Bmwolf21 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 This is why I think this thread is so interesting in light of the revisitation of No Goal. It's not possible for every scenario to be outlined in the rules. If the above icing situation occurs somewhere this March, would it be wrong for the league to issue a memo clarifying that it was correctly called icing, but next time, it's not icing (with the introduction of the verticality of the red line)? Scoring situations (foot in crease) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> icing scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Why would 4 happen if 3 is correct? :unsure: You've never seen the refs blow a call before? Anyway, the rules say 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Scoring situations (foot in crease) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> icing scenarios. Depends. You lose a playoff series on a blown icing call, and the uproar is just as large. The league is asking for such a thing. A handful of times every game, a player clearly does not gain the red line, but icing is waved off. Last night, MacArthur wasn't within three feet of the red line -- no icing. Remember, the puck has to be contact with the red line. It's not the follow-through of the shot "breaking the plane." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Depends. You lose a playoff series on a blown icing call, and the uproar is just as large. The league is asking for such a thing. A handful of times every game, a player clearly does not gain the red line, but icing is waved off. Last night, MacArthur wasn't within three feet of the red line -- no icing. Remember, the puck has to be contact with the red line. It's not the follow-through of the shot "breaking the plane." There will be uproar, yes, but not nearly as much as losing it on a blown goal call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 There will be uproar, yes, but not nearly as much as losing it on a blown goal call. Except for Taro. He's still talking about that playoff game in Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Except for Taro. He's still talking about that playoff game in Washington. I've been procrastinating horribly this morning - too much to do by tomorrow's deadlines - and was trying to find/remember what happened. I remembered Washington and icing, but that's all I got. Someone refresh my memory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I've been procrastinating horribly this morning - too much to do by tomorrow's deadlines - and was trying to find/remember what happened. I remembered Washington and icing, but that's all I got. Someone refresh my memory? It was a blown offside call. Local boy Todd Krygier scored a game winner on it, if I remember correctly. He then had to speak at my high school a couple days later since he was a graduate. He couldn't give me a good definition of offsides when I asked him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 It was a blown offside call. Local boy Todd Krygier scored a game winner on it, if I remember correctly. He then had to speak at my high school a couple days later since he was a graduate. He couldn't give me a good definition of offsides when I asked him. YES!!! Nobody can. I've asked so many refs and they all give a slightly differnt version. We all know what it is leaving your defensive zone, but it gets a little hazy entering the offensive zone. Some refs say the blue line is always a part of the zone the puck is already in. I'm still not exactly sure and would love someone to spell it out clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I've been procrastinating horribly this morning - too much to do by tomorrow's deadlines - and was trying to find/remember what happened. I remembered Washington and icing, but that's all I got. Someone refresh my memory? http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/sports/the-stanley-cup-playoffs-krygier-s-overtime-goal-evens-score-with-hasek.html http://216.116.225.82/stories/1998/05/27/oth_229639.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 YES!!! Nobody can. I've asked so many refs and they all give a slightly differnt version. We all know what it is leaving your defensive zone, but it gets a little hazy entering the offensive zone. Some refs say the blue line is always a part of the zone the puck is already in. I'm still not exactly sure and would love someone to spell it out clearly. That's exactly how it work. The puck or player has to completely cross the blueline before they are in a new zone of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 That's exactly how it work. The puck or player has to completely cross the blueline before they are in a new zone of play. Thanks. I betcha three refs in my entire league know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 It was a blown offside icing call. Local boy Todd Krygier scored a game winner on it, if I remember correctly. He then had to speak at my high school a couple days later since he was a graduate. He couldn't give me a good definition of offsides when I asked him. Fixed it for you. It appeared that Hasek eased off on the play because he thought the play was dead. He tried to get set before the shot came but couldn't and suddenly the series was knotted at 1 apiece. It wasn't nearly the most egregiously blown call that game, as Frasier BLATENTLY and WILLFULLY refused to go upstairs to review the Cap's 1st goal scored by Bondra while he was both in the crease AND had deflected it with a high stick. That led to the 1st of 3 consecutive Official NHL Rule Change(s) to Address the Sabres Getting Hosed in the Round They Were EliminatedTM. The league made it possible for the VGJ to call down to the ref about a questionable goal rather than requiring the ref to ask the VGJ to review the play. Although he will never admit it on record, the call by Frasier was a "make up" for Ray and Barnaby acting like petulant 2 year olds at the end of a Phlyer playoff game that Ray and Barnaby felt that Walkom had screwed the pooch on. Apparently Frasier was upset that Walkom had been "embarrassed." You're right Kerry, it's far less embarrassing to prove that you are even less mature than a petulant 2 year old, and to show that it really is about you and not the teams that are playing nor the game they are playing. People pay their money to see you dictate the outcomes with your hairspray helmet gliding around the ice in full glory. (It's a good thing for him they don't allow smoking on the ice, because that hairdo would go up quicker than an oily rag at an arsonists' convention.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Fixed it for you. It appeared that Hasek eased off on the play because he thought the play was dead. He tried to get set before the shot came but couldn't and suddenly the series was knotted at 1 apiece. It wasn't nearly the most egregiously blown call that game, as Frasier BLATENTLY and WILLFULLY refused to go upstairs to review the Cap's 1st goal scored by Bondra while he was both in the crease AND had deflected it with a high stick. That led to the 1st of 3 consecutive Official NHL Rule Change(s) to Address the Sabres Getting Hosed in the Round They Were EliminatedTM. The league made it possible for the VGJ to call down to the ref about a questionable goal rather than requiring the ref to ask the VGJ to review the play. Although he will never admit it on record, the call by Frasier was a "make up" for Ray and Barnaby acting like petulant 2 year olds at the end of a Phlyer playoff game that Ray and Barnaby felt that Walkom had screwed the pooch on. Apparently Frasier was upset that Walkom had been "embarrassed." You're right Kerry, it's far less embarrassing to prove that you are even less mature than a petulant 2 year old, and to show that it really is about you and not the teams that are playing nor the game they are playing. People pay their money to see you dictate the outcomes with your hairspray helmet gliding around the ice in full glory. (It's a good thing for him they don't allow smoking on the ice, because that hairdo would go up quicker than an oily rag at an arsonists' convention.) ''At no time did we consider going to the replay,'' D'Amico said of the Bondra goal on a second-period power play. ''He was in perfect position to witness the goal, witness the situation before the goal. There wasn't contact and the player wasn't in the crease -- which is the reason why he did not go upstairs.'' We?! This replay system made no sense. Go figure. But in 99, the ref couldn't ask for a review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 ''At no time did we consider going to the replay,'' D'Amico said of the Bondra goal on a second-period power play. ''He was in perfect position to witness the goal, witness the situation before the goal. There wasn't contact and the player wasn't in the crease -- which is the reason why he did not go upstairs.'' We?! This replay system made no sense. Go figure. But in 99, the ref couldn't ask for a review? Except for the fact the player WAS in the crease AND he hit it with a high stick. Other than either of those, there was NO reason for Frazier to go upstairs. :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: The ref could ask for a review in '99. Heck, I believe he could technically ask for a review today, but it seems kind of pointless because the league reviews ALL potential goals and actual goals. (At least in theory.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Except for the fact the player WAS in the crease AND he hit it with a high stick. Other than either of those, there was NO reason for Frazier to go upstairs. :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: The ref could ask for a review in '99. Heck, I believe he could technically ask for a review today, but it seems kind of pointless because the league reviews ALL potential goals and actual goals. (At least in theory.) In theory, communism works. In theory. Wasn't the game you guys are discussing in 1998, not 1999? If so, I was at it. And pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 In theory, communism works. In theory. Wasn't the game you guys are discussing in 1998, not 1999? If so, I was at it. And pissed. Yes it was. Game 2 of '98 Conf. Finals. Thus why the rule change for '98-'99 season. Bummer being at that one. If it's any consolation I was at the home ones. Man do I dislike Zhoey Zhuuneau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Fixed it for you. It appeared that Hasek eased off on the play because he thought the play was dead. He tried to get set before the shot came but couldn't and suddenly the series was knotted at 1 apiece. It wasn't nearly the most egregiously blown call that game, as Frasier BLATENTLY and WILLFULLY refused to go upstairs to review the Cap's 1st goal scored by Bondra while he was both in the crease AND had deflected it with a high stick. That led to the 1st of 3 consecutive Official NHL Rule Change(s) to Address the Sabres Getting Hosed in the Round They Were EliminatedTM. The league made it possible for the VGJ to call down to the ref about a questionable goal rather than requiring the ref to ask the VGJ to review the play. Although he will never admit it on record, the call by Frasier was a "make up" for Ray and Barnaby acting like petulant 2 year olds at the end of a Phlyer playoff game that Ray and Barnaby felt that Walkom had screwed the pooch on. Apparently Frasier was upset that Walkom had been "embarrassed." You're right Kerry, it's far less embarrassing to prove that you are even less mature than a petulant 2 year old, and to show that it really is about you and not the teams that are playing nor the game they are playing. People pay their money to see you dictate the outcomes with your hairspray helmet gliding around the ice in full glory. (It's a good thing for him they don't allow smoking on the ice, because that hairdo would go up quicker than an oily rag at an arsonists' convention.) I can't stand Kerry Frazier. He always made the games about him and he's a horrible ref. I was at game three against Ottawa in 06. There was an icing call and I watched him pick up the puck, do an axel, then skate backwards at full speed all the way back to the opposite end for the faceoff. Don't get me wrong, it was an impressive piece of skating, it just didn't belong in an NHL game by an NHL ref. It would have been more suited in Brian Boitono's Christmas Jubilee Special. It was such a poorly officiated game that I don't think we saw him ref another game in those playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I can't stand Kerry Frazier. He always made the games about him and he's a horrible ref. I was at game three against Ottawa in 06. There was an icing call and I watched him pick up the puck, do an axel, then skate backwards at full speed all the way back to the opposite end for the faceoff. Don't get me wrong, it was an impressive piece of skating, it just didn't belong in an NHL game by an NHL ref. It would have been more suited in Brian Boitono's Christmas Jubilee Special. It was such a poorly officiated game that I don't think we saw him ref another game in those playoffs. What an axel may sound like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Except for the fact the player WAS in the crease AND he hit it with a high stick. Other than either of those, there was NO reason for Frazier to go upstairs. :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: The ref could ask for a review in '99. Heck, I believe he could technically ask for a review today, but it seems kind of pointless because the league reviews ALL potential goals and actual goals. (At least in theory.) Why didn't Gregson ask for a review on Hull's goal? Currently, the referee can initiate a review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Yes it was. Game 2 of '98 Conf. Finals. Thus why the rule change for '98-'99 season. Bummer being at that one. If it's any consolation I was at the home ones. Man do I dislike Zhoey Zhuuneau. Was that the one that Krygier scored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 How long is a timeout in hockey? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cereal Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 How long is a timeout in hockey? :) I'd guess 180 seconds? This thread is pretty cool by the way :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 How long is a timeout in hockey? :) my guess is 45 unless CBC has a commercial from that weird-ass Gandalf-looking furniture guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I guess I should clarify -- team timeout. Not TV timeout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I guess I should clarify -- team timeout. Not TV timeout. In the league I play in they are 30 secs so I'm guessing 30 secs. But by the time we eventually get around to calling it and then eventually get around to resuming play it's about a minute total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.