DobaMB30 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 lol def. too much time.. CBC showed it in perfect slow motion and it was in fact offside.. but sometimes thats the way the cookie crumbles.. too fast to tell..at least it wasnt as bad as the offside goal in the Pitt/Fylers series.. that was just a sad miss call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) The guys on NHL Network said it was offsides. I'm not sure what the rule is on this, does the puck have to cross the line or just touch the line? If the puck is coming out of the zone I know it is still onside until it is completely over the line, so does the puck have to completely cross the line one way or the other for it to go from onside to offside or vice versa, or is the blue line always considered onside? The puck has to completely cross the line. It was a REALLY close call. I went through the replay frame-by-frame and it's offside by a few frames, fractions of a second. You can't blame the linesman for missing that. Kovy pulls the puck back right before it crosses the line. Edited May 24, 2012 by David Puddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I turned off the game after the Rags scored the second goal and didn't watch the rest of the game. I just couldn't do it, and might even not even watch game 6 or 7 if it gets that far. Just way too nerve-racking, not to mention that I consumed about 10 cigarettes from 8 to 11 last night. Why couldn't I have gotten into poetry instead of sports? I feel the same way.. I don't want to watch, but when I think that here I am, just a fan and all I have to do is sit on my couch and watch the tv while the players have to go out and compete through the nerves and such, it reminds me that the least I can do is watch the damn thing lol Maybe that helps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer91 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 and all I have to do is sit on my couch and watch the tv while the players have to go out and compete through the nerves and such, it reminds me that the least I can do is watch the damn thing lol Maybe that helps? I have a habit of not being able sitting through a game. I have a 37" TV but I stand like 3-4' from it and watch the game, pacing. I'm too nervous to sit. People looking through the bay window in my house must think i am strange, pacing back and forth in front of the TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleasepassthesoup Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 If this is 1994, we're in trouble. Our top line is made up of a 15-year old and two 9-year olds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven M. Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 If this is 1994, we're in trouble. Our top line is made up of a 15-year old and two 9-year olds. Second oldest team in the NHL my ass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 If this is 1994, we're in trouble. Our top line is made up of a 15-year old and two 9-year olds. Hey, that would probably crush the Rangers - their whole defense wouldn't be older than 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleasepassthesoup Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Hey, that would probably crush the Rangers - their whole defense wouldn't be older than 7. That's true. The average age of everyone on these two rosters in 1994 (including the two head coaches): 11 years old. Edited May 24, 2012 by pleasepassthesoup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I have a habit of not being able sitting through a game. I have a 37" TV but I stand like 3-4' from it and watch the game, pacing. I'm too nervous to sit. People looking through the bay window in my house must think i am strange, pacing back and forth in front of the TV. I do the same thing. The more important the game, the less time I can spend just sitting on my couch. (Except for Game 7 against Florida, but that might be because it had gone on so long). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The puck has to completely cross the line. It was a REALLY close call. I went through the replay frame-by-frame and it's offside by a few frames, fractions of a second. You can't blame the linesman for missing that. Kovy pulls the puck back right before it crosses the line. Are you saying the puck comes out after that image? According the the definition 95Crash posted, at that exact instant the play is deemed onside as the puck as completely crossed the leading edge, not the blue entirely (as if the linesman's job wasn't tough enough) and Elias skate is still on the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Are you saying the puck comes out after that image? According the the definition 95Crash posted, at that exact instant the play is deemed onside as the puck as completely crossed the leading edge, not the blue entirely (as if the linesman's job wasn't tough enough) and Elias skate is still on the line. The leading edge of the blue line is the edge farthest from the puck. The puck has to completely cross the line to go in. Then, once it's in, it has to completely cross the line again to come out. (Another way to think of it is that the blue line is considered part of the zone that the puck is currently in.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The leading edge of the blue line is the edge farthest from the puck. The puck has to completely cross the line to go in. Then, once it's in, it has to completely cross the line again to come out. (Another way to think of it is that the blue line is considered part of the zone that the puck is currently in.) "Leading" means first edge, so when entering the zone the leading edge should be the one you first cross. I think the wording on the rule may have been changed after the lockout to increase offense, because I think the old way of calling it was the way you've listed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
95Crash Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) "Leading" means first edge, so when entering the zone the leading edge should be the one you first cross. I think the wording on the rule may have been changed after the lockout to increase offense, because I think the old way of calling it was the way you've listed. When I first read it, I also assumed "leading" meant the first edge of the line you cross, but now I believe it actually means the farthest edge, closest to the goal you're skating toward. This is what Wikipedia's entry on Offside (ice hockey) says: "There are two determining factors in an offside violation: Puck position: the puck must completely cross the edge of the blue line closest to the attacking zone, thus entering the attacking zone Attacking players' skate position: when the puck enters the attacking zone, the skates of at least one attacking player are already fully within the attacking zone" Edited May 24, 2012 by 95Crash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 No, the rule wasn't changed. It's still the same as usual. It's just bad wording. http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=387914 "What you need to know is as a result of the blue line being twelve inches wide there are two edges to consider for the offside rule; inside or leading edge and outside edge as the puck exits into the neutral zone." "When a team is attacking the zone, the puck must completely cross the inside edge of the blue line prior to the skates of any attacking players." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 When I first read it, I also assumed "leading" meant the first edge of the line you cross, but now I believe it actually means the farthest edge, closest to the goal you're skating toward. This is what Wikipedia's entry on Offside (ice hockey) says: "There are two determining factors in an offside violation: Puck position: the puck must completely cross the edge of the blue line closest to the attacking zone, thus entering the attacking zone Attacking players' skate position: when the puck enters the attacking zone, the skates of at least one attacking player are already fully within the attacking zone" Ya, but that's wikipedia, it owuldn'tbe the first thing they've had wrong. The definition of leading is first. I would argue their skate position thing is broad enough either. If you have one foot in the zone and one foot in the air then you're also offsides, even though both skates aren't fully in the attacking zone. No, the rule wasn't changed. It's still the same as usual. It's just bad wording. http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=387914 "What you need to know is as a result of the blue line being twelve inches wide there are two edges to consider for the offside rule; inside or leading edge and outside edge as the puck exits into the neutral zone." "When a team is attacking the zone, the puck must completely cross the inside edge of the blue line prior to the skates of any attacking players." Definitely bad wording, they're using leading to mean the opposite of it's definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer91 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) When I first read it, I also assumed "leading" meant the first edge of the line you cross, but now I believe it actually means the farthest edge, closest to the goal you're skating toward. This is what Wikipedia's entry on Offside (ice hockey) says: "There are two determining factors in an offside violation: Puck position: the puck must completely cross the edge of the blue line closest to the attacking zone, thus entering the attacking zone Attacking players' skate position: when the puck enters the attacking zone, the skates of at least one attacking player are already fully within the attacking zone" Not too long ago Fraser described it. http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=387914 What you need to know is as a result of the blue line being twelve inches wide there are two edges to consider for the offside rule; inside or leading edge and outside edge as the puck exits into the neutral zone. Offside results when a player(s) of the attacking team precedes the puck into the attacking zone. The position of the player's skates and not that of his stick shall be the determining factor in all instances in deciding an offside.When a team is attacking the zone, the puck must completely cross the inside edge of the blue line prior to the skates of any attacking players. (*However, a player actually controlling the puck who crosses the line shall not be considered "off-side," provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.) A player deemed to be in control and possession of the puck can skate backwards into the zone and not violate the off-side rule. Edited May 24, 2012 by lucifer91 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devs3cups Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Our 4th line is incredible. For Deboer trusting them in a tie game with 5:00 minutes to go says it all. Hope we re-sign the 3 of them this summer to have the same 4th line next season! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AEWHistory Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) I'm not running anywhere. This one hurt. Will respond to stuff tomorrow when I can think a little more rationally. Afraid I am might break my laptop if I start posting now. Can't blame you.... If I were in your position I would DEFINITELY have broken your laptop. Just kidding. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Devils fans have been bitching about never playing a gam where we were the ones who were outplayed, out shot, etc and yet still came off with the win. Well last night we got one. In fact, last night felt like a seasons worth. That ricochet behind Marty, off the post, and past Salvador (I think) without hitting anything or anyone else and getting dumped right back into the net was surely a sign that the almighty is behind the Devils this year. If we win the cup I think we are going to have to sacrifice something big to the hockey deities.... A crappy Islander fan won't do it this year! Note: I am going to hell for this post. Could one of the Flyers or their fans save me a seat please? Edited May 24, 2012 by AEWHistory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarpathianForest Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Rangers gonna be coming at us with everything. If anything last night proved was that throwing the puck at the net from wherever may pay off for them. We gotta come at them M.O.P. style Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stolen Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 haha, i wasn't online during the game...but reading pages 10 through 12 are hilarious lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onddeck Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Yes now we HAVE to close it out.. Just like in the Philly series, we have to step on their throats.. Let's go boys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) haha, i wasn't online during the game...but reading pages 10 through 12 are hilarious lol More sad than hilarious. I re-read them, and the number of "game over, series over"-type posts are still a little disconcerting. I get being frustrated as a fan, and the opponent being the Rangers definitely helps to make emotional reactions more extreme than they might be otherwise, but these Devils, from top to bottom, have still earned a hell of a lot of respect. This has been a tremendous run. Edited May 25, 2012 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) More sad than hilarious. I re-read them, and the number of "game over, series over"-type posts are still a little disconcerting. I get being frustrated as a fan, and the opponent being the Rangers definitely helps to make emotional reactions more extreme than they might be otherwise, but these Devils, from top to bottom, have still earned a hell of a lot of respect. This has been a tremendous run. Thing about that is so do the Rangers. They've had Rocky-like tendencies all year...get beaten up, still find a way to win. I really thought letting them off the hook in that fashion would be fatal, happy to be wrong but don't let up tonight. Don't let them off the canvas this time and get it done! Can't rely on winning a third straight game at the World's Most Famous Arena (although at this point I can't say I'd be surprised about anything that happens). Edited May 25, 2012 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Thing about that is so do the Rangers. They've had Rocky-like tendencies all year...get beaten up, still find a way to win. I really thought letting them off the hook in that fashion would be fatal, happy to be wrong but don't let up tonight. Don't let them off the canvas this time and get it done! Can't rely on winning a third straight game at the World's Most Famous Arena (although at this point I can't say I'd be surprised about anything that happens). Yeah, if the Rangers ever actually got it done, it would be just like Rocky at end of Rocky II...bloody, beaten, at times dominated, but somehow able to pull it off. And yeah, in a postseason full of surprises (I had the Devils losing in five to the Flyers, and though I couldn't bring myself to say it out loud, I did think the Rangers were going to win in six, mostly on the strength of Lundqvist), there isn't anything that would shock me. I think the only thing that could was if the Devils got blown out in Games 6 and 7, '01 Avalanche style. But I am feeling good about tonight...I have a feeling the Devils are going to find a way...I think it will be tense, and I think there will be a clear "Whew!" feeling when it's all over, but they'll get it done. God I hope... Edited May 25, 2012 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 To his credit, he did come onto his biggest rival's website and made a bold prediction, and didn't back off it. (Doesn't mean he shouldn't take some ribbing for it though, especially here.) He does come off as a bit antagonistic, and like I've said, it ain't my thing to go onto other teams' fansites to start to stirring the pot. But he can't now run away and hide after last night's loss. He'll come off as a troll and a clown if he does (and it's still early...I'd be surprised if he didn't come back today). And just like fans overreact when their team is up or down 2-1 in any given series, they do the same when they're up or down 3-2...this thing is far from over. Bolded part is very true. Takes 4 wins to end the series. Just win tonight, and get me to Sunday. Whether they take it in 6 or 7 at this point no longer matter. I thought Ranger fans all had Ipads. And, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Oh, you were trying to make a funny? HA HA HA. You from North Carolina? Don't you have some moonshine to make or a sister you should be servicing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.