Peter Puck Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Last night Markov scored with 1.2 seconds to put us ahead. Sensing they might not be able to come back, the Bruins and their fans raised a ruckus. This in fact did turn out to be the game winning goal. During the brouhaha following Marov's goal, P.J. Axelsson took a 2 minute unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (and a 10 minute misconduct), the fans littered the ice with debris and the refs called the game without playing the last 1.2 seconds. At least, I think they didn't play the last 1.2 seconds judging from what we saw on RDS and by the official NHL.com play-by-play. Anyhow, we were entitled to a powerplay but in fact were denied this powerplay by the behaviour of the Boston fans. (I'm sure Carbo has something in the playbook for just this sort of situation). My complaint is that the official NHL stats show us as going 1 for 6 on the powerplay indicating we were 0 for 1 on this 1.2 second powerplay. This seems quite unfair since the powerplay did not in fact occur. Furthermore it is very damaging to our attempt to lead the league in PP stats. I would start a petition to Bettman but am kind of busy just now. :contract: Anyhow, this thread is a chance to vent your frustration over this robbery. Go nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Your attention to detail will never be questioned, Peter Puck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 (edited) Last night Markov scored with 1.2 seconds to put us ahead. Sensing they might not be able to come back, the Bruins and their fans raised a ruckus. This in fact did turn out to be the game winning goal. During the brouhaha following Marov's goal, P.J. Axelsson took a 2 minute unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (and a 10 minute misconduct), the fans littered the ice with debris and the refs called the game without playing the last 1.2 seconds. At least, I think they didn't play the last 1.2 seconds judging from what we saw on RDS and by the official NHL.com play-by-play. Anyhow, we were entitled to a powerplay but in fact were denied this powerplay by the behaviour of the Boston fans. (I'm sure Carbo has something in the playbook for just this sort of situation). My complaint is that the official NHL stats show us as going 1 for 6 on the powerplay indicating we were 0 for 1 on this 1.2 second powerplay. This seems quite unfair since the powerplay did not in fact occur. Furthermore it is very damaging to our attempt to lead the league in PP stats. I would start a petition to Bettman but am kind of busy just now. :contract: Anyhow, this thread is a chance to vent your frustration over this robbery. Go nuts. Actually they would have most likely started the clock and ran off the time - probably while the players were at the benches? Puts the game in the book as completed - not 100% sure but I think that TSN actually indicated they did this? So really doubt if there is anything to gripe about, and there is nothing on the books for that penalty count not carrying over. It is not a suspension, and it is penalties incurred that are definitely applied to the game they occured in. With the clock run off the penalty count stands. Also the stats are automatically then applicable to a game regardless of how it ended. No grounds for an appeal or greivance here...... Edited October 27, 2006 by beliveau1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted October 27, 2006 Author Share Posted October 27, 2006 Actually they would have most likely started the clock and ran off the time - probably while the players were at the benches? Puts the game in the book as completed - not 100% sure but I think TSN indicated they did this, but not sure on that? So really doubt if there is anything to gripe about and there is nothing on the books for that penalty carrying over. It is not a suspension and it is penalties that can only be applied to the game they occured in. No grounds for an appeal or greivance here...... Well I don't think they started the clock since the official nhl site doesn't show a faceoff after the goal. Even if they had, without a faceoff, it wouldn't have allowed us the chance to run our short PP strategy. I know that there is no further penalty to the Bruins nor to Axelsson. But the fact remains the NHL considers we went 0 for 1 on the PP after Markov's goal. This lowers our PP percentage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 (edited) Well I don't think they started the clock since the official nhl site doesn't show a faceoff after the goal. Even if they had, without a faceoff, it wouldn't have allowed us the chance to run our short PP strategy. I know that there is no further penalty to the Bruins nor to Axelsson. But the fact remains the NHL considers we went 0 for 1 on the PP after Markov's goal. This lowers our PP percentage. There was no faceoff - they can wipe the clock clean without having to faceoff. I am not 100% sure, but I think this was done. Actually just found the article that confirms this happened Clock Run Off - see Paragraph 4 of Article They always run the clock off in these cases in order to complete them. Edited October 27, 2006 by beliveau1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adirondack Bud Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Do you really think that if they played the last l.2 seconds of the game, we would have scored again? I understand that Boston would have probably pulled their goalie, but us scoring in that time doesn't seem very realistic IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs_in_the_blood Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 i was wondering....is it like basket ball? lets say they did win the face off and souray lobbed the puck all the way to the net....does the game end at 0.0 secondes....or do they wait for the puck to touche the ice or surface? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I highly doubt raising a protest will solve anything. They're jerks anyway. I can't stand the NHL for this crap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Wow, whining over this "phantom powerplay" is absolutely hilarious. It's not like they were going to score from center ice with 1.2 seconds left. If they'd have taken the faceoff, the Montreal center would have won the faceoff back or lost, he wasn't going to try to take a shot off the faceoff. The puck would have been dropped and they would have gone 0-1 on that 1.2 second powerplay. Seriously, why even bring this up? It serves no purpose. i was wondering....is it like basket ball? lets say they did win the face off and souray lobbed the puck all the way to the net....does the game end at 0.0 secondes....or do they wait for the puck to touche the ice or surface? In the NHL, the puck must be past the goalline before the clock reaches 0.0, regardless of whether or not the puck has been shot before time expired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I highly doubt raising a protest will solve anything. They're jerks anyway. I can't stand the NHL for this crap What crap? They made attempts to end the debris being tossed by announcing it over the PA system, the fans didn't heed the warnings and then they did exactly what they had to do - there is only 1.2 seconds left and the home team is losing..... How are they going to possibly score from centre ice given the situation with 1.2 seconds left on the clock? You need to be realistic about this. Even if they faced off at centre the penalty stands. The refs made a call that had nothing to do with the time left on the clock when they called the penalty and it is in the books. The same happens when teams penalties end just a few seconds ahead of the oppositions all the time - it is an official power play chance to be entered by the stats keeper regardless of its' length or the time it was incurred. And unlike other sports that allow the clock to hang if the play has started - hockey stops when the clock stops & the siren sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zumpano21 Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I think Peter Puck is on to something here but my take on it is slightly different. Instead of a powerplay efficiency being ranked as 1 for 5 in a game, would it not make more sense for the PP to be reported as 1 goal for every 10 minutes of PP time. Over a season this could then be averaged with better teams say scoring 1 goal for every 8:32min of PP time and weaker teams, 1 goal for every 11:24min as examples. This would eliminate such statistical untruths as reporting a 1.2 second PP as a true man advantage. Same could be done for penalty kills. I also think that a 2-man advantage should have its own category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 (edited) All penalties, regardless of the length of time actually available on the clock have been counted as a chance as long as I can remember(and I'm up there with guys like Shortcat1) so why should it change now, just cause the Habs lost a 1.2 second chance? As they say down on the farm - Thems the breaks that everyone gets. The stat is based on penalties taken, not minutes totalled. What do we do next? Change how we count assists, plus/minus numbers or whatever causes something to happen that isn't positive for a team/player? Edited October 28, 2006 by beliveau1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zumpano21 Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 All penalties, regardless of the length of time actually available on the clock have been counted as a chance as long as I can remember(and I'm up there with guys like Shortcat1) so why should it change now, just cause the Habs lost a 1.2 second chance? As they say down on the farm - Thems the breaks that everyone gets. The stat is based on penalties taken, not minutes totalled. What do we do next? Change how we count assists, plus/minus numbers or whatever causes something to happen that isn't positive for a team/player? Nope. What I'm saying is that the current system assumes that all penalties are equal, which they are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shu Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Thats not nice..................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMMR Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 The last thing the habs care about is thier PP % or thier PK% as long as they are winning. I know both of those stats effect how a team does. But if the Habs finished the season off with 110 points and finished dead last in pp and pk they would view it a successful season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smon Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 This really is quite a pointless topic/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 (edited) What crap? They made attempts to end the debris being tossed by announcing it over the PA system, the fans didn't heed the warnings and then they did exactly what they had to do - there is only 1.2 seconds left and the home team is losing..... How are they going to possibly score from centre ice given the situation with 1.2 seconds left on the clock? You need to be realistic about this. Even if they faced off at centre the penalty stands. The refs made a call that had nothing to do with the time left on the clock when they called the penalty and it is in the books. The same happens when teams penalties end just a few seconds ahead of the oppositions all the time - it is an official power play chance to be entered by the stats keeper regardless of its' length or the time it was incurred. And unlike other sports that allow the clock to hang if the play has started - hockey stops when the clock stops & the siren sounds. I'm generalizing. I have no problem with the call itself. But crap is like the puck over the glass penalty. They have not addressed it. There are many complaints that are simply not addessed nor will ever be. "Crap" can be defined as a league that actually (the only one) cancelled a season over labour issues. That's "crap" Edited October 28, 2006 by ATHLÉTIQUE.CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted October 28, 2006 Author Share Posted October 28, 2006 Boy, I guess I needed to use more emoticon's or to surround my first post with [sarcasm] ... [/sarcasm] Maybe we need a sarcasm emoticon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobRock Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Nope. What I'm saying is that the current system assumes that all penalties are equal, which they are not. On the flipside of that, if a team scores two goals on a 5-minute powerplay, it goes down in the books as going 2 for 2, even though it's the same powerplay. Same with a double minor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Boy, I guess I needed to use more emoticon's or to surround my first post with [sarcasm] ... [/sarcasm] Maybe we need a sarcasm emoticon. The first post in this thread didn't even smell anything like sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 I'm generalizing. I have no problem with the call itself. But crap is like the puck over the glass penalty. They have not addressed it. There are many complaints that are simply not addessed nor will ever be. "Crap" can be defined as a league that actually (the only one) cancelled a season over labour issues. That's "crap" Aaaaah yes - no problem with that, as there is a lot of crap going on in other areas of the game! Just thought you were referring to this situation Nope. What I'm saying is that the current system assumes that all penalties are equal, which they are not. Obviously they aren't when you look at from that aspect - but the league has deciced on that category and it is used across the board in hockey. Sometimes it sucks but that's the system. A powerplay is a powerplay regardless of the time it happens, or how long it lasts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beliveau1 Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 (edited) On the flipside of that, if a team scores two goals on a 5-minute powerplay, it goes down in the books as going 2 for 2, even though it's the same powerplay. Same with a double minor. In the a case of a double minor it stands as two seperate penalties. Unlike a major each one is ended with a goal so it sticks as 2 chances - you can go 0/2, 1/1, or 2/2 as they are 2 seperate powerplays regardless. Edited October 29, 2006 by beliveau1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 I firmly believe that the NHL should re-evaluate how they assess power play percentages (and penalty killing percentages also). I would like to see it done as a goals scored/allowed per power play minute. It would be a fairer & more accurate measure of effectiveness in both areas. For instance, Montreal could have an efficiency rating of 1 goal scored per 9 minutes, 40 seconds of power play and a a rating of 1 goal allowed per 16 minutes 17 seconds. Doesn't sound as exciting but it's more accurate. Go :hlogo: Go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLP Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Excellent observation PP I believe the Habs could possibly have scored in 1,2 seconds with a robust wristshot or slapshot from center ice traveling 150kph. The distance from the center ice point to the back boards is 30,48 meters with the goal line 3,4 meters from the end boards. Thus the distance to be covered by the puck is 27,08 meters. Assuming a peak takeoff velocity of 41,66 meters/sec, using the formula of time=distance/velocity, the puck would cross the goal line in just 0,65 seconds. Of course, kinematics and air resistance would have to be factored here, so even if the puck could be shot a little harder Habs could not have done it twice in the allotted time. But once? Yes! So, yet again, clearly we was robbed by the refs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zumpano21 Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Of course, kinematics and air resistance would have to be factored here Don't forget that the air in Boston is quite resistant due to all the vaporized malt liquor that the Bruins are drinking. :puke: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.