause that deals only with 2 players overrides the one that more accurately describes the situation.

And if you (well not you, but someone else) can agree with that, then ultimately boils down to if you think King made a reasonable effort to avoid Lundqvist or not and I think he does; his skate does collides with Lundqvist skate (which probably does the most damage in terms of getting position) but from the clip above at around 38s I see King trying fall forward and away from Lundqvist, but it's hard to say for sure given how tied up he is with McDonough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right team wins?  What in the world does that mean?  Why even have playoffs if that's your goal?  

 

I watch sports for the excitement of sports, not to see 'the right team' win.  The excitement of sports is the unexpected - goals off brilliant passes, fingertip touchdown catches, close plays at the plate, buzzer-beating shots.  The NFL is losing that in a mire of replay obsession and so I'm losing the NFL, and it seems that MLB is right behind them.

Holy cow that went completely over your head.  Obviously what I meant was making sure the correct call is made, especially on a play that ends with a goal, is worth sacrificing maybe a minute or two of "flow."  I am all for reviewing plays that ensure that games are decided by the actions of the players, and not a referee's split-second immediate 50-50 decision on a play that is very difficult to call.  Reviewing doesn't need to take as long as it does too.  We don't need video goal judges or a call to Toronto, just do what the NCAA does and let the referee watch the replay himself in the scorer's box and make the decision.

The NFL is different because as already mentioned, they've made things that should be simple become so complicated to the point where you almost need a law degree to know what a catch is anymore.

Imagine being a player who has worked his entire life to get better and reach the next highest level of play until eventually your hard work and training culminates with a trip to the Stanley Cup Finals and you make a borderline but legal play to score a goal but the referee has to decide right away if it counts and he thinks there was something there to negate the play you made.  You'd be okay with the explanation that the play was just too exciting to be reviewed and the game must continue with a crucial call going the wrong way because it wasn't worth disrupting the flow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tri is right. King enters the crease and takes the lane of most resistance. What's McDonagh supposed to do. Just let him stand freely in front of Lundqvist? Some contact has to be made there but King puts McDonagh in a position where any contact is going to push him into Lundqvist. It's a perfect setup really, but this should've been whistled. Not necessarily a penalty since it was McDonagh who knocked him into Lundqvist. But just blow the play dead and have a faceoff. I've seen this called before.

 

King entered the crease and didn't allow the queen to extend fully to make the save. He impeded the goalies movements. He put himself in a position to do this. 

 

No he didn't run the goalie, wasn't anything that bad, but the queen wasn't given a fair shot to make the save

 

But whatever. very happy this went the kings way.

Edited by '7'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see if more forwards take that route, the path behind the defender between the goalie. Like '7' said, what else is McDonaugh supposed to do? Like it or not, it's very grey area. Might get called a no-goal 60% of the time, but a good goal the other 40%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tri is right. King enters the crease and takes the lane of most resistance. What's McDonagh supposed to do. Just let him stand freely in front of Lundqvist? Some contact has to be made there but King puts McDonagh in a position where any contact is going to push him into Lundqvist. It's a perfect setup really, but this should've been whistled. Not necessarily a penalty since it was McDonagh who knocked him into Lundqvist. But just blow the play dead and have a faceoff. I've seen this called before.

 

King entered the crease and didn't allow the queen to extend fully to make the save. He impeded the goalies movements. He put himself in a position to do this. 

 

No he didn't run the goalie, wasn't anything that bad, but the queen wasn't given a fair shot to make the save

 

But whatever. very happy this went the kings way.

Yea but the crease is no longer "no mans land" and as long as you are not interfering with the goalie you are free to roam around, plant yourself wherever, set up for high tea with the queen. 

Obviously he did interfere, so the question circles back down to how much of a shove did McDonough give him, that's going to be a judgement call. but if it's down to that, then King's placement is irrelevant.

Now as for what is McDonough supposed to do? Not interfere with a player who doesn't have the puck (there's a penalty for that) and instead establish defensive position on King. I think it's a pretty poor argument to say that McDonough had no choice but to shove King on to his goaltender.

Edited by squishyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see if more forwards take that route, the path behind the defender between the goalie. Like '7' said, what else is McDonaugh supposed to do? Like it or not, it's very grey area. Might get called a no-goal 60% of the time, but a good goal the other 40%. 

I don't think it will become more or less prevalent. If you are the "screen" guy your job is to get in front of the net as fast as possible, this was sort of a perfect storm of events, King trying to set up in front, Lundqvist moving left-to-right and the shot coming as McDonough ties up with King. It would hard to script that intentionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Rangers fan's achy breaky heart

 

 

ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/rangers/post/_/id/3565/a-rangers-fans-achy-breaky-heart

 

Pain and suffering come with being a fan of the New York Rangers, even with a Stanley Cup to their credit from 1994. 

For those of you who are longtime followers, you’ll appreciate the list below. 

The losses to the Los Angeles Kings in Game 1 and 2 of the Stanley Cup finals got us to thinking about the other notches on the belts of the 30- and 40-something-year-old Rangers fans. We’re too young to remember Pete Babando’s Stanley Cup-winning goal for the Red Wings in Game 7 of the 1950 finals, but there’s a decent list to be made of heartbreaking playoff losses from the past 40 years. With the help of some folks on Twitter, here's a pretty good (or bad, depending on your perspective) group. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right team wins?  What in the world does that mean?  Why even have playoffs if that's your goal?  

 

So say this play gets reviewed.  Now I think this one is pretty cut-and-dried - maybe 3 looks at it would prove it.  Meanwhile we all have to sit around waiting for the 'correct' answer.  But what if it wasn't so clear?  What if King's path was a little closer to McDonagh?  The trouble with replay in sports is that the hardest plays to call are the ones that take the most time and are ultimately inconclusive.  There's plenty of calls where the first call may be right, it may be wrong, and it's really impossible to tell.  Meanwhile the excitement value of any particular scoring play is devalued when there's a Byzantine review process after a greater portion of plays.  I'm not arguing for instant replay to go away - I actually think hockey has it right.  Whether or not a puck goes in legally are the only reviewable plays, and I'd guess that 90% of goals result in little to no delay in dropping the puck, with 5% resulting in a slight delay, and only the other 5% are legitimately disputed.

 

I watch sports for the excitement of sports, not to see 'the right team' win.  The excitement of sports is the unexpected - goals off brilliant passes, fingertip touchdown catches, close plays at the plate, buzzer-beating shots.  The NFL is losing that in a mire of replay obsession and so I'm losing the NFL,and it seems that MLB is right behind them.

 

Some really good points. Over reliance on replay can be brutal. I am seeing in the NBA all the time when Refs know they have the resources, so they use it all the time. And the worst part is it takes a viewer one second to see the call, and somehow the refs and conferring for 5 minutes.

 

The main thing for goalie interference is these are tough calls. Look at us debating for two days about that goal. Apparently the competition committee still isn't sure what the right call was for that play. Right now they go upstairs for kicking motion replays, and they absolutely have no clue. The refs don't know. The teams don't know. The fans don't know if it should be called a goal or not. We see the same plays being called a goal and the same ones not. I bet we'll see that for goalie interference and anything debatable, they'll just stick with the call on the ice which is really stupid on its own. So when you do that, we have the situation again where you get the same plays being called a goal sometimes and sometimes not because they stick with that damn call on the ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy cow that went completely over your head.  Obviously what I meant was making sure the correct call is made, especially on a play that ends with a goal, is worth sacrificing maybe a minute or two of "flow."  I am all for reviewing plays that ensure that games are decided by the actions of the players, and not a referee's split-second immediate 50-50 decision on a play that is very difficult to call.  Reviewing doesn't need to take as long as it does too.  We don't need video goal judges or a call to Toronto, just do what the NCAA does and let the referee watch the replay himself in the scorer's box and make the decision.

The NFL is different because as already mentioned, they've made things that should be simple become so complicated to the point where you almost need a law degree to know what a catch is anymore.

Imagine being a player who has worked his entire life to get better and reach the next highest level of play until eventually your hard work and training culminates with a trip to the Stanley Cup Finals and you make a borderline but legal play to score a goal but the referee has to decide right away if it counts and he thinks there was something there to negate the play you made.  You'd be okay with the explanation that the play was just too exciting to be reviewed and the game must continue with a crucial call going the wrong way because it wasn't worth disrupting the flow?

 

Hockey is full of luck.  Pucks bounce over gloves, under arms, off stick shafts, they carom off the boards strangely sometimes, they ricochet off the ice and in.  Subjective calls - and by this I mean generally, penalties - are just part of the overall variance inherent to sport.  There's no way you're ever going to get it right with penalties.  So we just review penalties on goal scoring plays, namely interference?  What about penalties that result in power plays that ultimately result in goals?  Shouldn't we just go back and look at those, just to make sure they're the right call?   I recognize that this is a strawman, but the point is the same - there's always going to be chance elements involved with refereeing a game, and while it'd be nice if those could go away, they can't.  I'm in favor of letting the game speak, of having everything on the ice be inherently meaningful as it happens, not to be judged later, while we wait and think of other things, and then be reversed or upheld.  In the NFL I don't watch the 9 replays to see if it's a catch or not - I don't care.  At that point, they've lost me.  I watch one good replay, make my decision on the right call, and go find something better on TV until they come back (and of course there's a commercial involved) - I refuse to get wrapped up in the courtroom drama that is review in sports.  Anything that diminishes the number and duration of replays is good.  Life has to be lived with imperfections.

Edited by Triumph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think rangers fans have finally cracked. i listened to a half hour of referee conspiracies on sports radio (steve somers show). apparently gary bettman wants the rangers to lose as the referees that were chosen for the finals were done to specifically screw them over. apparently the kings are 16-3 with wes mccauley and crew that is currently doing the finals in the regular season

 

also steve somers says he is tired of hearing about the kings resiliency but not tired of hearing about '94

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think rangers fans have finally cracked. i listened to a half hour of referee conspiracies on sports radio (steve somers show). apparently gary bettman wants the rangers to lose as the referees that were chosen for the finals were done to specifically screw them over. apparently the kings are 16-3 with wes mccauley and crew that is currently doing the finals in the regular season

 

also steve somers says he is tired of hearing about the kings resiliency but not tired of hearing about '94

steve somers is 94 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hockey is full of luck.  Pucks bounce over gloves, under arms, off stick shafts, they carom off the boards strangely sometimes, they ricochet off the ice and in.  Subjective calls - and by this I mean generally, penalties - are just part of the overall variance inherent to sport.  There's no way you're ever going to get it right with penalties.  So we just review penalties on goal scoring plays, namely interference?  What about penalties that result in power plays that ultimately result in goals?  Shouldn't we just go back and look at those, just to make sure they're the right call?   I recognize that this is a strawman, but the point is the same - there's always going to be chance elements involved with refereeing a game, and while it'd be nice if those could go away, they can't.  I'm in favor of letting the game speak, of having everything on the ice be inherently meaningful as it happens, not to be judged later, while we wait and think of other things, and then be reversed or upheld.  In the NFL I don't watch the 9 replays to see if it's a catch or not - I don't care.  At that point, they've lost me.  I watch one good replay, make my decision on the right call, and go find something better on TV until they come back (and of course there's a commercial involved) - I refuse to get wrapped up in the courtroom drama that is review in sports.  Anything that diminishes the number and duration of replays is good.  Life has to be lived with imperfections.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I'm not okay with wrong calls being permitted to continue and written off as "overall variance of the sport."  Games should be decided by the actions of the players and the fewer wrong calls there are, the better.  Of course you can't review every single play but at the very least we learned from Saturday that at least goalie interference should be reviewable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I'm not okay with wrong calls being permitted to continue and written off as "overall variance of the sport."  Games should be decided by the actions of the players and the fewer wrong calls there are, the better.  Of course you can't review every single play but at the very least we learned from Saturday that at least goalie interference should be reviewable.

 

How did we learn that?  Half the Competition Committee thinks it was a good goal.  I think it's 50-50 it would've been upheld.

 

I don't know how you watch hockey if you can't stand wrong calls.  Jeff Carter scored with 1 second left - shouldn't they go back and review all the whistles to make sure the clock stopped at the right time?  Maybe they stopped it too quick at one point - unlikely, but it might've happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.