2016 First Round of Playoffs Thread

[DarthEbriate]

You seem like a guy very happy with every speeding ticket and petty fine you get

As someone who was once fined $140 for failure to adhere to a walk signal when there was no car for 1/4 mile (and not jaywalking I was in the crosswalk).... While the cop let dozens of joggers go by doing the same infraction. I don't like this overzealousness of offsides.

[WildCard]

No. I just don't speed.

You haven't been caught speeding. Because even a cop knows its not worth their time pullin someone over and giving them a ticket to go to court and waste the court's time for 1 mph over

[Wyldnwoody44]

I think the players will ultimately adjust their game. They won't be riding the razors edge trying to time the zone entry. They will hold up a half step to avoid this in the future.

Unfortunately, this does slow down the game, and plays right into the opposite of what most would like to see in the NHL, we want speed, goals and plays like that. If players have to adjust, the D men have that little extra to shut it down.

[WildCard]

As someone who was once fined $140 for failure to adhere to a walk signal when there was no car for 1/4 mile (and not jaywalking I was in the crosswalk).... While the cop let dozens of joggers go by doing the same infraction. I don't like this overzealousness of offsides.

Rules should not be black and white; they should not be absolute

[SDS]

Which ruins scoring, pace, and the game. IDGAF if the call is right in something that minor, just play the ###### game

That's probably a little melodramatic.

 

I don't like how the rule is implemented. I don't like the call that just happened. But in theory I don't have any issue with egregious offsides being challenged. I offered my solution. If you have to use slow-motion then the call stands.

[inkman]

St Louis just got the big shaft tonight, I have no dog in this fight, so objectively I can look back and just see plain garbage.

They may have but as a long suffering fan, I can only enjoy other fanbase's misery. Schadenfreude.

 

Now they play prison sex. I want to kiss their music guy.

[Randall Flagg]

No. I just don't speed.

 

 

So would you support adding coaching challenge rules to fix all those other missed broken rules that I mention too? Or is it perfect the way it is, arbitrarily singling out that specific one even though it carries no more importance than any other play? You're really fine with it like this, exactly as it is?

[SDS]

Unfortunately, this does slow down the game, and plays right into the opposite of what most would like to see in the NHL, we want speed, goals and plays like that. If players have to adjust, the D men have that little extra to shut it down.

Clearly I can't argue it speeds the game up but no I don't believe it would have any visible affect on the perceived speed of the game.

[Thorny]

What a shitshow.

 

 

Because there are so many unreviewable plays that have so much more to do with any goal. You can't have them challenge an offside call and pick up the play where it was when they determine it wasn't offside. You can't challenge a penalty that was called incorrectly that gives another team the game. But something as unimportant as that little foot lift, while still in spirit of the offside rule like the constant icing shots just short of the red line that they let go, can turn a series. It's ridiculous to think this is good for the game. It's a joke.

Agreed.

 

On another note, I can't believe anyone would be ok with yet another playoffs where Chicago is going to get the benefit of every call on the way to a cup. Shaw clearly impeded Elliot's ability to make the save. It's getting tiresome. Great team. Pretty much unstoppable with the way this league works.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

No. I just don't speed.

 

Do you at least have the decency to not interfere with my speeding?

[WildCard]

Clearly I can't argue it speeds the game up but no I don't believe it would have any visible affect on the perceived speed of the game.

Guys are going to approach the blue line much more carefully now. Leading to less risks and less goals/action. No, they won't stop and stare at it, but that awesome bank pass that lead to a goal that we just saw overturned? It will happen less often Edited April 16, 2016 by WildCard

[SwampD]

 

How do you know that if he had to hold up in order to stay onside (which he didn't) that that would have been just enough of a fraction of a second that the goalie or a defender needed to stop him from scoring?

Edited April 16, 2016 by SwampD

[TrueBlueGED]

Unfortunately, this does slow down the game, and plays right into the opposite of what most would like to see in the NHL, we want speed, goals and plays like that. If players have to adjust, the D men have that little extra to shut it down.

 

 

Guys are going to approach the blue line much more carefully now. Leading to less risks and less goals/action. No, they won't stop and stare at it, but that awesome bank pass that lead to a goal that we just saw overturned? It will happen less often

 

Using Tim Murray's logic from his take on the red line removal, if guys have to slow down upon zone entry, you should see more creative plays to gain the zone rather than just going 100mph north-south. I don't agree with this argument, but it's worth considering.

[SwampD]

Do you at least have the decency to not interfere with my speeding?

I always move to the right lane if I see someone coming up quick.

[TrueBlueGED]

I always move to the right lane if I see someone coming up quick.

 

That is all I ask. Thank you! :beer:

[Randall Flagg]

How do you know that he had to hold up in order to stay onside (which he didn't) that that would have been just enough of a fraction of a second that the goalie or a defender needed to stop him from scoring?

But why don't we go after all of the other little plays that affect goals just that much, and in many cases, more? WHY is it okay to suddenly single that type of play out but not allow anything else to be reviewed? What good does that do for this game, besides add 15 minutes of standing around watching refs look at an iPad and fans throw garbage onto the ice? 

 

If your argument is that Letehra's foot being a fraction of an inch off the ice a fraction of a second too early may have caused that goal to happen (which I will never buy in a million years), so we must crack down on that technical rule violation while the action was still within the spirit of the rule (which is why it was called onside in real time) but that we should NOT DO THIS FOR ANYTHING ELSE, like my icing example and many others, well, I just don't get you, then. If you do feel like that about that offside rule then I feel like you should be mad that there aren't a million other challenge-able situations.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Randall Flagg

[SwampD]

That is all I ask. Thank you! :beer:

Thing is, I drive all local roads to get to work and if I'm on a highway, I'm usually pulling a trailer and in the right lane anyway.

But why don't we go after all of the other little plays that affect goals just that much, and in many cases, more? WHY is it okay to suddenly single that type of play out but not allow anything else to be reviewed? What good does that do for this game, besides add 15 minutes of standing around watching refs look at an iPad and fans throw garbage onto the ice?

 

So because they can't fix everything, they shouldn't fix anything,... just because you don't like it, even though they got it right. Gottit.

[DarthEbriate]

But why don't we go after all of the other little plays that affect goals just that much, and in many cases, more? WHY is it okay to suddenly single that type of play out but not allow anything else to be reviewed? What good does that do for this game, besides add 15 minutes of standing around watching refs look at an iPad and fans throw garbage onto the ice?

 

If your argument is that Letehra's foot being a fraction of an inch off the ice a fraction of a second too early may have caused that goal to happen (which I will never buy in a million years), so we must crack down on that technical rule violation while the action was still within the spirit of the rule (which is why it was called onside in real time) but that we should NOT DO THIS FOR ANYTHING ELSE, like my icing example and many others, well, I just don't get you, then. If you do feel like that about that offside rule then I feel like you should be mad that there aren't a million other challenge-able situations.

Also -- you'd have to be able to challenge unlimited amounts of times. Because whose to say an offsides call later in the game wouldn't be just as offside? For the sake of getting it all correct.

 

Won't someone think of the children! ;-]

[SDS]

Guys are going to approach the blue line much more carefully now. Leading to less risks and less goals/action. No, they won't stop and stare at it, but that awesome bank pass that lead to a goal that we just saw overturned? It will happen less often

Again, I'm going to say that this is overstated. What is much more carefully? Do you think they are going to stay two or three strides away? That's silly… They have amazing body control. They just won't cut it this close so often.

[Randall Flagg]

Thing is, I drive all local roads to get to work and if I'm on a highway, I'm usually pulling a trailer and in the right lane anyway.

So because they can't fix everything, they shouldn't fix anything,... just because you don't like it, even though they got it right. Gottit.

If your argument is that Letehra's foot being a fraction of an inch off the ice a fraction of a second too early may have caused that goal to happen (which I will never buy in a million years), so we must crack down on that technical rule violation while the action was still within the spirit of the rule (which is why it was called onside in real time) but that we should NOT DO THIS FOR ANYTHING ELSE, like my icing example and many others, well, I just don't get you, then. If you do feel like that about that offside rule then I feel like you should be mad that there aren't a million other challenge-able situations.

I added that to the end of my post.

 

To continue, I saw several icings tonight that weren't called that have just as good a chance at butterflying to cause a goal later on as any offside would, and the same for any hook that wasn't called, any interference that wasn't called, any delay of game penalty missed, and any poor call other than those. I didn't see you (general you, as in you, the league, WildCard, Tom Brady, anyone else) say a thing about possibly instituting a challenge for those calls, which is weird since your whole point is that a rule was broken, and that it is good that order was restored, justice was served, whatever it took to get there.

 

I keep using the icing rule because I think it's the most damning example. It's a line infraction just like offsides, and is allowed to be called a lot more loosely than offsides is, with no discernible difference in the effect it has on the game. It's impossible to prove that offsides mistakes lead to more goals than icing mistakes. 

Edited April 16, 2016 by Randall Flagg

[inkman]

I always move to the right lane if I see someone coming up quick.

Shouldn't you be there to begin with? :)

[Wyldnwoody44]

On a side note, I watched a compilation of some pretty bad road rage videos today, man that stuff is unreal.

 

97% of the time if I see an accident, either It occured or I see one on the road and police are there, I stop to offer my services (as I am almost always in my scrubs) one time I stopped in Hamburg for a crotch rocket/car collision.... While picking glass out of the driver of the car, she told me that the guy on the bike was driving like an @ss so she purposely cut him off causing the crash. He broke his femur and had a concussion, plus whatever injuries occured internally that I couldn't see.

 

Sad world.

 

 

I digress, that game was awesome and then sucked.

[inkman]

On a side note, I watched a compilation of some pretty bad road rage videos today, man that stuff is unreal.

 

97% of the time if I see an accident, either It occured or I see one on the road and police are there, I stop to offer my services (as I am almost always in my scrubs) one time I stopped in Hamburg for a crotch rocket/car collision.... While picking glass out of the driver of the car, she told me that the guy on the bike was driving like an @ss so she purposely cut him off causing the crash. He broke his femur and had a concussion, plus whatever injuries occured internally that I couldn't see.

 

Sad world.

 

 

I digress, that game was awesome and then sucked.

She very easily could have killed that guy. Are you obligated to share that info with the police?

[SwampD]

If your argument is that Letehra's foot being a fraction of an inch off the ice a fraction of a second too early may have caused that goal to happen (which I will never buy in a million years), so we must crack down on that technical rule violation while the action was still within the spirit of the rule (which is why it was called onside in real time) but that we should NOT DO THIS FOR ANYTHING ELSE, like my icing example and many others, well, I just don't get you, then. If you do feel like that about that offside rule then I feel like you should be mad that there aren't a million other challenge-able situations.

I added that to the end of my post.

 

Ftr, I never said "they should NOT DO THIS FOR ANYTHING ELSE". They just don't do it for anything else.

 

If the challenge went away tomorrow I wouldn'tcare, but they decided that they wanted to make sure they got right things that directly lead to goals. It's making some of you apoplectic. I'm okay with it.

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

That's probably a little melodramatic.

 

I don't like how the rule is implemented. I don't like the call that just happened. But in theory I don't have any issue with egregious offsides being challenged. I offered my solution. If you have to use slow-motion then the call stands.

 

I'd like it to be like the measurement of the curve of a stick.  If you are wrong, you get a 2 minute penalty.  It would stop the nonsense of challenging when you want a longer timeout, and probably would have made ChIcago think really hard about challenging tonight.