• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NHL playoffs 2011 thread

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dominato3r said:
In the OT Blackhawks iced the puck with their 4th line who as already on the ice for a very long time. The refs call out the ice crew despite the Canucks having the offensive faceoff.

Any idea why the refs would do that?
Click to expand...
Because there are no TV timeouts like in regulation which is when the ice crew comes out. The first whistle after the 10 minute mark is the only time they come out during OT periods, except for major fixes.
 
silverpig said:
a7UMd.jpg
Click to expand...
Blame the lack of finishing touch on the 2-on-1 and 4-on-2 chance before you blame the refs.
 
Wordplay said:
Because there are no TV timeouts like in regulation which is when the ice crew comes out. The first whistle after the 10 minute mark is the only time they come out during OT periods, except for major fixes.
Click to expand...

But icing is a tactical advantage, that's why they have it in the game.

If the goalie stuffed the puck and the ice crew came out then I would understand.
 
Dominato3r said:
In the OT Blackhawks iced the puck with their 4th line who as already on the ice for a very long time. The refs call out the ice crew despite the Canucks having the offensive faceoff.

Any idea why the refs would do that?
Click to expand...

Obviously because Chicago is one of the largest television markets in the US, and the refs were ordered by Bettman to do everything they could to ensure Chicago won.

/facepalm


Edit: Didn't make much difference IIRC, the Canucks didn't need much help to turn that faceoff into an offsides.
 
Last edited:
Wordplay said:
Blame the lack of finishing touch on the 2-on-1 and 4-on-2 chance before you blame the refs.
Click to expand...

If it was a slashing play which broke a stick earlier in the game, a slew foot earlier in the game, a puck over the glass earlier in the game, you might have an argument. But a clear holding the stick just by the guy with the puck just seconds before the game winning goal...
 
silverpig said:
If it was a slashing play which broke a stick earlier in the game, a slew foot earlier in the game, a puck over the glass earlier in the game, you might have an argument. But a clear holding the stick just by the guy with the puck just seconds before the game winning goal...
Click to expand...

They were letting a lot of stuff go.

Canucks need to destroy them Game 7.
 
silverpig said:
If it was a slashing play which broke a stick earlier in the game, a slew foot earlier in the game, a puck over the glass earlier in the game, you might have an argument. But a clear holding the stick just by the guy with the puck just seconds before the game winning goal...
Click to expand...
Could of all been avoid if you finished them off when you had your chances.
 
mugs said:
Obviously because Chicago is one of the largest television markets in the US, and the refs were ordered by Bettman to do everything they could to ensure Chicago won.

/facepalm


Edit: Didn't make much difference IIRC, the Canucks didn't need much help to turn that faceoff into an offsides.
Click to expand...

Lol, I'm not calling it a conspiracy, I just didn't understand that call. With the tired 4th line/offensive faceoff and all.
 
Chicago coming back to win would make the Canucks choke job one of the biggest of all time. I bet Buttman is dreading the possibility of a Predators/Lightning final.
 
silverpig said:
That has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Uhh... yes it does. If you scored in OT during one of those rushes you would be waiting for the next round to start. Instead the Canucks blew their chances, fucked up earlier in the game on a couple of bad turnovers as well. Hell the Canucks have no one to blame but themselves for even being in this situation to begin with.
 
Dominato3r said:
Lol, I'm not calling it a conspiracy, I just didn't understand that call. With the tired 4th line/offensive faceoff and all.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I actually saw that suggested on hfboards. 😀

But then I'm a Devils fan, and my fellow fans complain all the time that the league is out to get us. The thing is, every team's fans thinks they're the victime of biased officiating at some point. I see plenty of evidence of bad officiating (in general, not referring to this game), but I've not often seen evidence of biased officiating.

Wordplay said:
Uhh... yes it does. If you scored in OT during one of those rushes you would be waiting for the next round to start. Instead the Canucks blew their chances, fucked up earlier in the game on a couple of bad turnovers as well. Hell the Canucks have no one to blame but themselves for even being in this situation to begin with.
Click to expand...

It is never a valid argument to say that you should not complain about an injustice because you should have done something differently at some earlier point in the game.

But I don't agree that the holding the stick penalty should have been called, it wasn't egregious and it was in OT. You see guys grabbing sticks all the time, they usually only call it when the opposing player gives his stick a yank and it doesn't come free.
 
Last edited:
Wordplay said:
Uhh... yes it does. If you scored in OT during one of those rushes you would be waiting for the next round to start. Instead the Canucks blew their chances, fucked up earlier in the game on a couple of bad turnovers as well. Hell the Canucks have no one to blame but themselves for even being in this situation to begin with.
Click to expand...

No... it doesn't.

Just because they could have ended the game earlier doesn't mean that the non call on the scoring play doesn't matter.
 
mugs said:
Sorry, I actually saw that suggested on hfboards. 😀

But then I'm a Devils fan, and my fellow fans complain all the time that the league is out to get us. The thing is, every team's fans thinks they're the victime of biased officiating at some point. I see plenty of evidence of bad officiating (in general, not referring to this game), but I've not often seen evidence of biased officiating.
Click to expand...
Red Wings fans last year were about to kill a few refs after the 5-on-3s allowed during the SJ series last year.
 
silverpig said:
No... it doesn't.

Just because they could have ended the game earlier doesn't mean that the non call on the scoring play doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
That is a play that is made all time as well. Zetterberg does that all the time when someone is on his back and trying to take the puck from him.

The refs are the least of Canucks problems right now.
 
FallenHero said:
Your tears. I enjoy them.
Click to expand...

No tears over that call. If it had happened the other way I'd expect the same. I think the call was a mistake. If it happened in the Canucks favour, I'd be happy for the mistake but would still think it was a mistake. It didn't...

The tv timeout rule is clearly meant to preserve the icing/no change advantage. This call went against the spirit of that rule.
 
mugs said:
There you go again, misusing and misunderstanding statistics.
Click to expand...

And history says you're a moron if you don't think Game 7's in the first round take their toll. Only 4 Teams have done it.

If you haven't taken a graduate statistics course then kindly stfu. Even a nub freshman can tell you that the odds are ridiculously low, especially with the expansion.
 
silverpig said:
No... it doesn't.

Just because they could have ended the game earlier doesn't mean that the non call on the scoring play doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

What mattered was Luongo pathetically flopping on his face on the initial shot making him vulnerable for the juicy rebound. Everyone and their mom knew the shot was coming high (like every other goal in the past 2 games), Lu didn't get the memo. Maybe he'll get it in Game 7 but the Hawks already own him. I'd just put in the 3rd string, Lu is (mentally) damaged goods at this point.
 
silverpig said:
No... it doesn't.

Just because they could have ended the game earlier doesn't mean that the non call on the scoring play doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure there were a bunch of non-calls before that one too. You have to practically commit murder to draw penalties in OT or on the PK on a 5-on-3. That's pretty common knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top