Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Carty

Flyers @ Flames 7pm Oct 15

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

I thought saving their goalie for Edmonton was disrespectful. lol

 

Well sometimes its about individuals first.

Hart from EDM area.

Elliott playing his former team.

 

Good motivation for them, but the team in front of Elliott was bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

Did Bennett play C again? How’d he do if he did? Probably jankowski again.

 

I think he did.

Played all of 8 minuyes include 1 minute on the PP.

2 hits, 0 shots and one nifty pass.

Oh and the usual 2 PIM.

Only Czarnik played less (5 mins).

Janko played 10, but part of that was due to Backlund missing part of the game due to a blocked dhot.

Mangiapane made more of his time with 1g and 3 shots in 9 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think he did.

Played all of 8 minuyes include 1 minute on the PP.

2 hits, 0 shots and one nifty pass.

Oh and the usual 2 PIM.

Only Czarnik played less (5 mins).

Janko played 10, but part of that was due to Backlund missing part of the game due to a blocked dhot.

Mangiapane made more of his time with 1g and 3 shots in 9 minutes.

 

BP might get wins, but his usage of playing time for players are going to run the team down. It is probably why the first line died off last year. Tired them out through overuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

BP might get wins, but his usage of playing time for players are going to run the team down. It is probably why the first line died off last year. Tired them out through overuse.

 

I wouldn;t worry about the top line playing 20 minutes as much as having to play the shutdown line 18.

Overuse is EDM, with the top players averaging 25 minutes a game,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, travel_dude said:

Monahan playing soccer.

There was a "kicking-like" motion, however, if you look closely the Philly player's skate pushed Monahan's skate at exactly the same time and direction.  I can see why they overturned the goal but think it should have been good because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, travel_dude said:

Wow, we must be playing ringette.

That was about as weak a call as you can get.

One of many.  Very typical of the reffing so far this season.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

if you look closely the Philly player's skate pushed Monahan's skate at exactly the same time and direction.

 

Sanheim had his skate jammed into Monahan's throughout the sequence that led to the puck going in the net...   Both of their skates moved in unison with Sanheim having the leverage and controlling the movement of Monahan's foot, and as you pointed out, that included the point in time when Sanheim pushed Monahan's skate towards the net with his own during the moment when the puck made contact with Monahan's skate...

 

Doesn't matter much, as the Flames still won the game...   But at least one of the angles made exactly happened more clear to see, and it would be hard to see on the small screens they used for the review...   Especially during a quick review if they did not look at the right angle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carty said:

 

Sanheim had his skate jammed into Monahan's throughout the sequence that led to the puck going in the net...   Both of their skates moved in unison with Sanheim having the leverage and controlling the movement of Monahan's foot, and as you pointed out, that included the point in time when Sanheim pushed Monahan's skate towards the net with his own during the moment when the puck made contact with Monahan's skate...

 

Doesn't matter much, as the Flames still won the game...   But at least one of the angles made exactly happened more clear to see, and it would be hard to see on the small screens they used for the review...   Especially during a quick review if they did not look at the right angle...

 

To me it looked like a kicking motion.

This type of call doesn't bother me, as they tend to get it right.

The ones that bother me is the goalie has "control" of the puck or it's sitting under him and it's poked in.

The ref loses sight of it, it's supposed to be dead.

It's not in play when it's under a player's glove or pad.

 

McDavid had a goal where it was initially stopped and frozen and it was ruled it was alive.

We had two events occur in the same game last year against OTT.

We had one occur this year where Rittich had frozen it, but it was not blown dead.

 

The reffing has been substandard this year so far.

High sticks resulting in goals because it occurred outside the O-zone.

Blatant cal let go while minutae called in the same game and period.

Go back to ref school and meet as a group for the standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably their best 60 min effort of the season, especially in their own zone. Few breakdowns but generally Philly didn't generate much and i thought the Flames did a great job of controlling their blueine. Flyers couldn't really attack with speed and the chances they did get generally occurred on turnovers either in the neutral zone or crossing the offensive blue line, which do need to get cleaned up. I don't feel like the Flyers generated very much in the ozone and the Flames should get a lot of credit for that. 

 

Breakouts and transition were mostly really good, i think the issue now is they are generating good volume but not good quantity. A lot of outside and point shots with no traffic/rebound or deflection opportunities. 

 

But that was a real good effort in many ways that can be built off, especially in their own zone. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

To me it looked like a kicking motion.

This type of call doesn't bother me, as they tend to get it right.

The ones that bother me is the goalie has "control" of the puck or it's sitting under him and it's poked in.

The ref loses sight of it, it's supposed to be dead.

It's not in play when it's under a player's glove or pad.

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...   I went through some courses to be certified as a ref, not an NHL ref, but the principles are the same...   and one of the first things that we were taught is that each rule is defined at the very beginning, and the spirit of that rule, and the interpretation thereof, is to be taken from the opening part (subsection) of the rule...

 

So it while it was a kicking motion, in the first subsection (49.1) it is clearly defined that the kicking motion has to be deliberate...   Obviously they used subsection 49.2 to disallow the goal, but according to subsection 49.1 they would also have to then be ruling that the kicking motion was deliberate, and that the kicking motion was not a result of Monahan's skate being pushed by Sanheim's skate...   and that, is where they made the mistake...

 

          a735d6c4c6a0b6b8d08e6115380cb590.png

 

Many mistakes are made with different rules for the same reason, they ignore where the rule is defined at the beginning, and then mistakenly use a later subsection while ignoring the context...   This happens all too often, as it is at the root of why there is a problem with so many inconsistent calls made on a regular basis...    

 

It is way past due for the league to get all of the refs together for refresher courses in the summer to try and regain having some sense of consistent enforcement of the rules...   and It should be obvious to Bettman a long time ago that it would also be in everyone's best interest to do so...

          

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

In one view it looked like his skate was pushed into a kicking motion.

In another it looked like he was trying to keep from falling and kicked his leg to prevent that.

Distinct or deliberate.

You see the difference in the two sections.

Which is completely different.

His kicking was distinct, though may not be deliberate.

If you call it a goal, it would have to have overwhelming evidence otherwise.

So, the ref chose the 2nd interpretation, which you could argue is wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

^^^

In one view it looked like his skate was pushed into a kicking motion.

In another it looked like he was trying to keep from falling and kicked his leg to prevent that.

Distinct or deliberate.

You see the difference in the two sections.

Which is completely different.

His kicking was distinct, though may not be deliberate.

If you call it a goal, it would have to have overwhelming evidence otherwise.

So, the ref chose the 2nd interpretation, which you could argue is wrong.

 

That's just it...   The crux of the matter...   

 

The first part, 49.1 takes precedence...   and every following subsection including 49.2, stems from the definition given at the beginning of the rule in 49.1...   So in this case, the kicking motion would have to be deliberate...

 

It was ruled a goal on the ice, and there was not the necessary overwhelming evidence to overturn it...   In the one angle it looked like Monahan was falling, and in the other angle (the better one) it showed Monahan's skate being pushed by Sanheim's skate...   Neither of which would make the action of a kicking motion deliberate...   In all available angles Monahan was being pushed by Sanheim towards the net, and that has to be considered as well...

 

As I said in the first post on the subject, it doesn't really matter as the Flames still won the game...   It was just more of an example of how refs often ignore the definition given at the beginning of a rule and then wrongly apply one of the subsections to make a call...   It happens all the time, and it shouldn't...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my 2 cents I think they got that call right, as Monahan's skate moved independently of Sanheim's showing that Monahan kicked it without being pushed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 10:47 AM, travel_dude said:

 

To me it looked like a kicking motion.

This type of call doesn't bother me, as they tend to get it right.

The ones that bother me is the goalie has "control" of the puck or it's sitting under him and it's poked in.

The ref loses sight of it, it's supposed to be dead.

It's not in play when it's under a player's glove or pad.

 

McDavid had a goal where it was initially stopped and frozen and it was ruled it was alive.

We had two events occur in the same game last year against OTT.

We had one occur this year where Rittich had frozen it, but it was not blown dead.

 

The reffing has been substandard this year so far.

High sticks resulting in goals because it occurred outside the O-zone.

Blatant cal let go while minutae called in the same game and period.

Go back to ref school and meet as a group for the standards.

Reffing has been substandard, I agree completely.  The Monahan non-goal should have counted.  The kicking motion was due to the Philly player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...