GAME DAY: Tampa Bay Lightning @ Ottawa Senators - 7:30pm EST - Thu. Nov. 5th, 2009

jamvan wrote:Sens are teh second most penalized team in the league. If they can just change that stat alone, it will make the team even better.

They average 18.8 minutes a games, which is pretty much a full period a game.

SeawaySensFan wrote:Keith "Face Like a Frying Pan" Jones broke down the video of the Liambas hit in slow motion and he did indeed glide into that hit. It wasn't a charge.

As you pointed out, the helmet wasn't secured. Another instance where equipment played a role. This is usually the case as equipment is often used incorrectly as either a weapon or as nothing more than a fashion accessory.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A “charge” may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

wprager wrote:He took about a dozen strides before he "glided" though. It was a charge. In my opinion.

The rule book, however, is very loosey-goosey:

No wonder there is no consistency between refs. It would appear that stiff checks are against the rules of the game

shabbs wrote:

SensFan71 wrote:I don't expect downie to ever shut his mouth, between his mouth and his brain, there are zero connections/synapses.

He has a brain?

shabbs wrote:

jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

Should an infraction of the rules which would call for a minor, major, misconduct, game misconduct or match penalty be committed by a player or goalkeeper of the team not in possession of the puck, the Referee shall raise his arm to signal the delayed calling of a penalty. When the team to be penalized gains control of the puck, the Referee will blow his whistle to stop play and impose the penalty on the offending player or goalkeeper.

ddt wrote:

shabbs wrote:

jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

There was a discussion this morning on TGOR with Pierre McGuire, where Steve Warne said the rules used to be that as soon as someones touches the puck the play would be whistled dead, but that lately some referees seem to wait for the team to gain control being calling it. That got me curious, so I went to the NHL.com web site to check the rule book, and this is what I found in section 15.1 (the part in bold is my emphasis):

Should an infraction of the rules which would call for a minor, major, misconduct, game misconduct or match penalty be committed by a player or goalkeeper of the team not in possession of the puck, the Referee shall raise his arm to signal the delayed calling of a penalty. When the team to be penalized gains control of the puck, the Referee will blow his whistle to stop play and impose the penalty on the offending player or goalkeeper.

wprager wrote:St. Louis had over 8 minutes of PP time; Lcavalier over 7. Between the two of them they had two assists. Yet St. Louis is given the third star over Leclaire? Hell, give it to Frasier if you're going to do that.

Look, I'm not suggesting that Marty did not have a heck of a game, but if a forward plays over 8 minutes on the PP registering just a single assist, yet plays well enough to get 3rd star considerations, in a game that ends up 3-2 in OT, well, what about the winning goalie? If the winning goalie didn't deserve it then how in hell can the forward who gets 8+ minutes on the powerplay and only gets a single assist in the game? Either Leclaire didn't deserve it because Marty and Vinny were crap out there, or Marty didn't deserve it because he got outplayed by the 5th penaly killer -- Leclaire.

I only got to watch a tiny bit of the game; couldn't recrod it either. Saw the TSN highlights. So, yes, I'm trolling the stats only. So I can understand why Alfredsson, with just that garbage goal gets 1st star over Spezza's three-point night including the OT winner -- there are things the stats don't show. But in the case of St. Louis over Leclaire, I just don't understand how that can be. Unless St. Louis also played goal when he wasn't out on the PP.

Someone, please, explain it to me.

jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

ddt wrote:

shabbs wrote:

jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

There was a discussion this morning on TGOR with Pierre McGuire, where Steve Warne said the rules used to be that as soon as someones touches the puck the play would be whistled dead, but that lately some referees seem to wait for the team to gain control being calling it. That got me curious, so I went to the NHL.com web site to check the rule book, and this is what I found in section 15.1 (the part in bold is my emphasis):

Should an infraction of the rules which would call for a minor, major, misconduct, game misconduct or match penalty be committed by a player or goalkeeper of the team not in possession of the puck, the Referee shall raise his arm to signal the delayed calling of a penalty. When the team to be penalized gains control of the puck, the Referee will blow his whistle to stop play and impose the penalty on the offending player or goalkeeper.

jamvan wrote:

shabbs wrote:

jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

CLouston said he didn't touch it and I assume that's after looking closely at the tape.

Gohan wrote:

jamvan wrote:

shabbs wrote:

jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

CLouston said he didn't touch it and I assume that's after looking closely at the tape.

Clouston said in the post-game presser that the reffed explained it and admitted to jumping the gun. He assumed that veilleux would get possession and preemptively blew the play down. Still, him getting hammered with a puck was some satisfying karmic relief

jamvan wrote:

ddt wrote:

shabbs wrote:

jamvan wrote:So it was a goal, that Kuba one. I knew it. When is the league going to do something about the brutal officiating.

It comes down to whether or not the Tampa Bay player had control of the puck or not. He touched it, of that there is no doubt, but did he have control? I certainly didn't think so. But Fraser did. Should have been a goal, but it is what it is.

There was a discussion this morning on TGOR with Pierre McGuire, where Steve Warne said the rules used to be that as soon as someones touches the puck the play would be whistled dead, but that lately some referees seem to wait for the team to gain control being calling it. That got me curious, so I went to the NHL.com web site to check the rule book, and this is what I found in section 15.1 (the part in bold is my emphasis):

Should an infraction of the rules which would call for a minor, major, misconduct, game misconduct or match penalty be committed by a player or goalkeeper of the team not in possession of the puck, the Referee shall raise his arm to signal the delayed calling of a penalty. When the team to be penalized gains control of the puck, the Referee will blow his whistle to stop play and impose the penalty on the offending player or goalkeeper.

Therefore it should have been a GOAL!!!!!!

shabbs wrote:It all comes out in the wash...

SeawaySensFan wrote:

shabbs wrote:It all comes out in the wash...

Indeed.

shabbs wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

shabbs wrote:It all comes out in the wash...

Indeed.

Take me away!

How many people on here actually remember that commercial?

*raises hand*

SeawaySensFan wrote:

shabbs wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

shabbs wrote:It all comes out in the wash...

Indeed.

Take me away!

How many people on here actually remember that commercial?

*raises hand*

This one is actually "Ancient Chinese secret!" lol