 |
 |
Offthepost (Generation II)
ATTENTION: OFFTHEPOST.NET NO LONGER EXISTS AS A URL. The old site had to be closed. Please reset your bookmarks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cannots Luvah
Mike Weaver jersey on order
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1148
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: GDT game #12 Det @ Van |
 |
|
Hasek hurt is groin so Osgood is in. Osgood actually has a great career record vs vancouver though.
Not sure if Krajicek is in or out.
Since all the forward depth is injured (Rypien , Cowan ) I assume the same forwards are in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Chaos
(Formerly Lieutenant Chaos)
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This a PPV game so I'm not going to watch. Might catch a bit of Tom and Shorty throughout the night.
No predictions but the Nucks always play Detroit well so it should be a good game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the New Cunning Linguist
Like a good neighbor, only better
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1962
Location: I'm here, aren't I?
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Watching the Detroit feed for this one.
_________________
... Because the old one, is well, old.
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Chaos
(Formerly Lieutenant Chaos)
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey! I guess Canucks TV is free today cause I'm picking it up on Channel 4! Sweet! 
Edit - sigh.... just until the Oilers game ends... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jyrki21
Rebel Sell + Moneyball = Life
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 2018
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds like the Canucks just got royally fucked over by the refs. In real life, not in Razz life.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Chaos
(Formerly Lieutenant Chaos)
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
freakydave
Less freaky once you get to know him
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 186
Location: JESUS JUST LEFT CHICAGO
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yup---that goal to tie the game should've counted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oz
Kangaroos and Didgeridoos
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 143
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bummer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 3477
Location: Sweetest lid in the league
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| freakydave wrote: |
| yup---that goal to tie the game should've counted. |
What happened?
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the New Cunning Linguist
Like a good neighbor, only better
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1962
Location: I'm here, aren't I?
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bosc Ulrich II wrote: |
| freakydave wrote: |
| yup---that goal to tie the game should've counted. |
What happened? |
Osgoode stopped the original shot from the slot (I believe by Pyatt) in the last 30 seconds of the game; Osgoode appeared to lose it in his pads - the puck was loose momentarily but a quick whistle (or so it seemed) meant the play was dead, even as Pyatt jammed the puck and Osgoode into the net. On the replay, you could hear the ref's whistle after the puck went in, but that isn't necessarily a good indicator - apparently, it the ref so much as intended to call the play dead, then it is. And he did. The ref was behind the goal line and to Osgoode's left, so it might have been possible that he lost sight of the puck.
I thought Vancouver had a bit more jump in this game than in the last Detroit game; certainly by the number of hits, f/o %, and shots it seemed to be more even. Their PK unit held up this time, and it helped that the Canucks didn't get into too much penalty trouble; conversely, their PP units never mounted much of threat, even with Salo at the point. Great to see Cooke continuing to play an active and effective role after coming out of the pressbox.
But 5-on-5 I didn't think Vancouver could skate with the Wings - Hudler, Zetterburg, Datsyuk and Lidstrom seem to have an extra gear that Vancouver couldn't match. They played a very patient game and always seemed to get in the way of most of Vancouver's shots or passes. With Backstrom injured (I believe), the Wings are easily the best team in the West right now. Cold comfort losing to the Wings. And now the Nucks are back to 2 games below .500, and 1 and 5 at home... 
_________________
... Because the old one, is well, old.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 3477
Location: Sweetest lid in the league
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the New Cunning Linguist wrote: |
| Bosc Ulrich II wrote: |
| freakydave wrote: |
| yup---that goal to tie the game should've counted. |
What happened? |
Osgoode stopped the original shot from the slot (I believe by Pyatt) in the last 30 seconds of the game; Osgoode appeared to lose it in his pads - the puck was loose momentarily but a quick whistle (or so it seemed) meant the play was dead, even as Pyatt jammed the puck and Osgoode into the net. On the replay, you could hear the ref's whistle after the puck went in, but that isn't necessarily a good indicator - apparently, it the ref so much as intended to call the play dead, then it is. And he did. The ref was behind the goal line and to Osgoode's left, so it might have been possible that he lost sight of the puck.
I thought Vancouver had a bit more jump in this game than in the last Detroit game; certainly by the number of hits, f/o %, and shots it seemed to be more even. Their PK unit held up this time, and it helped that the Canucks didn't get into too much penalty trouble; conversely, their PP units never mounted much of threat, even with Salo at the point. Great to see Cooke continuing to play an active and effective role after coming out of the pressbox.
But 5-on-5 I didn't think Vancouver could skate with the Wings - Hudler, Zetterburg, Datsyuk and Lidstrom seem to have an extra gear that Vancouver couldn't match. They played a very patient game and always seemed to get in the way of most of Vancouver's shots or passes. With Backstrom injured (I believe), the Wings are easily the best team in the West right now. Cold comfort losing to the Wings. And now the Nucks are back to 2 games below .500, and 1 and 5 at home... |
Yeah, the play is dead when the ref decides it's dead, not at the exact moment when his whistle goes off. And you can't push a goalie into the net with the puck under him to score a goal, though sometimes they don't call it if the goalie's momentum was carrying him into the net.
Man, Van had a 5 to 2 PP advantage(4 to 2 really) over Detroit and look who was in the box for Detroit for 4 of them: Lidstrom, Draper, Maltby, and Draper for 6 seconds at the end of the game. You've gotta cash in those chances. I only saw some of the first period, and Salo kept hammering it wide on one of them...
The second line has started to score. Hudler with Filppula and Samuelsson. Good to see, because secondary scoring was non-existent for a while. I've heard the Hudler goal was a beauty, but I can't see the replay on here...
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the New Cunning Linguist
Like a good neighbor, only better
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1962
Location: I'm here, aren't I?
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Hudler goal was excellent - he flew by the defenceman, and looked like he was going to go wide, but instead cut into the slot - brought the puck from his backhand to his forehand and snapped high short-side glove on Luongo, who guessed that Hudler was going to go low - Louie was on his knees at that point.
You're right on the call - it was not a goal b/c you can't push the puck and the goalie into the net - not because he couldn't see the puck. Even AV says so: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=505274eb-0b43-4c89-9c31-05bcad58d43d
_________________
... Because the old one, is well, old.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 3477
Location: Sweetest lid in the league
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the New Cunning Linguist wrote: |
The Hudler goal was excellent - he flew by the defenceman, and looked like he was going to go wide, but instead cut into the slot - brought the puck from his backhand to his forehand and snapped high short-side glove on Luongo, who guessed that Hudler was going to go low - Louie was on his knees at that point.
You're right on the call - it was not a goal b/c you can't push the puck and the goalie into the net - not because he couldn't see the puck. Even AV says so: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=505274eb-0b43-4c89-9c31-05bcad58d43d |
Even if Hudler was cutting across close, you still push off and slide across in the butterfly. You cover low, take away most of the lower part of the net, and close up the 5-hole before he can slide it through(great goal scorers with patience are able to wait for the goalie to go down and slide it through just at the right time. The big guy who plays on my team in winter league was abusing me and my older brother doing that in our summer league). It's a hell of lot easier to score on a goalie when he's trying to skate across with a player than butterfly-sliding(Watch how many goals Gretzky scored in the 80's doing that to goalies). If Hudler was in really tight, then he made a great play to roof it over Louie.
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
freakydave
Less freaky once you get to know him
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 186
Location: JESUS JUST LEFT CHICAGO
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes by rule the goal could be disallowed but we've all seen worse count.
if the puck was still loose your allowed to go after it.Of course AV is going to agree with the judgement call of the refs you don't make overt public statements contradicting the officiating if you hope to catch any breaks in the future.
My point is this--the ref could have just as reasonably pointed to the puck in the net as waive it off, it was a judgement call which benefitted Det.
Hudler turned Edler into a pylon on that goal.For a highly touted prospect
Edler had a pretty poor game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 3477
Location: Sweetest lid in the league
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freakydave wrote: |
Yes by rule the goal could be disallowed but we've all seen worse count.
if the puck was still loose your allowed to go after it.Of course AV is going to agree with the judgement call of the refs you don't make overt public statements contradicting the officiating if you hope to catch any breaks in the future.
My point is this--the ref could have just as reasonably pointed to the puck in the net as waive it off, it was a judgement call which benefitted Det.
|
If by the rule the goal should be disallowed because the player was pushed in, then it should be disallowed. The only judgement call is if the goalie was pushed in by the player, and it sounds like the right judgement was made.
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jyrki21
Rebel Sell + Moneyball = Life
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 2018
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bosc Ulrich II wrote: |
| If by the rule the goal should be disallowed because the player was pushed in, then it should be disallowed. The only judgement call is if the goalie was pushed in by the player, and it sounds like the right judgement was made. |
For what it's worth, this isn't why the goal was actually disallowed, as Vigneault noted. The frustration expressed is just at how fast the whistle came. Obviously once it goes, that's that -- there's not much you can do about it, and it's happened before, but it was right at the most frustrating moment for a fan.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
freakydave
Less freaky once you get to know him
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 186
Location: JESUS JUST LEFT CHICAGO
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bosc Ulrich II wrote: |
| freakydave wrote: |
Yes by rule the goal could be disallowed but we've all seen worse count.
if the puck was still loose your allowed to go after it.Of course AV is going to agree with the judgement call of the refs you don't make overt public statements contradicting the officiating if you hope to catch any breaks in the future.
My point is this--the ref could have just as reasonably pointed to the puck in the net as waive it off, it was a judgement call which benefitted Det.
|
If by the rule the goal should be disallowed because the player was pushed in, then it should be disallowed. The only judgement call is if the goalie was pushed in by the player, and it sounds like the right judgement was made. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2gnmptkOac&feature=dir
If the puck was visible to pyatt he has every to go after it.If it's covered up you can't push the player into the net with the puck.The ref was blowing the quick whistle because he lost sight of the puck.
People on here saying it's no goal because you can't push a player into the net it's not relevant because it was disallowed because of the whistle it's not reviewable.Due to the subjective nature of officiating either call goal or no goal would be correct |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Chaos
(Formerly Lieutenant Chaos)
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 450
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whatever it was - it was a piss off. Right or wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
