Jump to content

Photo

GDT: Islanders @ NJ Devils 1PM 11/26/11


  • Please log in to reply
327 replies to this topic

#161 Marv4Life

Marv4Life

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:30 PM

It just baffles the mind how awful that pp is with or without Kovy. Oates made it work in Tampa, so with the talent they should be somewhat okay, but dayum.

And like it or not, my boy deserved to get booed despite his assitises. But it's been nearly 2 years and they still don't know how to utilize him.
  • 0

#162 njdevsftw

njdevsftw

    Senior Devil

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:34 PM

Lemaire came back, we played 7 out of 8 games like terrible sh!t and then barely lost for the rest of the year. All the while Kovalchuk was sh!tting on people. Bad fit with the organization my ass, the organization is just using him wrong.


+1

There's a reason he's scored the 2nd most goals in the league since 05/06.. Even after playing on a sh!tty offensively devs team for 18 months.

If you're not gonna build your team around making your $100M sniper produce, then why even bother signing him. He needs to play LW, and he needs a talented center on his line.
  • 1
Posted Image

#163 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:38 PM

Kovalchuk's Thanksgiving Video goes down as one of my favorite moments as a fan. Totally hilarious and awful timing.

Really would have been hilarious without the tease. I guess the upside is that they somehow won 2 out of these 3 games. :lol:
Grabner could have scored a season's worth of goals this afternoon.
  • 0

#164 MadDog2020

MadDog2020

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,131 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:39 PM

http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=4366

Read the comments ... all the fans around the league agree that was a good goal and not a "distinct" kicking motion. One even points it out how the league decided not to quote the distinct part of the rule. They even point out a previous example that was allowed to stand and would be considered more of a motion than this.

The league said in it's explanation that Parise "propelled the puck into the net with his skate". The rule says that "any goal caused by a distinct kicking motion will not count". Nowhere in it's explanation of why the goal was waved off does the league even use the words "distinct kicking motion". This stupid league has NEVER been able to interpret it's own rules right, and this is just another case of it today. fvck those morons in Toronto. Absolute fvcking clowns.
  • 0
iq0p.pngUploaded with ImageShack.com

#165 Blown01NJ

Blown01NJ

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 866 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:40 PM

I seriously can not believe how incredibly pathetic Kovalchucks passing skills are. I bet nobody is ignoring my NEGATIVE posts on his erratic play now. He just cost us a game in my opinion we NEEDED to have. The entire league is way to close this year. EVERY point matters. The fact we didn't go 6 points for 6 points against these pathetic teams is inexcusable. The Devils scored a total of 5 goals vs. the 3 worst teams in 3 games. Congrats, our team is awesome. And enough about Kovalchuck not fitting in on RW. He should be able to play fvcking goalie for the amount he gets paid. He just doesn't fit in with the New Jersey Devils all together; RW has nothing to do with it.

You a tard?

If you want to bitch about Kovy, bitch about his lack of scoring and his turnovers, because he is a great passer.
  • 0
-Putting that bread and butter all over the toast.

#166 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:41 PM

Whoever coordinates replay in the arena didn't think it was a goal either, because once they went to review there was a replay embargo.

sh!t happens, that one is coming back most of the time, not to mention Parise was close enough to Montoya to give him a big ol hug. It never should have come to that in the first place and wouldn't if not for whatever the fvck that was that Kovy did. I'm surprised they even rallied anything together after that disaster and then his Langs-like performance after eating a stick
  • 0

#167 iamtheprodigy

iamtheprodigy

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:43 PM



Let's apply the NHL's ruling to this goal scored yesterday. "[Player] used his right skate to propel the puck into the net." In this case it was the left skate, but observe how the puck comes across the ice east-to-west and his "propelled" towards the net by MacArthur turning his skate and pushing forward. The puck is propelled directly into the goal off of the skate. Now watch Parise's goal again. He turns his skate leans forward slightly (due to losing balance) and propels the puck in the net. Despite the play being ruled a good goal on the ice, the distinction was apparently clear enough to overturn this call and take the goal back. Nice consistent rulings, NHL. Tools.
  • 0

#168 Ollie McKraut

Ollie McKraut

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:45 PM

Kovalchuk had a pretty good game from start to finish, and the Devils are doing pretty well so far this season with a tough schedule. We have one fewer "win" than Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, despite all of our glaring problems, for which I foresee solutions being emplaced.
  • 1
Send us back to hell,
we've had out fill of heaven,
give us back our sins,
deadly one through seven

#169 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:48 PM

Start to finish? Turning the puck over 10-15 feet in front of the net, on the PP, with no one behind you, is start to finish?

He had a good read on Larsson's goal. Otherwise he didn't do much and the stuff that happened in the 3rd could erase a ton of goodwill, fast.
  • 0

#170 Devil Fan

Devil Fan

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,459 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:50 PM

Our PP is so awful that other team can score...Pathetic...
  • 0

Posted ImagePosted Image

Chocolate + Devil = My life


#171 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:52 PM

PP is +5 on the season, I think. +1 yesterday, -1 today.

The PK is -2. I wonder if they can get close to each other.
  • 0

#172 iamtheprodigy

iamtheprodigy

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:52 PM

Whoever coordinates replay in the arena didn't think it was a goal either, because once they went to review there was a replay embargo.

sh!t happens, that one is coming back most of the time, not to mention Parise was close enough to Montoya to give him a big ol hug. It never should have come to that in the first place and wouldn't if not for whatever the fvck that was that Kovy did. I'm surprised they even rallied anything together after that disaster and then his Langs-like performance after eating a stick


How is that relevant? If anything, that supports the fact that Parise was leaned on and lost his balance and in no way made a distinct kicking motion at the puck. I disagree that that comes back "most of the time". I think for a lot of other teams, that's called a good goal.
  • 0

#173 RSC

RSC

    Hall of Famer

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,096 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:54 PM

Between this game and the way Wake's currently sh!tting the bed against Vanderbilt, I'm in a terrible mood right now. The more I watch this replay, the angrier I'm becoming.
  • 0

"The real fans are always going to be the fans. They’re always going to support you." Ilya Kovalchuk, 11/11/2010

 

"I am a greedy little pansy." Ilya Kovalchuk 7/11/2013

 

Proud winner of the 2009-10 NJDevs Conn Smythe Trophy for best poster during the playoffs


#174 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:55 PM

How is that relevant? If anything, that supports the fact that Parise was leaned on and lost his balance and in no way made a distinct kicking motion at the puck. I disagree that that comes back "most of the time". I think for a lot of other teams, that's called a good goal.


Believe in conspiracy if you want. Devils fans are great at it. It's a sh!t break he didn't get his stick on it. But he was also a foot from the net. Doesn't give you much of a chance to
  • 0

#175 Colin226

Colin226

    Hall of Famer

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,201 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:59 PM

The league said in it's explanation that Parise "propelled the puck into the net with his skate". The rule says that "any goal caused by a distinct kicking motion will not count". Nowhere in it's explanation of why the goal was waved off does the league even use the words "distinct kicking motion". This stupid league has NEVER been able to interpret it's own rules right, and this is just another case of it today. fvck those morons in Toronto. Absolute fvcking clowns.


This is just like when they allowed the Briere shootout goal and basically claimed "In slow motion he clearly stops the puck and violates the rules, but we allowed the goal because you have to look at the play in real time and it was close".. Why do we have video replay if you're looking at it in real time like the on-ice official?!?!?

The league continues to dance around its own rules, contradicting itself numerous times along the way.. And somehow we always seem to be the ones getting screwed.. I really don't want to play the "The League hates us and wants us to lose" card but the reviews the past 2 seasons have been very shady.. We seem to always lose when it's a close call, despite having clear evidence from previous calls to back ourselves up


This is getting ridiculous
  • 0

Season Ticket Holder since '08 - '09
Section 226 - Row 2 - Seats 15 and 16

devildance.gifdevildance.gifdevildance.gifdevildance.gifdevildance.gifdevildance.gifdevildance.gif


#176 hurricane1091

hurricane1091

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 05:01 PM

Accident or not, the puck was kicked in. Why are we so biased all the time? I'm a guilty homer usually, but the puck was kicked in. I don't think it says anything about accidents in the rule. If a foot goes forward and knocks the puck in the net, it's not a goal. If the skate is stationary and a puck deflects off of it, it's a goal. Clearly this cannot be an example of case 2 because the puck was not moving. Tough loss, but I can see why it was waived off. Gotta work it with the stick Zach, lesson learned the hard way unfortunately. The Toronto goal is clearly a goal. He did not kick it, he tilted his skate so it would deflect off of it.

Edited by hurricane1091, 26 November 2011 - 05:03 PM.

  • 0

#177 iamtheprodigy

iamtheprodigy

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 05:02 PM

Believe in conspiracy if you want. Devils fans are great at it. It's a sh!t break he didn't get his stick on it. But he was also a foot from the net. Doesn't give you much of a chance to


When did I say anything about a conspiracy? My problem with this ruling is that it's clearly inconsistent with previous decisions, and their ruling doesn't cite the full rule from the book.
  • 0

#178 maxpower

maxpower

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,427 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 05:04 PM

It shouldn't have even come to that anyway, did the league buy off our players to keep giving Grabner the puck until he scored a goal?

We already were in position to get a point or better out of the game. Shouldn't have to steal it with 2 seconds left in a scrum

When did I say anything about a conspiracy? My problem with this ruling is that it's clearly inconsistent with previous decisions, and their ruling doesn't cite the full rule from the book.


Trust me, there will be plenty of conspiracy talk. lol
  • 0

#179 iamtheprodigy

iamtheprodigy

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 05:12 PM

Accident or not, the puck was kicked in. Why are we so biased all the time? I'm a guilty homer usually, but the puck was kicked in. I don't think it says anything about accidents in the rule. If a foot goes forward and knocks the puck in the net, it's not a goal. If the skate is stationary and a puck deflects off of it, it's a goal. Clearly this cannot be an example of case 2 because the puck was not moving. Tough loss, but I can see why it was waived off. Gotta work it with the stick Zach, lesson learned the hard way unfortunately. The Toronto goal is clearly a goal. He did not kick it, he tilted his skate so it would deflect off of it.


That's not the rule. I think YOU'RE the one that doesn't understand the rule at all.

Being biased is one thing. I am looking at the rule book and at previous examples, and saying that I think the call is sh!t. Where is the distinct kick on this play? I see a skate turn, a player falling backwards, and the puck going into the net. The NHL's explanation was that the puck was "propelled into the net off the skate". That's all they said. I agree with them. Too bad the rule also says that it has to be a distinct kicking motion, which it clearly wasn't. I would like to see the NHL's explanation for how they determined it was. Instead of just playing the "Wow everyone's so biased and I'm not, lololol" card, why not actually consider the play and the rules at hand? Clarke MacArthur kicked just as hard as Parise did. He turned the skate, but also moved it forward, propelling the puck at the net. Watch the clip. It's clearly not "stationary", like you said.

It shouldn't have even come to that anyway, did the league buy off our players to keep giving Grabner the puck until he scored a goal?

We already were in position to get a point or better out of the game. Shouldn't have to steal it with 2 seconds left in a scrum


I agree, but that's irrelevant. We still had a goal and at least a point in the standings stolen from us.
  • 0

#180 hystyk28

hystyk28

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 940 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 05:17 PM

Accident or not, the puck was kicked in. Why are we so biased all the time? I'm a guilty homer usually, but the puck was kicked in. I don't think it says anything about accidents in the rule. If a foot goes forward and knocks the puck in the net, it's not a goal. If the skate is stationary and a puck deflects off of it, it's a goal. Clearly this cannot be an example of case 2 because the puck was not moving. Tough loss, but I can see why it was waived off. Gotta work it with the stick Zach, lesson learned the hard way unfortunately. The Toronto goal is clearly a goal. He did not kick it, he tilted his skate so it would deflect off of it.


Skates being stationary has NOTHING to do with the allowance of a goal off a skate. In fact, a majority of reviewed goals fall into the category of when a player moving at speed has the puck go off their skate.

It is an inexcusable muff by Toronto. They tried to cover their ass by leaving out the distinct and tried to fit it under propel. Almost every goal I see off a skate propels the puck towrds the goal. The video ealier in this thread completley undermines their logic.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users