Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Watching the playoffs...

Recommended Posts

Wamsley, here's my general response:

Hartnell and Timmonen's rights were acquired as pending UFA's for a 1st rounder before the 2007 draft. They were most definitely paid as if they were UFA's, and Timmonen has been Philly's #1 d-man. Briere most definitely was no the biggest reason they improved (Biron was acquired at the 2007 deadline if we want to get technical), but Philly turning it around to be a playoff team had a lot to do with their UFA deals, as it also did with the improvement from their young players (some of which were acquired from trades).

Boston didn't immediately turn it around in 2006-07, but Chara and Savard are big reasons why they are successful today. They definitely needed help, and it came from their young core of guys. Now the Bruins are in a position where they might have to look at trading Savard in order to retain their young core guys (Kessel and Krejci this year, Lucic next). People thought they overpaid for Savard back then, but with the cap rising his salary looks to be a steal.

You can acquire players via free agency that really help your team, you just can't expect them to fundamentally correct a flawed team. You need the help from the young players definitely, but that doesn't mean you should avoid the UFA pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wamsley, here's my general response:

Hartnell and Timmonen's rights were acquired as pending UFA's for a 1st rounder before the 2007 draft. They were most definitely paid as if they were UFA's, and Timmonen has been Philly's #1 d-man. Briere most definitely was no the biggest reason they improved (Biron was acquired at the 2007 deadline if we want to get technical), but Philly turning it around to be a playoff team had a lot to do with their UFA deals, as it also did with the improvement from their young players (some of which were acquired from trades).

Boston didn't immediately turn it around in 2006-07, but Chara and Savard are big reasons why they are successful today. They definitely needed help, and it came from their young core of guys. Now the Bruins are in a position where they might have to look at trading Savard in order to retain their young core guys (Kessel and Krejci this year, Lucic next). People thought they overpaid for Savard back then, but with the cap rising his salary looks to be a steal.

You can acquire players via free agency that really help your team, you just can't expect them to fundamentally correct a flawed team. You need the help from the young players definitely, but that doesn't mean you should avoid the UFA pool.

I never said avoid UFAs. I said the hype surrounding it is a fraud.

You are right about Hartnel, my mistake, and Biron was obtained at the deadline and resigned. But my point was they don't make the playoffs

without the improvement of Richards and Carter and the steal of Coburn. Holmgrean also picked up Lupul and Smith in a deal for one of their

strong young assets in Pitkanen before the 2008 season. The heavy lifting was done before the 2007 season was done.

The team was a division winner that suffered through a terrible year and immediately bounced back. They had an asset like Forsberg to deal,

they had an All-Star in Gagne and they had Carter and Richards about to emerge as 23 year olds. That team was not rebuilt through Free Agency.

As for the Bruins, once again, their success this season would not have been possible without the contributions of Kessel and Krejci. Add in Lucic

and Thomas and those 4 players contributed way more than the $4.5M they earned. If you remove those 4 players do the Bruins have the season

they had? Those value contributions will be gone this summer. Thomas got his and Krejci and Kessel will get theirs.

The Habs right now have the young core that is facing a make or break season. THEY will determine this teams future, not a $6-7M UFA.

UFAs are valuable to patch problems, like the Habs bringing in a large scoring centre to clean up an organization weakness, but more often than

not the winner of July 1st is not the winner on June 1st.

Edited by Wamsley01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you're saying, Wamsley, but...

Philly would never have turned things around without the emergence of Richards and Carter (and Upshall and Umberger in the playoffs) - but - they never would have done it without Hartnell, Timonen, Briere and Biron either. I actually think the Flyers are the perfect example of a team that "rebuilt" from the outside. They had some solid assets in the organization but they were not far removed from a season in which they had finished dead least. They added to this by overpaying for high-profile free agents.

Boston would not have won the East without great improvement from Krejci, Wheeler, Kessel and Lucic - but - what about the supposed overpayments they'd made for Chara, Savard and Ryder (their 3 most important players in the playoffs, perhaps)?

You're right; the Ducks would not have won without Getzlaf and Perry. But they wouldn't have had a chance without Niedermayer, Pronger, Selanne, Moen and Rob Niedermayer that they got from places other than the draft either.

Teams NEED to draft core pieces and to keep supplying their organization with depth via the draft. But they also need to find pieces from other places. Even Detroit - a team that has always drafted well and then held on to their assets - is profiting off the free agent additions of Brian Rafalski and Marian Hossa.

I find that UFA usually are busts the first season, or, at least, never manage to morph mediocre teams into contenders, but then become leaders on their new teams after a year or two. A great example from this season would be Nikolai Khabibulin. Overpaid, the team had already signed a replacement for him... and then he performs and he's a solid #1 for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of team building exercises, where are all the Penguin-haters who said the Hossa trade had "gutted" their team and they couldn't win with such a top heavy roster? I mean, I hate Pittsburgh too, but I always found the argument that losing Armstrong and Christensen was a "gutting" to be hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winner of the most nonsensical analogy of the thread.

How you go from Cleary jabbing at a loose puck to cross checking a goalie in the head is beyond me.

Not shocked that its beyond you. You quote a analyst who said:

The question is whether the contact was incidental or intentional

To which I replied as being absolute bullshit.

The rule that ANY contact with the goalie that results in a goal is disallowed is what is beyond you. Cleary clearly made contact with Hilliers skate, not the puck, which = goalie contact = no goal. Its pretty straight forward really but here I am having to argue it. You seem to be confusing goalie interference with regular interference rule when a dman who trips a forward but its OK because he touched the puck 1st. At no time is it OK to make contact with a goalie even if you are going after a "loose" puck. :rolleyes:

None of the rules depend on weather it was incidental or intentional. Like cross checking a golie in the head. It doesnt matter if it was an "accident", its still a penalty, well according to the actual rules at least. I dont give a rats ass what any of the analysts say who are making well north of $100 000/year to say that BS goals are good goals. I know they say stupid shit, their jobs depend on it but why other people repeat nonsense like that as it it was factual is what is beyond me. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks -

In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

So it comes down to whether you think Hiller had frozen the puck and was pushed into the net by Cleary.

Look at the replay at about 1:08-1:12.

1) Any contact at all between the two is with Cleary's stick. I don't think he has the strength to push Hiller back into his net using just his stick.

2) It seems the stick is actually reaching under Hiller's pad and poking at the puck, not at the goalie himself.

You have to be stupid or crazy to think it's a good goal? The refs are trained and Bob MacKenzie knows what he's talking about. He actually quoted the rulebook on the panel when he defended the goal. Maybe you're still convinced it should have been disallowed but there's obviously enough evidence on the other side to legitimize the official's call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with what you're saying, Wamsley, but...

Philly would never have turned things around without the emergence of Richards and Carter (and Upshall and Umberger in the playoffs) - but - they never would have done it without Hartnell, Timonen, Briere and Biron either. I actually think the Flyers are the perfect example of a team that "rebuilt" from the outside. They had some solid assets in the organization but they were not far removed from a season in which they had finished dead least. They added to this by overpaying for high-profile free agents.

Boston would not have won the East without great improvement from Krejci, Wheeler, Kessel and Lucic - but - what about the supposed overpayments they'd made for Chara, Savard and Ryder (their 3 most important players in the playoffs, perhaps)?

You're right; the Ducks would not have won without Getzlaf and Perry. But they wouldn't have had a chance without Niedermayer, Pronger, Selanne, Moen and Rob Niedermayer that they got from places other than the draft either.

Teams NEED to draft core pieces and to keep supplying their organization with depth via the draft. But they also need to find pieces from other places. Even Detroit - a team that has always drafted well and then held on to their assets - is profiting off the free agent additions of Brian Rafalski and Marian Hossa.

I find that UFA usually are busts the first season, or, at least, never manage to morph mediocre teams into contenders, but then become leaders on their new teams after a year or two. A great example from this season would be Nikolai Khabibulin. Overpaid, the team had already signed a replacement for him... and then he performs and he's a solid #1 for them.

No doubt those teams improved from those signings, but Philly DIDN'T need to sign Briere. They misjudged the improvement levels

of Carter and Richards, if they realized that Richards would morph into one of the best two way centers within a year and Carter

turn into a 40+ goal guy would they have invested in Briere? Now here they are two seasons later trying to unload the guy who the media

pushed as the reason for the turnaround.

My point is that the media over emphasized the Briere signing, then pushed out their chest to say, SEE, I TOLD YOU when the Flyers turned

it around. Meanwhile the Flyers had laid the foundation of that turnaround before July 1st had come. When you sign a UFA you are

lucky to receive the value that you are paying them, but when you develop players from within, you can receive a $7M player at a fraction

of their cost.

In a cap world Stanley Cup winners are built in house and the majority of moves are tinkering to finish the job. Signing Chara and Savard lead to a season

out of the playoffs and an 8th place finish. They did not become contenders UNTIL the Kessel's, Krejci's and Lucic's developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in this case, I don't think it was reasonable for the Flyers to expect Richards to become a 1st line centre. He was a 25th overall pick that had been looking like a solid future 2nd or 3rd liner (someone on these boards even told me that offseason that they thought he was no more than a career 4th line C) up until that point. His transformation was, to me, a transformation. It came more or less out of nowhere. Carter seemed a little more promising offensively but even he had not seemed ready to be more than a second line centre. Briere-Carter-Richards seemed like the way to go for them: an established #1C and then two 1st round draft choices being given the chance to develop in low-pressure roles (I wish we did this more often).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it comes down to whether you think Hiller had frozen the puck and was pushed into the net by Cleary.

Look at the replay at about 1:08-1:12.

1) Any contact at all between the two is with Cleary's stick. I don't think he has the strength to push Hiller back into his net using just his stick.

2) It seems the stick is actually reaching under Hiller's pad and poking at the puck, not at the goalie himself.

You have to be stupid or crazy to think it's a good goal? The refs are trained and Bob MacKenzie knows what he's talking about. He actually quoted the rulebook on the panel when he defended the goal. Maybe you're still convinced it should have been disallowed but there's obviously enough evidence on the other side to legitimize the official's call.

No, it has nothing to do with Hillier having control of the puck. It has everything to do with Cleary making contact with the goalie which results in the puck going in.

You can quote parts of the rules all you want. Look at the entire thing:

Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper

69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgment of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

For purposes of this rule, “contact,” whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. If an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

69.2 Penalty - In all cases in which an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). In all cases where the infraction being imposed is to the attacking player for hindering the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely in his goal crease, the penalty to be assessed is for goalkeeper interference.In exercising his judgment, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.

69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Refer also to Reference Tables – Table 18 – Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations.

If you think its a real goal, do you not think Cleary pushing Hillier into the net didnt impair Hilliers ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal? Ya, being pushed into the net by Cleary didnt hinder the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely in his goal crease.

You can clearly see that Clery makes absolutely no contact with the puck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, in this case, I don't think it was reasonable for the Flyers to expect Richards to become a 1st line centre. He was a 25th overall pick that had been looking like a solid future 2nd or 3rd liner (someone on these boards even told me that offseason that they thought he was no more than a career 4th line C) up until that point. His transformation was, to me, a transformation. It came more or less out of nowhere. Carter seemed a little more promising offensively but even he had not seemed ready to be more than a second line centre. Briere-Carter-Richards seemed like the way to go for them: an established #1C and then two 1st round draft choices being given the chance to develop in low-pressure roles (I wish we did this more often).

Even so, if your two best prospects are centers, is it smart to go out and spend 6.5M per season for 8 years on a centre?

And how do you go from thinking Richards/Carter are 2nd line centers at best to investing 5.75M for 12 seasons on Richards

and 5M per for Carter within less than one calendar year? One great season had the Flyers believing that Richards was

now a legit number one? enough to lock him up until 2020?

But I digress, the Flyers don't need Briere anymore and would be wise to dump his contract, if they dump the right players

they can be replaced by cheap options in Van Riemsdyk and Giroux over the next couple years and keep the Flyers as contenders.

No, it has nothing to do with Hillier having control of the puck. It has everything to do with Cleary making contact with the goalie which results in the puck going in.

You can quote parts of the rules all you want. Look at the entire thing:

If you think its a real goal, do you not think Cleary pushing Hillier into the net didnt impair Hilliers ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal? Ya, being pushed into the net by Cleary didnt hinder the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely in his goal crease.

You can clearly see that Clery makes absolutely no contact with the puck.

Where did Cleary hinder Hiller's ability to defend or move? He moved freely in his crease and the contact occurred with a loose puck

as he was trying to cover it.

Using that rule to your interpretation would make the goal the Bruins scored against Price where Krejci

poked the puck just as Price was about to cover it goaltender interference. He contacted the puck AND his glove.

BTH rule 69.6 is more in line with the play that occurred as far as I am concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it has nothing to do with Hillier having control of the puck. It has everything to do with Cleary making contact with the goalie which results in the puck going in.

You can quote parts of the rules all you want. Look at the entire thing:

If you think its a real goal, do you not think Cleary pushing Hillier into the net didnt impair Hilliers ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal? Ya, being pushed into the net by Cleary didnt hinder the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely in his goal crease.

You can clearly see that Clery makes absolutely no contact with the puck.

I don't think those rules apply here. They are referring to situations where a player prevents a goalie from making the initial save by pushing him or contacting him in whatever way. I don't think this is what happened (you do, so there you go). There is a separate rule (the one that I listed) that refers to rebound situations where a skater and goalie are trying to get to a loose puck before the other does. I think that is what happened here. Hiller made the initial stop but before he could freeze the puck, Cleary poked at it, hitting Hiller at the same time (or instead).

Okay, from the angle in your link, you can see that Cleary doesn't touch the puck (but that was his intention and, in rebound situations, that makes contact permissible) but in the angle shown in the link I posted, it doesn't seem like Cleary really pushed Hiller into the net. All I see is his stick hitting the pad while trying to get to the puck. And Rule 69.6 says this is allowable.

Even so, if your two best prospects are centers, is it smart to go out and spend 6.5M per season for 8 years on a centre?

And how do you go from thinking Richards/Carter are 2nd line centers at best to investing 5.75M for 12 seasons on Richards

and 5M per for Carter within less than one calendar year? One great season had the Flyers believing that Richards was

now a legit number one? enough to lock him up until 2020?

But I digress, the Flyers don't need Briere anymore and would be wise to dump his contract, if they dump the right players

they can be replaced by cheap options in Van Riemsdyk and Giroux over the next couple years and keep the Flyers as contenders.

I didn't think Richards would wind up as a 1st line centre. Carter had potential to be a 40 goal scorer but he wasn't at that level yet and there was no reason to expect him to be.

Richards (IMO) overachieved but after his breakout season, he didn't seem a likely candidate to be a flash in the pan: a complete, fundamentally sound player that had always had potential (1st rounder in a deep draft). Once he had broken out, it seemed a wise investment to get him (and Carter) locked up long-term. Whether it was a wise decision to give him that 12-year contract is a different story.

Same for Briere, really. I don't think it was a mistake to sign him or to pay him 6.5M per (most estimates leading up to July 1st were 7M+ per) but their mistake was giving a player his age 8 years. They're in cap trouble now because they overpaid for several free agents. They are feeling the effects of the combination of the Briere, Hartnell and Timonen contracts. Then they had to give unexpectedly huge raises to Richards and Carter very quickly.

Same thing with the Bruins. There is no problem with Savard or his salary. But their younger players are starting to blossom - in some cases, before they were expected to - and their signed vets are being pushed out.

This is because few GMs seem to hand UFA contracts with appropriate term. Instead, they offer the player whatever term will satisfy him, without considering how many years would be best for them. Gainey considers this (a safe, 2-year contract for Samsonov) and that is partly why he so rarely succeeds at signing UFA. He doesn't cater to their demands, he replies with his own.

Edited by BTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can quote parts of the rules all you want. Look at the entire thing

If you think its a real goal, do you not think Cleary pushing Hillier into the net didnt impair Hilliers ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal? Ya, being pushed into the net by Cleary didnt hinder the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely in his goal crease.

You can clearly see that Cleary makes absolutely no contact with the puck.

None of the rules you posted govern the situation that happened. Rule 69.6 is the only part of the rule relevant in this case.

To back up rule 69.6, there is Table 18 for Rule 69

4: BATTLE FOR LOOSE PUCK WITH THE GOALKEEPER WHILE THE GOALKEEPER IS IN OR OUT OF THE GOAL CREASE

A: An attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper while both are attempting to play a loose puck at the time a goal is scored. - Goal is allowed.

Hiller does not have control of the puck. Cleary goes for the puck with his stick and incidentally pushes Hiller's leg into the puck, causing the puck to go over the goal line. This example is a perfect example of that exact rule. It was a text book case of incidental contact with a loose puck in the crease. There is no room for debate here. Without a doubt that was a goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is just with the wording of the rules. One rule says that incidental contact is alright in rebound situations, while the other rule says that intentional and incidental contact with the goaltender is illegal in "all situations." It seems to trump the other rule. But if that were the case, there would have been no point for the 69.6 rule so I think it's pretty clear what they mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt those teams improved from those signings, but Philly DIDN'T need to sign Briere. They misjudged the improvement levels

of Carter and Richards, if they realized that Richards would morph into one of the best two way centers within a year and Carter

turn into a 40+ goal guy would they have invested in Briere? Now here they are two seasons later trying to unload the guy who the media

pushed as the reason for the turnaround.

My point is that the media over emphasized the Briere signing, then pushed out their chest to say, SEE, I TOLD YOU when the Flyers turned

it around. Meanwhile the Flyers had laid the foundation of that turnaround before July 1st had come. When you sign a UFA you are

lucky to receive the value that you are paying them, but when you develop players from within, you can receive a $7M player at a fraction

of their cost.

In a cap world Stanley Cup winners are built in house and the majority of moves are tinkering to finish the job. Signing Chara and Savard lead to a season

out of the playoffs and an 8th place finish. They did not become contenders UNTIL the Kessel's, Krejci's and Lucic's developed.

I think that there is one thing you may not be considering. Having a guy like Briere there to take on the pressure of being the high priced UFA signing, probably took some of the pressure of Richards, which could have helped him blossom. same thing with Carter this year, expectations weren't weighing him down and he could just go out and play his game.

Its a lot easier to perform at a high level, when you aren't expected to perform at that level. The trick is to maintain that level of performance, when it is expected.

I think that was one of the factors in the Habs success last year and failures this year. The expectations for Pleks, the Kostitysns weren't that high, and with a motivated Kovolev, leading the way they flourished. However, this year they all seemed to have crumbled under pressure. I think we saw the same thing with Higgins after his 06/07 year, where there was talk of him scoring 40 and he set that as a goal for himself. Instead he ended up having an disspointing to an OK year in 07-08 and a lousy year with a bit of a strong finish this year.

The big test is going to be next year to see how these guys respond to not meeting expectations and I think it would help them by having the habs signing or trading for a big name impact player. The problem they are going to have is that if they can't sign an impact player via free agency (which is likely going to be the case), then who do you give up to acquire an impact player, given that they are likely going to lose half of their roster to free agency.

I also think that this is going to be the make-it-break it year for some of their prospects like McDonoagh and Fischer to show they are progressing and are ready to make an impact at Hamilton or even a shot at the Habs lineup, be second teir prospects or busts. I've read mixed reviews of their play, but haven't actually seen them play, so I really can't comment.

I also think that this is a year where we find out if other Prospects like DAgistini, Pacioretty, Maxwell, Emelin (if he is signed), and White continue to progress or not. There development curve is going to have a major impact on the Habs future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that there is one thing you may not be considering. Having a guy like Briere there to take on the pressure of being the high priced UFA signing, probably took some of the pressure of Richards, which could have helped him blossom. same thing with Carter this year, expectations weren't weighing him down and he could just go out and play his game.

Its a lot easier to perform at a high level, when you aren't expected to perform at that level. The trick is to maintain that level of performance, when it is expected.

I think that was one of the factors in the Habs success last year and failures this year. The expectations for Pleks, the Kostitysns weren't that high, and with a motivated Kovolev, leading the way they flourished. However, this year they all seemed to have crumbled under pressure. I think we saw the same thing with Higgins after his 06/07 year, where there was talk of him scoring 40 and he set that as a goal for himself. Instead he ended up having an disspointing to an OK year in 07-08 and a lousy year with a bit of a strong finish this year.

The big test is going to be next year to see how these guys respond to not meeting expectations and I think it would help them by having the habs signing or trading for a big name impact player. The problem they are going to have is that if they can't sign an impact player via free agency (which is likely going to be the case), then who do you give up to acquire an impact player, given that they are likely going to lose half of their roster to free agency.

I also think that this is going to be the make-it-break it year for some of their prospects like McDonoagh and Fischer to show they are progressing and are ready to make an impact at Hamilton or even a shot at the Habs lineup, be second teir prospects or busts. I've read mixed reviews of their play, but haven't actually seen them play, so I really can't comment.

I also think that this is a year where we find out if other Prospects like DAgistini, Pacioretty, Maxwell, Emelin (if he is signed), and White continue to progress or not. There development curve is going to have a major impact on the Habs future.

That is a pretty expensive price for one year of development.

But using Montreal as a comparative looks like this.

Briere takes the pressure of Richards and Carter in 08.

Kovalev takes the pressure of Kostitsyn and Plekanec in 08.

Briere misses most of the season, Richards and Carter raise their play to another level in 09.

Kovalev takes 1/3 of the season off and Plekanec and Kostitsyn tank in 09.

Richards and Carter likely didn't need Briere. We may find out if Kovalev was responsible for the breakout years of AK46 and PLeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is just with the wording of the rules. One rule says that incidental contact is alright in rebound situations, while the other rule says that intentional and incidental contact with the goaltender is illegal in "all situations." It seems to trump the other rule. But if that were the case, there would have been no point for the 69.6 rule so I think it's pretty clear what they mean.

Thats definitely true. It seems to be worded in a way so that it purposely doesnt make sense. It has to be the most vague legalese that I have ever seen.

incidental:

–adjective

1. happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.

2. incurred casually and in addition to the regular or main amount: incidental expenses.

3. likely to happen or naturally appertaining (usually fol. by to).

–noun 4. something incidental, as a circumstance.

5. incidentals, minor expenses.

Goalies often stop the puck but the puck trickles through them and ends up at rest behind the goalie. I dont call loose pucks that are behind the goalie a rebound.

Several of you say how did Cleary hinder Hillier? Usually when the puck trickles through a goalies 5 hole they reach around behind them or pivot both their pads, etc to prevent the puck from going in. Could Hillier have done any of these things with Cleary's stick under his skate pushing him into the net? No. Also dont forget that Hillier was standing right on the goal line. Wheres a goalie suposed to stand if he cant even stand unobstructed while right on the goal line? Thats my main issue with that goal. I could understand most of the pro points if the goalie had been out near the edge of the crease. If you skate through a goalies crease in close by the goal line you will "incidently" hit the goalie every time.

Whats scary is the precidence it sets because on any given shot any player can incidently knock the goalie into the net while the goalie is trying to make a save because the puck is "loose". Thats whats crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey lads, news flash:

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL

LL!!!!!!!!!!! Detroit wins, on to Chicago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth are you still arguing this?

Goalies often stop the puck but the puck trickles through them and ends up at rest behind the goalie. I dont call loose pucks that are behind the goalie a rebound.

The rule doesn't say rebound, it says loose puck. An uncovered puck in the crease is clearly a loose puck.

incidental:

–adjective

1. happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else.

Cleary was trying to play the puck, but instead pushed Hiller's skate. Pushing Hiller's skate was not his planned action. Pushing his stick was the incidental result of trying to play the puck. It is a textbook rule 69.6.

If you skate through a goalies crease in close by the goal line you will "incidently" hit the goalie every time.

Not at all. If the puck isn't in the crease, then a player has no business skating through the goalie's crease unless he is trying to make contact. That's not incidental.

Whats scary is the precidence it sets because on any given shot any player can incidently knock the goalie into the net while the goalie is trying to make a save because the puck is "loose". Thats whats crazy.

Even before they started messing around with the crease rules, players were allowed to follow the puck into the crease and play it, as long as the puck is there first. This doesn't set any sort of precedence at all. This situation cannot possibly happen "on any given shot." It can only happen if there is a loose puck in the crease. There is a clear difference between intentional and incidental contact. You can't just make contact with the goalie for the heck of it, it's a penalty. If you are trying to play the puck, however, contact is allowed.

Honestly, the validity of that goal is crystal clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe there's an argument. Cleary used his stick to shove the puck into the net while the goalie was still struggling to control it. From the replay, even Hillier wasn't angry at the play, just dismayed at being beaten. Sorry, but that's hockey. (The real issue is that Cleary should have been flat on his arse instead of in a position to cram the puck home).

This endless debate is analogous all the outrage over the Kronwall hit on Havlat in that sense. Yes, it's shocking and horrifying to see a strong, athletic young man go from 100% to concussed and obliterated in the span of one second. But the fact remains that that was a clean hit from the shoulder. Similarly, it is shocking to see a team win Game 7 on a shot from a guy standing basically unmolested in the crease. But the fact remains that that's a clean goal.

This is frigging HOCKEY, not some non-contact sport where the slightest bump causes everything to shut down. Get over it.

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious about the Kronwall hit. Why did the refs toss him, when, at the time of the hit, they hadn't even signalled a penalty? Chicken-sh*te methinks.

Crosby rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Curious about the Kronwall hit. Why did the refs toss him, when, at the time of the hit, they hadn't even signalled a penalty? Chicken-sh*te methinks.

Crosby rocks.

By the strict letter rule of interference, it actually was. Tehcnically, Havlat had to touch the puck for him to be a target for a hit. But they usually give you some leeway when it's close. The 5 and a game was excessive, though. No one would've complained about a 2 minute call.

Kronwall did appear to jump as well, it's debatable whether he had just left his feet before the hit or if it was upon contact. Kronwall makes those hits on the edge. You'll get burned every once in a while when you do that consistently. It's hard to feel sorry for him for the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, no love-loss for Kronwall. I thought that the rule was playing the puck. Just wondering why the refs didn't call something right away.

"Upon further review..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe there's an argument. Cleary used his stick to shove the puck into the net while the goalie was still struggling to control it.

Umm, but the part in bold is actually Cleary used his stick to shove the goalie into the net, Cleary made no contact with the puck. The part that is underlined I fully agree with. Most of Hilliers struggles had to do with him being pushed into the net by Cleary.

69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game).

Actually its a classic scenario of the goalkeeper being pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop. Hillier didnt have control of the puck, but he did stop the original shot from going into the net. Having control of the puck after stopping it is a save and the actual wording of the rule is after making a stop. ^_^

How on earth are you still arguing this? The rule doesn't say rebound, it says loose puck. An uncovered puck in the crease is clearly a loose puck.

69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks doesnt say Rebounds? :blink:

Cleary was trying to play the puck, but instead pushed Hiller's skate. Pushing Hiller's skate was not his planned action. Pushing his stick was the incidental result of trying to play the puck. It is a textbook rule 69.6.

When you try to reach something that is directly behind someone by trying to reach right through them you will "incidently" hit that person every time.

This situation cannot possibly happen "on any given shot." It can only happen if there is a loose puck in the crease. There is a clear difference between intentional and incidental contact. You can't just make contact with the goalie for the heck of it, it's a penalty. If you are trying to play the puck, however, contact is allowed.

Ya, actually it could happen almost every shot, think aboot it. You slide the puck along the ice at their goalie, while I stand and wait right by the crease. When the puck comes into the crease its "loose" As soon as the puck makes contact with the goalie its then permissible for me to drive my stick into their goalie pushing him into the net because I'm incidently trying to score, not push the goalie into the net and apparently it would be a "good goal". :puke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69.6 Rebounds and Loose Pucks doesnt say Rebounds? :blink:

That's not what I meant and you know that. I meant that it doesn't have to be classified as a rebound for the rule to apply. I left out the word "just."

When you try to reach something that is directly behind someone by trying to reach right through them you will "incidently" hit that person every time.

The puck was exposed and Cleary tried to reach under Hiller's leg.

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

That subsection does not apply to this situation. Hiller wasn't pushed into the goal as the goal was scored. There were two distinct pushes by Cleary. The first first was when he tried to puck underneath Hiller's leg at the loose puck. This is the action that resulted in the goal. Cleary does not push Hiller (or should I say part of Hiller's skate) into the goal until after the puck is across the line. If it had been the second motion that resulted in the goal, then there would be an argument, because at that point it appeared Cleary was no longer trying to play the puck and was trying to push Hiller's foot.

Ya, actually it could happen almost every shot, think aboot it. You slide the puck along the ice at their goalie, while I stand and wait right by the crease. When the puck comes into the crease its "loose" As soon as the puck makes contact with the goalie its then permissible for me to drive my stick into their goalie pushing him into the net because I'm incidently trying to score, not push the goalie into the net and apparently it would be a "good goal". :puke:

Mad props to your wild imagination. :clap: Would absolutely love to see a team try to score a single goal with this method. I mean, if you're slapping at a loose puck in the crease with enough force to push a goalie into the goal, then you're clearly not making incidental contact. Even with Hiller off-balance and stretching his leg in that direction, Cleary still barely pushed his skate over the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...