 |
 |
Offthepost (Generation II)
ATTENTION: OFFTHEPOST.NET NO LONGER EXISTS AS A URL. The old site had to be closed. Please reset your bookmarks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Captain Chaos
(Formerly Lieutenant Chaos)
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Vancouver
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 2439
Location: Your own blue line!
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Awesome-looking flip! I love how asshat Hasek is complaining about getting a penalty. Yeah you got the puck, but not with your stick. You can't come flying out and friggin stack the pads into the guy, jackass.
Zetterberg is the man!
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jyrki21
Rebel Sell + Moneyball = Life
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1358
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Are those the normal Detroit announcers? 
"You're a goalie, what are you supposed to do? C'mon!"
I especially like the "c'mon!"
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PattyLa16
Queen of the Random Thought
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 519
Location: Buffalo, NY
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hasek is such an ass.
_________________
I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 2439
Location: Your own blue line!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hasek is definitely innovative. I can't imagine ever charging out from my crease to try to poke check a guy on a breakaway because he has his head down. And just about everyone in men's league has their head down Nor have I ever dropped my stick to cover the puck with my blocker.
Speaking of sliding pokechecks, this remains one of the greatest goals that I have ever seen:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XGl106zUM1s
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DH
Lloyd's Minster
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 308
Location: Alberta
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. That was brilliant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saskhab
Morally Bankrupt Scum
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2442
Location: Saskatoon!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My first Hasek memory was essentially this same play. I can't remember which Pittsburgh player it was, but it was in the Cup Finals when he was with Chicago. Belfour got pulled and Hasek came in. Pittsburgh got a breakaway, but Hasek charged out and did the sliding stacked pads bit and broke it up.
And Bosc, Hasek took the puck first. 
_________________
It's backwards time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RW
Distinguished Gentleman of the Post
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 251
Location: Seat 10, Row 8, Section 226B
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That was great. It happended right in front of me.
_________________
"The greatest victory a man can win is victory over himself."
Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick in New York
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 58
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have not endeared myself to my fellow Wild fans with this sentiment, but, I have no problem with Hasek's move there. He got the puck first, and that's all that matters.
There's nothing in the rules that says you have to go for the poke check on a breakaway. If Gaborik had even taken a peek he would have seen that all he needed to do was lift the puck three feet in the air and it would have been a goal - AND he might have gotten out of the way too.
I'm grateful Gaby wasn't hurt, but I applaud Dom for taking the initiative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 2439
Location: Your own blue line!
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have a problem with the move itself, because he's shown to be effective with it, but I'm a mixed bag on the execution of it. Sliding two-pad slide that completely wipes out the guy's legs as opposed to a poke-check? I don't have a problem with him calling it a trip.
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick in New York
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 58
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bosc Ulrich II wrote: |
| I don't have a problem with the move itself, because he's shown to be effective with it, but I'm a mixed bag on the execution of it. Sliding two-pad slide that completely wipes out the guy's legs as opposed to a poke-check? I don't have a problem with him calling it a trip. |
I understand that the two-pad stack there all-but guarantees you're going to take out the player, but it's also a higher percentage play on the puck than a poke, I guess that's why I'm okay with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 2439
Location: Your own blue line!
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nick in New York wrote: |
| Bosc Ulrich II wrote: |
| I don't have a problem with the move itself, because he's shown to be effective with it, but I'm a mixed bag on the execution of it. Sliding two-pad slide that completely wipes out the guy's legs as opposed to a poke-check? I don't have a problem with him calling it a trip. |
I understand that the two-pad stack there all-but guarantees you're going to take out the player, but it's also a higher percentage play on the puck than a poke, I guess that's why I'm okay with it. |
Oh yeah no question it's higher percentage.
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jyrki21
Rebel Sell + Moneyball = Life
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1358
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nick in New York wrote: |
| I understand that the two-pad stack there all-but guarantees you're going to take out the player, but it's also a higher percentage play on the puck than a poke, I guess that's why I'm okay with it. |
If a non-goalie did it, it would be a pretty clear trip to me (I don't buy this you-can-kill-the-guy-as-long-as-you-touch-the-puck-first nonsense), so as long as Hasek is substantially out of his crease, to me it's no different.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick in New York
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 58
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jyrki21 wrote: |
| Nick in New York wrote: |
| I understand that the two-pad stack there all-but guarantees you're going to take out the player, but it's also a higher percentage play on the puck than a poke, I guess that's why I'm okay with it. |
If a non-goalie did it, it would be a pretty clear trip to me (I don't buy this you-can-kill-the-guy-as-long-as-you-touch-the-puck-first nonsense), so as long as Hasek is substantially out of his crease, to me it's no different. |
That's certainly the popular opinion here, at least among Wild fans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saskhab
Morally Bankrupt Scum
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2442
Location: Saskatoon!
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jyrki21 wrote: |
| Nick in New York wrote: |
| I understand that the two-pad stack there all-but guarantees you're going to take out the player, but it's also a higher percentage play on the puck than a poke, I guess that's why I'm okay with it. |
If a non-goalie did it, it would be a pretty clear trip to me (I don't buy this you-can-kill-the-guy-as-long-as-you-touch-the-puck-first nonsense), so as long as Hasek is substantially out of his crease, to me it's no different. |
Isn't that how the rule essentially reads, though? As long as the only infraction you can call is a trip...
Or does the rule differentiate between trips with the stick and trips with the body on this?
I suppose since he tripped with the body, not the stick, it could be viewed as two completely seperate plays. If he had only tripped him with the stick, it would've been no penalty since he got the puck first. He tripped with the body, so therefore it doesn't matter that he got the puck with his stick before the infraction.
A similar play might be a d-man pokechecking a forward and sticking out his foot, tripping the guy in the process. Sure, the puck possession switch occured before the trip, but they were seperate and therefore unrelated incidents.
_________________
It's backwards time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jyrki21
Rebel Sell + Moneyball = Life
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1358
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saskhab wrote: |
I suppose since he tripped with the body, not the stick, it could be viewed as two completely seperate plays. If he had only tripped him with the stick, it would've been no penalty since he got the puck first. He tripped with the body, so therefore it doesn't matter that he got the puck with his stick before the infraction.
A similar play might be a d-man pokechecking a forward and sticking out his foot, tripping the guy in the process. Sure, the puck possession switch occured before the trip, but they were seperate and therefore unrelated incidents. |
Yeah, I think I agree with this.
Also, I'm not sure how the rule is phrased now, but I think in the past, at least, the hit-the-puck-first-and-you-can-do-anything thing was a fan invention (like blood from a high stick mattering) that wasn't actually reflected in the rulebook.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bosc Ulrich II
OTP Resident Historian
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 2439
Location: Your own blue line!
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jyrki21 wrote: |
| saskhab wrote: |
I suppose since he tripped with the body, not the stick, it could be viewed as two completely seperate plays. If he had only tripped him with the stick, it would've been no penalty since he got the puck first. He tripped with the body, so therefore it doesn't matter that he got the puck with his stick before the infraction.
A similar play might be a d-man pokechecking a forward and sticking out his foot, tripping the guy in the process. Sure, the puck possession switch occured before the trip, but they were seperate and therefore unrelated incidents. |
Yeah, I think I agree with this.
Also, I'm not sure how the rule is phrased now, but I think in the past, at least, the hit-the-puck-first-and-you-can-do-anything thing was a fan invention (like blood from a high stick mattering) that wasn't actually reflected in the rulebook. |
Yeah your wording makes sense, Sask. But it looks like Hasek not only didn't get the puck with his stick, he just went in completely pads first(the replay from behind Hasek shows this really well). In that sense, a similar play for me would just be for a defenseman to charge at a guy and submarine him, making no attempt at taking the puck with his stick(however, that might be an actual attempt to submarine him, while I think Hasek was genuinely just trying to make the save).
_________________
Bring back the old OTP!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick in New York
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 58
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rule 28.6: Leaving Goal Crease -
A minor penalty shall be imposed on a
goalkeeper who leaves the immediate vicinity of his crease during an
altercation. In addition, he shall be subject to a fine of two hundred
dollars ($200) and this incident shall be reported to the Commissioner
for such further disciplinary action as may be required. However,
should the altercation occur in or near the goalkeeper’s crease, the
Referee should direct the goalkeeper to a neutral location and not
assess a penalty for leaving the immediate vicinity of the goal crease.
Equally, if the goalkeeper is legitimately outside the immediate vicinity
of the goal crease for the purpose of proceeding to the players’ bench
to be substituted for an extra attacker, and he subsequently becomes
involved in an altercation, the minor penalty for leaving the crease
would not be assessed.
Rule 57 – Tripping
57.1 Tripping – A player or goalkeeper shall not place the stick, knee, foot,
arm, hand or elbow in such a manner that causes his opponent to trip
or fall.
Accidental trips which occur simultaneously with a completed play
will not be penalized. Accidental trips occurring simultaneously with or
after a stoppage of play will not be penalized.
If, in the opinion of the Referee, a player makes contact with the
puck first and subsequently trips the opponent in so doing, no penalty
shall be assessed.
57.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on any player or
goalkeeper who shall place his stick or any portion of his body in such
a manner that it shall cause his opponent to trip and fall.
**Well the first thing would be whether or not Hasek got the puck first. If he did, no penalty. If he did not, then there’s a gray area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hounsy
Reigning King of One-Liners
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 829
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If my eyes don't fail me and the score was 5-0 then someone has to go after Hasek at that point... who cares about the instigator at 5-0. Without knowing the rules penalty or not that is bloody serious dangerous treatment of one of your star players and a frail one at that.
_________________
Lang may yer lum reek! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jyrki21
Rebel Sell + Moneyball = Life
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1358
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hounsy wrote: |
| Without knowing the rules penalty or not that is bloody serious dangerous treatment of one of your star players and a frail one at that. |
Seriously -- the Wildmen were probably too busy marvelling at how neither of his arms came flying off or anything.
_________________
|
|
| 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
That's quite the flip. Lucky nobody was hurt. 
