GDT: Leafs @ Devils, 11/23 7 pm Time To Set A Record

[mfitz804]

16 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

And of course there’s no league conspiracy against the Devils, we all know that. But we’ve had 11 goals called back in 20 games and 3 in one game so yeah, people are gonna be upset. Us vs them is literally the basis of sports. 

There are definitely people here who believe there is. 

[MB3]

8 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

There are definitely people here who believe there is. 

that the league looks at the new jersey devils and says “nah, fvck those guys”? no, I don’t think there are. 

that the league and their officiating have an unquestionable bias towards major markets? absolutely.

flip this game for a second. toronto is on a 13 game win streak about to break a franchise record. the game is in toronto. do you think the NHL sends a referee who was born and raised going to Devils games? do you think the NHL has the balls to call back 3 goals from the Leafs in their building? Do you think the referee looks the other way when, after waving off two goals, Vanecek throws the net from its moorings during a stretch of play while the Devils defense is gassed and Toronto is buzzing? 

If there’s a shred of doubt in your mind that the game is called, officiated, and reviewed 100.0% the same as it was in Newark you can’t pretend those biases don’t exist.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

8 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

There are definitely people here who believe there is. 

I’m not truly one of them, no matter how aggravated I might get in the moment.  But there’s been enough iffy calls (or missed calls) that I wouldn’t mind seeing a bench launched onto the ice…or seeing a Devils head coach simply just lose his sh!t.  It happens enough where it’s noticeable.

[nessus]

Honestly, this wasn't the worst way for the streak to end. I was nervous that a rival team would end it, which would not have been fun. Instead we got a dominant effort for the majority of that game, especially the second half of the 3rd period. The way they were playing at the end made that Leafs team look helpless, and they're no pushover of a group. The streak didn't end because the Devils burned out, it ended while they looked hungrier than ever.

As far as fans throwing things on the ice, I won't tell people how they should feel. To be quite honest, I thought that 3rd waived off goal would've counted too, and I was pretty frustrated about it. But that's the kind of thing Flyers fans would do, and I don't want to be associated with them in any way.

[CHIP72]

9 minutes ago, nessus said:

Honestly, this wasn't the worst way for the streak to end. I was nervous that a rival team would end it, which would not have been fun. Instead we got a dominant effort for the majority of that game, especially the second half of the 3rd period. The way they were playing at the end made that Leafs team look helpless, and they're no pushover of a group. The streak didn't end because the Devils burned out, it ended while they looked hungrier than ever.

I attended Wednesday's game, and that's largely how I feel about the loss.  The Devils won that game everywhere but on the scoreboard.  (I would say however the Devils dominated play for most of the last two periods, not just the last 10 minutes.)  It was just a continuation of how the Devils have played so far this year.  It just happened to be a game where they were a little unlucky and they lost, which happens in hockey sometimes due to the nature of the game.

One other thought, speaking as more of a casual fan who doesn't watch (or attend) many Devils games because I live out of market - Wednesday's game against Toronto was a very entertaining game, even if it was also frustrating.  Games like that will increase casual fans' interest in the Devils.  More broadly, if every hockey game was like that one, the NHL wouldn't have any popularity issues.

[mfitz804]

1 hour ago, MB3 said:

that the league looks at the new jersey devils and says “nah, fvck those guys”? no, I don’t think there are. 

that the league and their officiating have an unquestionable bias towards major markets? absolutely.

flip this game for a second. toronto is on a 13 game win streak about to break a franchise record. the game is in toronto. do you think the NHL sends a referee who was born and raised going to Devils games? do you think the NHL has the balls to call back 3 goals from the Leafs in their building? Do you think the referee looks the other way when, after waving off two goals, Vanecek throws the net from its moorings during a stretch of play while the Devils defense is gassed and Toronto is buzzing? 

If there’s a shred of doubt in your mind that the game is called, officiated, and reviewed 100.0% the same as it was in Newark you can’t pretend those biases don’t exist.

Found the guy I was talking about. 

[MB3]

13 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Found the guy I was talking about. 

dismissive snarky commentary from the guy who’s proud to be compared to a high school popular girl. 

[mfitz804]

58 minutes ago, MB3 said:

dismissive snarky commentary from the guy who’s proud to be compared to a high school popular girl. 

You can’t sit with us. 

[Devil Dan 56]

3 hours ago, MB3 said:

that the league looks at the new jersey devils and says “nah, fvck those guys”? no, I don’t think there are. 

that the league and their officiating have an unquestionable bias towards major markets? absolutely.

flip this game for a second. toronto is on a 13 game win streak about to break a franchise record. the game is in toronto. do you think the NHL sends a referee who was born and raised going to Devils games? do you think the NHL has the balls to call back 3 goals from the Leafs in their building? Do you think the referee looks the other way when, after waving off two goals, Vanecek throws the net from its moorings during a stretch of play while the Devils defense is gassed and Toronto is buzzing? 

If there’s a shred of doubt in your mind that the game is called, officiated, and reviewed 100.0% the same as it was in Newark you can’t pretend those biases don’t exist.

While I don’t think there’s any conspiracy, I do think the league would really be gritting their teeth in a situation when they were about to take a second goal off of Toronto in Toronto let alone a third. Not saying the result would be the different, but I think the league is quicker to make that call against certain teams and maybe slower against a large market.

And again, while questionable, I can see the calls being no goals. The first 2 were judgment calls that I don’t necessarily agree with but I see where they get called back. The last goal was definitely a no goal when considering the actual wording of the rule, which I don’t like but it’s the rule. 

[Jerzey]

I say we let @Colorado Rockies 1976 continue to make GDT’s. He got screwed out of the record too.

[SterioDesign]

13 hours ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

Come down off the cross. No one cares about you making a point. If you’re going to tell people how they should react in the heat of a game, they are gonna give it back to you. You can’t do the whole high and mighty contrarian thing and then go all “pikachu shocked face” when someone takes exception. That’s just Sean Avery stuff.

And of course there’s no league conspiracy against the Devils, we all know that. But we’ve had 11 goals called back in 20 games and 3 in one game so yeah, people are gonna be upset. Us vs them is literally the basis of sports. 

Except that's a false narrative. I NEVER tell people how to feel, how to react or anything. And i say it every single fvcking time. If anything MB3 does it 100 times more than i do. And HE'S the one who started that non-sense. He's constantly telling people "if you don't __________, shut the fvck up". What i do is give my opinion and personal perspective. Expecting a conversation to ensue. 

Me replying to a post saying that i disagree or even think that what's said is dumb. is NOT telling the person how to feel. It's just giving my personal opinion. How you guys keep on misunderstanding that is fvcking mindblowing

Yet every single time you whiners take it as if im not ALLOWING the person to feel that way or telling them how to feel.

Yet you guys are all doing the same exact thing daily. But only when i do it now because that's the general narrative, then it's wrong. Mfitz is right when he says i dont get a fair shake on here when it comes to that stuff. 

 

Honestly. I'm asking you. Tell me how me giving my personal opinion on someone's claim or take... is me NOT allowing them to have it? And how is that even different than what people do daily on a message board. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by SterioDesign

[SterioDesign]

4 hours ago, MB3 said:

that the league looks at the new jersey devils and says “nah, fvck those guys”? no, I don’t think there are. 

that the league and their officiating have an unquestionable bias towards major markets? absolutely.

flip this game for a second. toronto is on a 13 game win streak about to break a franchise record. the game is in toronto. do you think the NHL sends a referee who was born and raised going to Devils games? do you think the NHL has the balls to call back 3 goals from the Leafs in their building? Do you think the referee looks the other way when, after waving off two goals, Vanecek throws the net from its moorings during a stretch of play while the Devils defense is gassed and Toronto is buzzing? 

If there’s a shred of doubt in your mind that the game is called, officiated, and reviewed 100.0% the same as it was in Newark you can’t pretend those biases don’t exist.

I'm going to ask a few questions and make a few comments here. Please refrain from attacking vs simply answering or getting defensive.

That whole "flip the game" thing. Can you agree that it's just you... projecting and assuming and not really... have any proofs of any of this?

First you appear to be under the impression that because the referee grew up in the Toronto area... that he is or was a Leafs fan... Well he's not, sorry im not telling you how to be a fan or how to feel, but he's not a leafs fan. He grew up a Detroit Red Wings fan. His favourite player was Steve Yzerman. That's a fact. And he was drafted by Buffalo.

 

Then well.... referees never "look away" from black and white goals like the 3rd goal. It was a distinct kicking motion. That didn't hit a stick before going in. 100% of the time that's going to be called no-goal. It's when referrees has to take guesses and assumptions of what they see that it goes both ways. Like the first goal. So my question is... do you honestly believe that they would have counted that goal if the Leafs scored it? I'm 50000% certain that they wouldn't have. 

 

 

[SterioDesign]

3 hours ago, nessus said:

Honestly, this wasn't the worst way for the streak to end. I was nervous that a rival team would end it, which would not have been fun. Instead we got a dominant effort for the majority of that game, especially the second half of the 3rd period. The way they were playing at the end made that Leafs team look helpless, and they're no pushover of a group. The streak didn't end because the Devils burned out, it ended while they looked hungrier than ever.

As far as fans throwing things on the ice, I won't tell people how they should feel. To be quite honest, I thought that 3rd waived off goal would've counted too, and I was pretty frustrated about it. But that's the kind of thing Flyers fans would do, and I don't want to be associated with them in any way.

Well telling someone they shouldnt throw stuff on the ice is not telling them how to feel. They can be mad if they want. But being mad doesn't give you the right to do something that's dangerous to others.

[mfitz804]

2 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Well telling someone they shouldnt throw stuff on the ice is not telling them how to feel. They can be mad if they want. But being mad doesn't give you the right to do something that's dangerous to others.

And in fact, multiple others including myself said it, and only @SterioDesign was singled out as telling people “how to fan”. 

Certain people need to look at themselves and wonder what went wrong that they have to single out a guy to bully on a website. 

[Devil Dan 56]

5 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

And in fact, multiple others including myself said it, and only @SterioDesign was singled out as telling people “how to fan”. 

Certain people need to look at themselves and wonder what went wrong that they have to single out a guy to bully on a website. 

Telling people they shouldn’t be upset and telling them they shouldn’t throw stuff on the ice are 2 different things. I’m sure plenty of people there were very upset but didn’t throw their 17 dollar beer on the ice. People can get as mad as they want but causing harm to someone else over it crosses a pretty clear line

And I’m sorry but this idea that Sterio is some innocent victim is ridiculous. He knows hockey as well as anyone here, and probably more than most since he’s played, coached, etc. He contributes a ton to this board, which is why I would never block him even if we disagree on a lot. But he has a history of needling people and talking down to people at times, and if you’re going to do that then you can’t be shocked when people push back on it. 

 

[slasher72]

2 hours ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

While I don’t think there’s any conspiracy, I do think the league would really be gritting their teeth in a situation when they were about to take a second goal off of Toronto in Toronto let alone a third. Not saying the result would be the different, but I think the league is quicker to make that call against certain teams and maybe slower against a large market.

And again, while questionable, I can see the calls being no goals. The first 2 were judgment calls that I don’t necessarily agree with but I see where they get called back. The last goal was definitely a no goal when considering the actual wording of the rule, which I don’t like but it’s the rule. 

Ever since the Koharski donut event, the league hasnt necessarily had our best interest. And being the Leafs are the NHL's darlings, they will get the benefit of the doubt over us. The Tatar/Murray collision was complete crap when the same type of goal was ruled in the Avs' favor when we played against them. The Rangers also scored a similar goal against the Senators and it accounted. So if you're going to take that goal away from us, at least be consistent. With that said, in light of what happened in the Predators-Red Wings game where the ref was exposed on a hot mike it's not a far stretch to say the refs aren't squeaky clean. 

[mfitz804]

2 minutes ago, slasher72 said:

The Tatar/Murray collision was complete crap when the same type of goal was ruled in the Avs' favor when we played against them. 

It wasn’t if you read the rule and watch the tapes. The Avs player tried to avoid contact, Tatar did nothing to avoid it. 

[SterioDesign]

2 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

Telling people they shouldn’t be upset and telling them they shouldn’t throw stuff on the ice are 2 different things. I’m sure plenty of people there were very upset but didn’t throw their 17 dollar beer on the ice. People can get as mad as they want but causing harm to someone else over it crosses a pretty clear line

And I’m sorry but this idea that Sterio is some innocent victim is ridiculous. He knows hockey as well as anyone here, and probably more than most since he’s played, coached, etc. He contributes a ton to this board, which is why I would never block him even if we disagree on a lot. But he has a history of needling people and talking down to people at times, and if you’re going to do that then you can’t be shocked when people push back on it. 

 

I'm never "shocked", also not claiming to be an innocent victim either, but there's definitely a pattern. I actually encourage a "push back" (aka a conversation) from my comments but it's not what im getting. You guys know i could go on for days during an argument, im literally never shutting down anyone from their opinion, im just commenting on it. However, I'm getting shut down.

IF i may use an analogy that is not GF related. What's happening usually is typically like when someone is saying "The US should open their borders and just let anyone come in and put them in hotels and feed them. This is how we built our country!" and then someone like me go "Well... im sure there's conversation to be had about how many people we can let in and how we can make sure they are taken cared of. But we can agree that we can't just... let anyone walk in without any verifications or wtv cause we do know for a fact that at the border there's a lot of drug, human trafficking and all sort of nasty sh!t that we need to make sure is controlled. It's also their best interest and also to protect the citizens. It's also unrealistic that we could possibly home ALL these people and feed them, we simply don't have the money or infrastructure for that".

And as calm, rational and fair as it may be. The person don't even try to make a counter-argument (which could totally be made in this case). They are just emotional and won't budge from their take and right away go to "YOU fvckING RACIST!". When absolutely nothing racist or even race related was even mentioned. This is kind of what's happening here.

And across the board throught all subjects, that's what we see these days. When a counter argument is made that doesn't fit with what we want to believe. We don't come back with a "better argument", we simply try to demonize or crush the other person so that their opinion isn't considered or heard. 

 

 

 

[mfitz804]

28 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

Telling people they shouldn’t be upset and telling them they shouldn’t throw stuff on the ice are 2 different things. I’m sure plenty of people there were very upset but didn’t throw their 17 dollar beer on the ice. People can get as mad as they want but causing harm to someone else over it crosses a pretty clear line

And I’m sorry but this idea that Sterio is some innocent victim is ridiculous. He knows hockey as well as anyone here, and probably more than most since he’s played, coached, etc. He contributes a ton to this board, which is why I would never block him even if we disagree on a lot. But he has a history of needling people and talking down to people at times, and if you’re going to do that then you can’t be shocked when people push back on it. 

 

Innocent? No. But does he get unwarranted criticism and people ganging up on him when he gives his opinion in a way nobody else does? There’s no other way to describe it. 

[slasher72]

7 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

It wasn’t if you read the rule and watch the tapes. The Avs player tried to avoid contact, Tatar did nothing to avoid it. 

How did the Avs player try to avoid contact? He skated right into Blackwood. Not to mention Murray accidentally skated into Tatar as much as Tatar ran into him. Should Tatar have tried to avoid him? Sure. Did he have enough time to react? Who knows.

One thing is certain though, Murray wasnt stationary as Blackwood was here. He drifted to his right and collided with Tatar.

 

[mfitz804]

6 minutes ago, slasher72 said:

How did the Avs player try to avoid contact? He skated right into Blackwood. Not to mention Murray accidentally skated into Tatar as much as Tatar ran into him. Should Tatar have tried to avoid him? Sure. Did he have enough time to react? Who knows.

One thing is certain though, Murray wasnt stationary as Blackwood was here. He drifted to his right and collided with Tatar.

 

Watch the Avs player’s legs. He pulls his right leg out of the way and catches Blackwood, who is definitely not “stationary”, with his opposite side foot. He actually would have missed Blackwood, but Blackwood turns back toward the net and that’s when the contact occurs. 

He doesn’t skate right into him at all. It’s the very definition of the rule, incidental contact and the attacking player made a reasonable effort to avoid him. That is why it counted. 

Tatar did nothing to avoid Murray, hence the no-goal call. It’s Tatar’s responsibility under the rule to avoid Murray, not the other way around. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by mfitz804

[SterioDesign]

I'm with mfitz on this one. I see those 2 being very different. The way i personally see it, it's clear that Tatar didn't make an effort, but even... at that speed and deciding to cut between the goalie and the net, was NEVER going to avoid collision. While the Avs player's skating lane and his whole body was actually not going to make contact and only his skate did at the end.

Is there a chance that the Avs player is a great actor and totally did it on purpose? I suppose yeah. But even if id believe that for wtv reasons. I'd have to also agree that it's so close that it could have went either way. Hence, that it was not just the league actively fvcking us over for the lolz. 

And i mean, aside from how the rule is written, even if he would have made an effort... as a hockey fan, i don't feel like a goal where the goalie fell because of a contact that wasn't his fault at all and couldnt be in net for a save... should be a good goal. No matter what teams are involved, that sucks.

 

[mfitz804]

4 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

While the Avs player's skating lane and his whole body was actually not going to make contact and only his skate did at the end.

He actually would have avoided him completely if Blackwood didn’t turn at the last second. So you have incidental contact outside of the crease, you have a reasonable attempt to avoid it, and contact occured anyway. That’s a goal under the rules. 

[Devil Dan 56]

22 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I'm never "shocked", also not claiming to be an innocent victim either, but there's definitely a pattern. I actually encourage a "push back" (aka a conversation) from my comments but it's not what im getting. You guys know i could go on for days during an argument, im literally never shutting down anyone from their opinion, im just commenting on it. However, I'm getting shut down.

IF i may use an analogy that is not GF related. What's happening usually is typically like when someone is saying "The US should open their borders and just let anyone come in and put them in hotels and feed them. This is how we built our country!" and then someone like me go "Well... im sure there's conversation to be had about how many people we can let in and how we can make sure they are taken cared of. But we can agree that we can't just... let anyone walk in without any verifications or wtv cause we do know for a fact that at the border there's a lot of drug, human trafficking and all sort of nasty sh!t that we need to make sure is controlled. It's also their best interest and also to protect the citizens. It's also unrealistic that we could possibly home ALL these people and feed them, we simply don't have the money or infrastructure for that".

And as calm, rational and fair as it may be. The person don't even try to make a counter-argument (which could totally be made in this case). They are just emotional and won't budge from their take and right away go to "YOU fvckING RACIST!". When absolutely nothing racist or even race related was even mentioned. This is kind of what's happening here.

And across the board throught all subjects, that's what we see these days. When a counter argument is made that doesn't fit with what we want to believe. We don't come back with a "better argument", we simply try to demonize or the other person so that their opinion isn't considered or heard. 

 

You realize even in your example, you portray the opposing view point as an over-simplified, un thoughtful, half-argument while portraying your own as more intelligent, more thought out, and more considerate of variables. Then, the opposing viewpoint lashes out because they can’t handle your opinion. Even in your example you’ve created a straw man.

This is literally what people complain about. You look down on the opinion that isn’t your own, and view your own opinion as irrefutable fact. Then when someone responds you tell them they “don’t understand”. 

When you enter a discussion believing your view to be superior to any other, you are no longer having a discussion, you are lecturing. 

[Devil Dan 56]

24 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Watch the Avs player’s legs. He pulls his right leg out of the way and catches Blackwood, who is definitely not “stationary”, with his opposite side foot. He actually would have missed Blackwood, but Blackwood turns back toward the net and that’s when the contact occurs. 

He doesn’t skate right into him at all. It’s the very definition of the rule, incidental contact and the attacking player made a reasonable effort to avoid him. That is why it counted. 

Tatar did nothing to avoid Murray, hence the no-goal call. 

Tatar had a lot more space to work with than the Aves player. He could have drifted even a slight bit towards the crease, avoided contact, and been open to tip the shot or get a rebound if Murray made the save. 

The Aves player didn’t have a choice, contact was pretty inevitable