AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 08/09 (III): The Home Stretch

[-Jrabbit]

FWIW, if only one of those shots were to be considered interference, it clearly should be the goal on Kipper. IMHO. And when it comes to hockey, my O is most definitely H.

Officials make errors in judgment; it's part of what makes sport more interesting. If it's all about slo-mo replays from multiple angles, the flow and momentum of the game is ruined.

[snoopy369]

Well, I think Asher was objecting primarily to the after-the-fact comment by the league officiating fella (who agreed with the call). I certainly wouldn't disagree with the call on the ice whichever way it went, at ice speeds it was clearly close either way.

I'm somewhat interested in the part where the official was telling him to move ... I imagine as an official if I told someone he was violating a rule (or, close to doing so) and he ignored me, I'd be much more likely to call him on it during a borderline situation shortly thereafter. What I'm not sure about is whether that's okay... I think it probably is, if it's VERY borderline, but not if it's much further off (ie, penalizing someone who's fairly clearly not violating a rule is not okay, but penalizing someone who's at least somewhat violating the rule, perhaps violating the rule de jure but not in a way typically penalized [ie, traveling in the NBA or minor holding by a WR in the NFL] would be okay.) It's a very touchy thing though, and I'd bet a lot of people would say that it should have nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

[Asher]

The problem is I see FAR worse goals than that ALL the time. Homlstrom makes his LIVING off this kinds of goals. If not more extreme.

There was no contact with the goalie during the shot nor was he even in the crease. He was doing a terrific job screening the goalie. The only reason the puck went through was because the goalie couldn't see, which is the point. And that IS a valid play in the NHL, and it's incredibly common.

It bothers me when a player can push a goalie into the net who is smothering the puck and have it count, then when **** like this happens it doesn't count. It didn't help that it was not just THAT bull**** call, but then another borderline one just 30s later in a very important game.

To top it all off, the head of officiating indicates he thought it was a great call. If that's the case, it sets a precedent and about 30-40% of all current NHL goals will be called back. But I don't think that's going to happen -- he just doesn't want to blame the ref.

There's a lack of cajones with NHL officiating. When an NHL ref screws up, even if it is predictable and consistent like Mick McGeough, they don't do anything. They defend the ref then ask them to retire when they start getting older like Mick. The fact that he name-dropped Mick is awesome.

[Ben Kenobi]

It was a great play by Holmstrom. Kippersoft was moving and he redirected the puck through his 5 hole.

He didn't score because he was obstructing Kippersoft, but because he deflected the puck.

[Asher]

Ben, don't bother -- no one cares. You know absolutely nothing about hockey. The message about you being on my ignore list is the only truthful thing it's ever said next to your name on this site.

[Ben Kenobi]

For all you know I'm singing your praises about your erudition and your boldness which enervates the hearts of any true fan and non fan here on Apolyton.

And you missed it because of ignore.

A pity.

I think it's sad that you waste such devotion on such an unworthy team as the Flames when you live in a land of top talent. I mean, just look at those Maple Leafs. They have been nothing short of competitive since their superlative performance in '67. I can't understand how you reject their siren cry for a team that has the temerity to play a Finn for a goalie! Truly, the end has came when such a franchise which pretends to be Canadian guards their goals with such a shifty breed when they have the nearby French Canadians to draw upon!

[notyoueither]

Well, I think Asher was objecting primarily to the after-the-fact comment by the league officiating fella (who agreed with the call). I certainly wouldn't disagree with the call on the ice whichever way it went, at ice speeds it was clearly close either way.

It was a brutally bad call on the ice.

[notyoueither]

If that is the standard for goalie interference, Holmstrom and Smyth should be bought out, and go play golf. They are done as players.

[notyoueither]

While I got wiped out in both semis (I got destroyed in the goalie categories) the arbitrary tiebreak system propelled me into the finals of my third league. The score in categories was 4-4-2 and in addition goals were one of the tied categories-- So I advanced due to a higher number of assists !!



Oh ya and I salute the semi-nude ball -dereliquers-- Congrats to both

For me, I know where I went wrong-- nabokov was not the best choice as a premier goalie-- I had thought and hoped being on such a strong team would have meant a great sv% and wins but it never came to pass and this week when I needed him, he was 1-2 with a relatively awful GAA and sv%.

Oh well-- perhaps next year I will get a higher draft pick and be able to draft a top forward

Brodeur didn't save me.

Not even the Collosal Fossil and a 51 save performance saved me.

I had the best, and the best performance, and they were not enough.

Not only that, but Gaborik scored the game winner that knocked me, and very likely the Oilers, out.

I hate this ****in game, and I don't just mean Yahoo.

Oh, and Asher? Screw you and the horse you rode in on.

[Asher]

You've no idea how happy I was to see Gaborik score.

[Flubber]

If that is the standard for goalie interference, Holmstrom and Smyth should be bought out, and go play golf. They are done as players.

I agree wholeheartedly-- Its simple really -- the ref was wrong on the first disallowed Flames goal and correct on the second one.

Disallowing the first one brought me back to those awful "toe in the crease" rules of a couple of years ago. I hated that rule.

If they are going to start disallowing goals every time a skate grazes a crease while screening (with no contact), we are going to see a LOT of disallowed goals and as you say ---- Holmstrom and Smyth can go hang up the skates now

[Ben Kenobi]

If they are going to start disallowing goals every time a skate grazes a crease while screening (with no contact), we are going to see a LOT of disallowed goals and as you say ---- Holmstrom and Smyth can go hang up the skates now

He was already warned for it. I don't really see the issue. Go ahead and screen, but make sure you are out of the blues.

[Flubber]

He was already warned for it. I don't really see the issue. Go ahead and screen, but make sure you are out of the blues.

The warning is irrelevant. Its the same as if the ref told someone that they almost got an interference penalty on a previous play. It shouldn't change the standard for a future call. I mean would the "warned player" then get a penalty for something borderline that a player that was not warned had not??


So either the play on its own warrants washing out a goal or it does not. Sicne I have seen many many many plays like this one where the goal stood, I was surprised this one did not. This call reminded me of the bad old days of the "toe in the crease" rules and I never want to go back to that

[Flubber]

Oh and ben-- Vancouver has a one point lead and it is precisely that

It is NOT a Flames one point lead based on the idea that the Flames will beat Vancouver in our head to head as they are undefeated in matches with divisional rivals when the game follows a 1 goal loss by between 3 and 14 days, is in April of a year in which both the US and Canada are in a recession

[Flubber]

And Asher-- I don't want to hear abnout the "loser point" and that the Canucks have 3 more of them-- All the teams play under the same rules

I know you hate loser points but its the system we have