Game 30 Recap: Penguins 4 - Avalanche 1
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 3, 2009 9:06 PM MST
in Game Recaps
225 comments
Which is better? A 6-5 shootout loss where you get a point that you didn't deserve, or a 4-1 loss where you were in the game right up to the end? I thought the Avalanche played a good game tonight - better than the statsheet is going to reveal. In the end, though, a couple of tough breaks had them come up just short as the Pittsburgh Penguins used a couple of empty net goals (I blame Budaj) to turn a 2-1 game into a 4-1 game.
The Avalanche got off to a strong start and struck first with TJ Galiardi tipping in a puck to score a PP goal just 5:02 in. The Avs played solid hockey throughout the first period, but got burned when Brett Clark pinched in to deep in the waning seconds of the period. Probably not a good idea to let Crosby get behind you, right? Of course, the puck turned over at the Pens' blueline and the Penguins were off to the races with Mike Rupp and the Holy Diver engaging some nice give-and-go passing that led to an easy Crosby goal with just 6 seconds left. The best part? When the puck was dropped on the play, the Penguins had 6 players on the ice. How you miss a too many men call on a faceoff is completely beyond me. Tough break #1.
Tough break #2 happened in the 2nd period when Galiardi appeared to score his 2nd PP goal of the night. Unfortunately, the ref lost sight of the puck on the play and blew a premature whistle. Even though the puck was in the net before the whistle was blown, the rule is that the play is dead when the ref intends to blow the whistle (and a replay clearly showed the ref bringing his whistle up before the puck went in, in case that matters to anyone). That was midway through the 2nd period, and the Avs wouldn't get another powerplay that night. Some might say the officiating had a decided Pittsburgh tilt to it. I personally didn't see it, but I was probably too busy focusing on tough break #3.
Tough break #3 was the July 1st, 2008 signing of Darcy Tucker. Had we signed someone who actually gave a crap, or if we hadn't signed anyone and just sent $4.5 million to a Nigerian banker, we might have had a chance to win tonight. Because then, when Stastny's wide shot landed right into the slot in front of a wide open net, there might have been someone able to approach that puck with a sense of urgency a tad higher than lazy-stroll-through-the-park. Or, when Ryan "Get Me Off This Line" O'Reilly fires a centering pass back to a wide open trailer, it might have been someone with a stick on the ice instead of a thumb up his ass. Was that to harsh? How about this: I would trade Darcy Tucker to Riga for Tyler Arnason in a heartbeat.
Anyway, after the Avalanche squandered the few chances they were given in the game, the rest was inevitable. Adam Foote was called for hooking in the 3rd (I didn't feel this was a bad call, but I see that a few of you disagree) and Brett Clark followed that soon after with a stupid tripping penalty. Even a Tony Granato-coached powerplay (stick tap to Jibbles) is good enough to score on a 5-on-3. And they did. Technically, Foote was just out of the box so it was a 5 on 4, which is like saying that, technically, OJ was found innocent.
From then on, the Penguins absolutely shut the Avalanche down. The Avs managed just 1 3rd period shot and, to be honest, I credit Pittsburgh much more than I blame the Avs. The Pens played great defense - the way I'd like to see our team play more consistently. Whether the Avs tried to dump and chase or carry in, the Pens were all over the puck. It was an impressive performance.
Speaking of impressive, it's too bad that an excellent effort by Peter Budaj was completely wasted. Budaj was superb tonight. He didn't give up those dreaded rebounds that has everyone's panties all bunched up. He was poised and seemed really confident for a guy who's been sitting as long as he has. I would have liked to see him get a win for his troubles tonight. But for a couple of tough breaks tonight, he would have.
Matt Duchene played on the left wing tonight with Paul Stastny (who leads the lead in faceoffs taken) and Chris Stewart. It was a good line, and the 2nd line of Galiardi, Wolski and Hejduk was decent as well. Obviously, there's not much to show for it other than Galiardi's goal, but I personally wouldn't give up on these combos yet. So, expect something completely different on Saturday in Columbus.
0 recs |
225 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I guess that Sacco was reading my suggestions for the top two lines from last night’s recap comments.
Also, Budaj was excellent. He was centered on the puck all night long and absorbed all of the rebounds that he should and put the rest of his rebounds in areas where his defensemen could clear them out.
Also, I missed the opening period. But, was there rejoicing that Koci had been made a healthy scratch?
by c0nquistad0rian on Dec 3, 2009 9:17 PM MST up reply actions
Most people didn’t seem to notice. It was mentioned by the Alitboobs.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
I was happy to hear it
but the loss of 1 min of ice time didn’t really affect things anyways.
I should never be taken seriously.... Seriously!
oh
and the refs were terrible. the quick whistle on the galiardi goal, the 6 men thing on the first pens goal, and the absolutely ridiculous flop nu malkin on the clark “trip” that led to a goal.
i thought the game had a real playoff feel to it, and im left feeling just like I do after a close, frustrating loss in the playoffs as well. shit.
i thought the game had a real playoff feel to it,
There were a lot of bad calls in favor of the Pens.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 3, 2009 9:42 PM MST up reply actions
No If I complain about it after the next game, I’d be a Wings fan…..and shoot myself.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 3, 2009 9:48 PM MST up reply actions
in all honesty
i definitely feel the temptation. that was a maddening loss, probably the first I’m truly upset about this year.
I thought the refing in Montreal was 100x worse than tonight (and that’s saying something). We just got lucky there.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 3, 2009 10:33 PM MST up reply actions
Yes, it was
but playoff feel? Nah, they are actually imo more balanced in the playoffs.
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
Don’t watch many Pens games, I take it?
Bills fan? In Colorado? It's more likely than you think.
by UZ on Dec 4, 2009 2:41 AM MST up reply actions
the worst call I thought was McLeod’s high stick on the Holy Diver in the first. It WAS a high stick…because a Penguin defenseman was holding it.
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 6:12 AM MST up reply actions
I like it!
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
by Pinchy The Lobster on Dec 4, 2009 5:39 PM MST up reply actions
Maybe not, but I meant the refs are usually a little more balanced (read don’t call as much at all) in the playoffs, no matter the team. Are the Pens that different? Is Detroit on to something with their conspiracy thing? Please tell me no.
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
The Pens had 6 men on the ice for like a minute in a playoff game last year among other things.
Refs favoring Crysby is not a new revelation. Even in the playoffs.
Bills fan? In Colorado? It's more likely than you think.
by UZ on Dec 4, 2009 4:05 PM MST up reply actions
is it just me...
or are the Avs victims of the other team having too many men way too often while being called for too many men all the time? maybe i’m just being a homer….
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 4:08 PM MST up reply actions
Montreal had 7 guys on the ice against us earlier this year. Maybe the refs just make mistakes? or is there a conspiracy against the avs? I agree that Because the NHL has so much riding on their relentless marketing of Cindy that there may be some bias. As to where the line between bias and mistake is, well, I’m not so sure.
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
CONSPIRACY I SAY!!!!!! Bettman hates the Avs and wants them to be bottom dwellers. It’s so unfair!
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 4:20 PM MST up reply actions
This was not what I wanted to come home and watch (recorded third period).
That bad call on Gali’s 2nd goal was definitely a turning point.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
didnt svats miss one too?
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 8:24 AM MST up reply actions
I only got to catch the first period, but Budaj was playing great, and I hope this game doesn’t turn into ammo for his detractors. He played his game and played it the best we’ve seen from him.
Colorado Avalanche: Preventing itchy playoff beards since '09
by FiveJeffFingerDiscount on Dec 3, 2009 10:38 PM MST reply actions
Well yeah, he only really let in 2 goals.
Bills fan? In Colorado? It's more likely than you think.
by UZ on Dec 4, 2009 2:42 AM MST up reply actions
The first goal he had absolutely no chance on. 2 on 1 he played the shooter well and still got over on the first pass. Somehow the Pens were able to get a second pass by the lone defender and by then it was an open net for CindyC.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 4, 2009 11:47 AM MST up reply actions
Honestly, you can’t say Budaj allowed a “soft” goal…both he gave up were on one-timers, and honestly, there wasn’t much he could do on either one.
Mile High Mayhem just another ho-hum Avs blog.
I’m a Budaj “detractor” so to speak, but he played a hell of a game. And everyone is right, and I said so myself…two bang-bang plays for goals. Not a thing you can do. Hopefully he builds some confidence from this in his future performances
Honestly, I think this was a confidence-building game for him. My stance on Boods has changed somewhat…however, I just hope Andy isn’t out for long.
Mile High Mayhem just another ho-hum Avs blog.
R U SRS??
BOOODEYE SUXD IT UP. TEH LAST 2 GLS WUR LK HE WZNT EVN THEIR!!!!!!!!!!
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 8:26 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Open challenge to Dwight....
how much can you get for the defenseman who’s leading the NHL in blocked shots?
More importantly, how quickly can you get it?
While you’re at it, sweeten the deal with a guaranteed member of the Slovakian Olympic teams forward corps?
Note – you have until Saturday night to get it done. Go get ’em Dwight!!!
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Time to grow a pair, boys!
While you’re on a roll – how about you trade or waive the most overpaid former Leafs player with a girl’s name ever to don a Unipron? Go for the hat trick!
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Time to grow a pair, boys!
I know who to call up to replace him...
Taking a pass on the left wall from Skinner, Yip used his speed to shield off a Griffins defender before snapping a low wrist shot past the glove of Larsson at the 7:02 mark of the third. The goal and the game were both the firsts of Yip’s professional career, as the rookie forward missed the first 22 games of the season with a hand injury.
Premature, I know, but I just want to see it so badly!
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Time to grow a pair, boys!
yah, let’s let him get some games in before throwing him to the big bad wolves of the nhl
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 8:27 AM MST up reply actions
Be fair.
Only the last 335 or so that he’s played in a Colorado sweater.
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Time to grow a pair, boys!
eh
you know im not a clark hater. but he’s been very bad lately you gotta think he’ll sit as soon as Salei is back.
I wouldn’t say that I’m a Clark hater. Dislike really set in hard and fast last year. Disdain has now fully taken hold, with revulsion hard on its heels.
Skate Fahey while waiting for Salei. Show us something (other than a defenseman with the propensity for getting his keeper brained).
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Time to grow a pair, boys!
I’m not a Clark hater either, but he’s had a few miserable games lately
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 6:14 AM MST up reply actions
I used to like Clark, he has not been good since his injury a few season ago…and he seems to be going backwards.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 4, 2009 11:57 AM MST up reply actions
Trade him to the Leafs!
They’re looking for another goalie, right?
Colorado Avalanche: Preventing itchy playoff beards since '09
by FiveJeffFingerDiscount on Dec 3, 2009 10:47 PM MST up reply actions
They’re looking for
anotherA goalie, right?
Fixed ;)
'I googled what the white stuff in a Ho-Ho was, i found out it has NINE cups of sugar..that will KILL YOU, it would turn your blood into fruit punch!'
Major advantage here,
is that Clark is guaranteed not to have any heart trouble (cf. Gustavson, Jonas). In all his time with the Avs, I’ve never seen him exhibit any evidence that he even has one.
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Time to grow a pair, boys!
by Hopfenkopf on Dec 3, 2009 10:57 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
haha. Thanks for the smile tonight. I needed that.
Colorado Avalanche: Preventing itchy playoff beards since '09
by FiveJeffFingerDiscount on Dec 3, 2009 11:35 PM MST up reply actions
The regression is startling.
Never trust the lunch lady.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Dec 3, 2009 10:48 PM MST up reply actions
we played a hell of a game, here’s what im going to take away, we essentially held the champs to one goal, boods played great, even when being outshot a bizzilon to one in the third…
'I googled what the white stuff in a Ho-Ho was, i found out it has NINE cups of sugar..that will KILL YOU, it would turn your blood into fruit punch!'
So...
We basically played the same as we have all year, and lost the same way. This is what kills me on some nights. Yes, I know they aren’t going to win every one, but when they can play this good against the defending champs and then the previous night look like chumps against one of the worst (statistically, mind you, cause they beat us) teams in the league, then I just gotta wonder wtf? I’ve seen the avs blow a lot of games, and that’s probably why they don’t have 1 or 2 more cups, but to play this maddeningly inconsistent just , well, frustrates me.
But on the plus side, BUDAJ WAS TOTLLY TEH SUXORS AND WE CAN SO NOW TRDE HM 4 TLNT!!!!
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
It’s completely consistent. We did the same last year when we won 3 of 4 games against the Red Wings.
Bring the effort to the team you expect to lose to. Bring nothing to the team you expect to win against.
The quality of defense, at least in the first period, was like a different team than in Florida.
I hope the reffing team
spends some time in Colin Campbell’s office tomorrow.
I’ve not seen as solid a team performance this year and then have it robbed!
I hope the reffing team
spends some time in Colin Campbell’s office tomorrow.
No worries, they will.
“So, are these Cuban cigars OK for you guys? You like Scotch? Howsabout this 80 year single malt Highlands? Will that be OK? Do you guys need your pillows fluffed? Or another fluffer?”
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Time to grow a pair, boys!
Yes, it was too harsh
Are you talking about Tucker’s “miss” at about the halfway mark of the 2nd period? If that’s what you’re referring to, come on, it wasn’t even a half chance. He had the puck on his backhand behind the goal line, with Skoula diving in front of him. His only chance was to bank it off Fleury into the net, which he tried to do. Did you happen to miss his pinpoint assist on Galiardi’s goal?
And about Granato…he doesn’t coach Pittsburgh’s power play. Not difficult to find out that someone named Mike Yeo does. The Granato-fucks-everything-up angle is convenient for some, but in the case of Pittsburgh’s PP, it’s just not true.
And it seems that Pittsburgh’s had this problem before, although it didn’t seem to affect them too much in the end.
we have no interest in facts, Dan
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 6:15 AM MST up reply actions
My problem with the Foote penalty...
was the blatant interference Maxime Talbot was running on the Av (can’t remember who) that was supposed to be covering Crosby that actually allowed him to drive towards the net, which forced the penalty from Foote. If you’re not going to call the interference, fine, but then don’t turn around and call a penalty on the Avs that directly resulted from the Pen’s illegal play.
They missed a couple interferences tonight.
When Mike freaking Haynes is calling out refs for missed calls, things have gotten bad.
I thought you knew that algebra was all razzamatazz. A Globetrotter always saves the good algebra for the final minutes.
by SlamDunkTheFunk on Dec 4, 2009 3:02 AM MST up reply actions
Wash your mouth out!
“How about this: I would trade Darcy Tucker to Riga for Tyler Arnason in a heartbeat.”
No, No, NO!
Tailor Arms-of-Fun must never again step foot in Colorado. At least you can hate Tucker. Arnason is all just meh!
It's hard to be a saint in this city
Turn up your sarcasm meter, my friend. = )
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 8:30 AM MST up reply actions
oh, I was DEAD serious
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 8:32 AM MST up reply actions
oh my
i’ve no words to express my feelings right now. the world has turned upside down.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 8:34 AM MST up reply actions
Just assume he is being sarcastic. And don’t let him tell you what he really meant!
It was clearly a joke.
Clearly a joke.
Clearly a joke.
I feel better already!
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Aph on Dec 4, 2009 8:38 AM MST up reply actions
I would take Arnason back if it meant getting rid of Tucker. That being said, I’d prefer almost anyone else to Arnie, but still. Tucker, IMO, has been that bad.
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 8:40 AM MST up reply actions
Great game for Boods last night. Nothing he could do about the two against him.
Love him or hate him, Sidney Crosby is a fantastic hockey player…and he’s in the midst of a hot streak. That’s a bad combination that can make any goalie look silly. The give and go 2-on-1, just great passing (COUGH Brett, where the hell were ya?). The powerplay goal, just a perfect pass from Crosby.
Tip of the hat to Boods…
Throw of the hat to the Avs offense…1 shot in the 3rd? Come on!
Throw of the hat Wag of the finger to the Avs offense…
Fixed via Stephen Colbert
by Avalanche318 on Dec 4, 2009 10:04 AM MST up reply actions
One thought about last night’s game:
Sacco kept the goalie on the bench after the first EN goal. Why? He believes his guys can get two. They did it the night before, right? Joey Q. and Tony G would have put Boots back in the net and just taken the loss, but Sacco showed some trust in this young team. It didn’t work out, but that’s gotta make you feel good as one of the guys on the ice in the last minute of play.
Unless you’re Darcy Tucker and you realize you just have another minute of falling down, missing passes, and looking permanently befuddled that you still have a paying gig in the NHL.
"I know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "
Unless you’re Darcy Tucker and you realize you just have another minute of falling down, missing passes, and looking permanently befuddled that you still have a two paying gigs in the NHL.
Fixed.
Don’t forget, Toronto is still paying him not to do that in their town. Good move Frankie Giguere! His response?
“Thank you, please drive through”
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Time to grow a pair, boys!
Thought from last night…
Did anyone else find it kinda classless that Crosby just padded his stats on that 2nd EN goal? IMHO, that is pretty fucking cheap.
Mile High Mayhem just another ho-hum Avs blog.
I don’t think he “padded his stats” I’m guess 99% of NHL players see that empty net and go for it. No big deal really.
The way I see it, Staal was leading the rush, and they passed it to Crosby for the explicit purpose for scoring a goal…to me, that’s padding stats…there’s no place for it ANYWHERE in sports. I’d say the same thing if any Av did that too…that’s a lack of sportsmanship.
Mile High Mayhem just another ho-hum Avs blog.
Then blame Staal for passing it to him…Crosby doesn’t need to pad his stats, he has enough points to go around.
I also blame the 3 Avs players who had a chance to stop that as well.
Mile High Mayhem just another ho-hum Avs blog.
I prefer to blame Budaj. And Wolski.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 7:30 AM MST up reply actions
and Preissing
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 7:37 AM MST up reply actions
You could also look at it this way though. Empty net AND regular goals count the same in the end-of-season tally for the Rocket Richard trophy. Crosby’s in the top-five, and might as well put some distance before Ovechkin’s back from suspension.
Colorado Avalanche: Preventing itchy playoff beards since '09
by FiveJeffFingerDiscount on Dec 4, 2009 7:17 AM MST up reply actions
it’s things like that, which has most of us “Crosby-haters” losing respect for him. Crosby is too talented to be scoring bullshit goals like that.
Mile High Mayhem just another ho-hum Avs blog.
Ovechkin would do the same thing, and his teammates would pass it to him. And I’m an Ovechkin guy.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 7:31 AM MST up reply actions
How is it any different than the guys looking for a specific player on an EN to help complete a hat-trick? A lot of fans were a little upset the other night when Tampa pulled their goalie and Duchene wasn’t on the ice for the chance at a hat trick.
I don’t blame Crosby for scoring on the EN. If any blame is to be given out it should be on Staal for passing up the EN and passing to Crosby in a situation that didn’t give Crosby a hat-trick.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 4, 2009 12:13 PM MST up reply actions
Although, I know I will be in the minority in this thinking, and it’s going to get largely ignored, but…I’m just not a fan of “stats padding” in any sport. I hate it when defenses lay down to allow touchdowns, I hated that thing UConn did with their injured player just to get a scoring record. I just can’t stand it when people do that. It’s classless and tacky…has no place in sports period.
Mile High Mayhem just another ho-hum Avs blog.
I’m not a huge fan of empty net goals (and I’m really glad Duchene didn’t get an EN on Monday to give him a hat trick), but chicago guy is right, you can’t blame Crosby for that. Folks manipulate EN goals to set up certain teammates all the time. Other than Al Iafrate, no one passes them up
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 7:17 AM MST up reply actions
which is sad. If you’re leading the rush, TAKE THE DAMN SHOT.
..and I’m with you, I wouldn’t be too high on Duchene getting a hatty on an EN goal.
Mile High Mayhem just another ho-hum Avs blog.
DIdn’t Sakic score 600 or some other milestone goal on an EN? If it’s good enough for Joe it’s good enough for me.
by Avalanche318 on Dec 4, 2009 10:08 AM MST up reply actions
he did. although i think milestone goals are acceptable in this case
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 10:18 AM MST up reply actions
Was that the guy who juiced himself on a potential EN backhand goal in Dallas vs Edmonton, who came back and scored to tie/ win in OT? I believe he retired like 3 days afterwards.
by Avalanche318 on Dec 4, 2009 10:10 AM MST up reply actions
A guy would probably be criticized if he didn’t pass to a teammate who had a chance to complete a hat trick with an EN. Its expected in certain situations to allow teammates to pad their stats with EN goals.
by Inebriated Simian Miscreants on Dec 4, 2009 9:12 AM MST up reply actions
Not a fan of EN goals? I’m sorry but I’d rather have the guys finish the game and play hard whistle to whistle. What if the guy just dumped the puck in a 2-1 game and then the other team came back and scored to tie the game? We’d all be pissed as fans because they didn’t finish the game.
If you have an EN shoot the puck…if you’re in the red zone play for the touchdown. Do baseball players still try to hit a home run in the 8th/9th inning even when they are leading? Hell yea they do.
Now if a team is putting out a specific player, and looking for that guy just to add stats, that’s another issue. But I would not have been upset had Duchene been on the ice against Tampa and had gotten the ENG instead of Wolski simply because he played his ass off, and it would have been his first Hat-trick in the NHL. If it had been for his tenth or so, then it’s a different story. And I don’t remember anyone here complaining about Wolski scoring on the EN the other night.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 4, 2009 12:20 PM MST up reply actions
maybe i'm wrong
but i don’t think anyone’s saying that EN goals are a bad thing; i think it’s more about one player purposely passing the puck to another player in order for that second player’s stats to look better.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 1:01 PM MST up reply actions
Sorry, I feel if you don’t want an empty net goal, don’t pull the goalie. The avs were still trying to win the game and the pens put the steak in the heart.
Jesus Saves! Duchene gets the rebound and scores!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Dec 4, 2009 9:14 AM MST up reply actions
T-Bone, Porterhouse, Ribeye or Strip?
"I know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "
by Mike @ MHH on Dec 4, 2009 11:51 AM MST via mobile up reply actions
Mmmm…steak….
Jesus Saves! Duchene gets the rebound and scores!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Dec 4, 2009 12:26 PM MST up reply actions
i am so hungry for prime rib right now
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 1:02 PM MST up reply actions
Prime is what we had at our staff party/dinner last night.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
Not too shabby! So thats where all the tax payers money is going ;)
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
Actually we’re an “Empowerment” school. We are partnered with the Belagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, so it was probably you’re gambling dollars that paid for it.
Though they may rethink funding our Culinary program after one of the class tried to burn down the school yesterday. Someone left cookies in the oven…
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 5, 2009 10:14 AM MST up reply actions
Oh! Well,
In that case, I hope you ate your fill!! It’s not cool that the Culinary students tried to burn the school down though.
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
Most of the kids enjoyed it, they got to sit outside in the cold and talk for 45 minutes instead of doing school work.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 5, 2009 11:22 AM MST up reply actions
I would have loved that when I was a kid, depending on your definition of cold.
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
For the kids here it was cold, about 45 degrees…
For me cold is 3 feet of snow and 20 degrees or lower.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
Yeah,
I suppose they thought 45 degrees was cold:) It was -15 when I left for work the other morning. this morning it was much warmer at 9 degrees.
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
Gramatical moranicness aside, I stand by my take. Don’t be pissed if the other team keeps trying if you are going to keep trying.
Jesus Saves! Duchene gets the rebound and scores!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Dec 4, 2009 12:28 PM MST up reply actions
Well, that game was a punch in the gut. It reminded me why hockey is the most frustrating sport to follow.
Never trust the lunch lady.
by Hardshell_Taco_del_Lowayne on Dec 4, 2009 7:40 AM MST reply actions
If you're going to schedule back to back games
both teams should have to have played the night before. Colorado played in an overtime game last night and Pittsburgh last played on Monday. That is an added advantage late in the game add to the fact that Pittsburgh was playing at home. The scheduling of these back to back games is atrocious. Also another dumb rule is “intent to blow the whistle”. If the ref thought that the puck was covered and it obviously wasn’t then he should be able to correct himself instead of the intent to blow the whistle nonsense. Just like in football when an official picks up a flag and corrects himself and says that there is no foul on the play. Just sayin’.
I believe Pittsburgh’s last 3 games were against teams on the 2nd game of a back to back
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 7:56 AM MST up reply actions
since no one has mentioned it, i will (again): wtf is up with liles?? he played well for about ten minutes in the first and then… maybe my mojo is too much for him.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 8:35 AM MST reply actions
It would be too much for any man.
Colorado Avalanche: Please excuse the mess while we are under construction.
I think its time to start witholding favors;)
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
definitely hit or miss with him. lately more miss.
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 9:09 AM MST up reply actions
With the emergence of Wilson and Cumiskey, and Shattenkirk % others on the way I’m starting to think he’s going to be trade bait over the summer. If they can trade him, his contract’s just a bit hefty.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 9:12 AM MST up reply actions
Speaking of impressive, it’s too bad that an excellent effort by Peter Budaj was completely wasted. Budaj was superb tonight
I think this is sort of a theme in Budaj’s career with the Avs. Last year he played some stinkers, but there were many games when he stood on his head and played great, only to get a loss on the scoresheet. But he definitely was TEH SUXORS last night (and I LOVE using that term).
The Avs played a much better game defensively than in Florida, but the shots on goal just seem to be an ongoing problem. Outshot again 31-16 (I think that is right) and 10-1 in the 3rd period. When you are down by a goal in the third period, one shot on goal is not going to win the game.
Staying out of the penalty box would be nice too.
Clark: nice guy, not such a great hockey player. A fresh start with another team sounds like a good plan to me.
Colorado Avalanche: Please excuse the mess while we are under construction.
My God
Now Budaj is 1-2-1. That’s a .250 winning percentage folks. He sucks. I mean he’s always giving up back-breaking goals like the one with 6 seconds left last night, and he couldn’t make the clutch save in the shootout against Weiss Weds. If the goalies going to lose 3/4ths of his games we might as well give Weiman a shot and see if he’s any good. I’m sure he could win 1-in-4.
I mean in his 4 decisions the Avs have given up 4+ goals three times. The Avs aren’t going to win games if they have to score 5 goals every time Budaj comes out, and since we clearly can’t trust him, there’s more chances Anderson will wear down and not be good later in the season. I mean look, he’s already starting to wear down.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 9:03 AM MST up reply actions
Regardless, Budaj played amazing. That’s exactly what I want in a backup. The team hasn’t played well around him and I think that is attributed more to the team being banged up and Clark, Svatos, and Tucker being in the game. Clark has become my target.
Hejduk looked a tiny bit slow to me. I think he needs a game or two to get back in it the maybe that 2nd line can do damage. I will say this, Duchene looks better at center. He’s able to roam more. I feel wing sort of hampered him a bit. But we need his scoring ability.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We fend off 7 man power plays? Do you?
Yours might be broken?
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 9:16 AM MST up reply actions
I wasn’t responding to you actually, i just chose the new post to respond to.
Avalanche 2009-2010: We fend off 7 man power plays? Do you?
Ahh ok
my mistake then.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 9:26 AM MST up reply actions
Wolski take the F*&$ing shot
Am I the only one who feels that he is holding the puck to long. I think he needs to unload the puck whenever he touches it right on the goalie. There were a couple of times that he could have easily gotten a shot on net but did to many deeks and ducks to try and make something happen instead of shooting the puck.
Wolski has become my target because I gave up on Clark, Tucker and Svatos.
by pikeyrubbish on Dec 4, 2009 11:18 AM MST up reply actions
Inconsistent team
Great one game, crap the next….maybe the table has more to offer?
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 4, 2009 12:26 PM MST up reply actions
You beat me to this
It’s pretty hard to be a consistent goalie when the team shuts out the opponent on Monday, and then allows 5 goals a couple of days later against one of the worst teams in the league – oh wait, Anderson was in net for those two games (and no, this is not a slam on Anderson – just an attempt to show that even the starting goalie is going to have a tough time playing consistently backstopping an inconsistent team).
Colorado Avalanche: Please excuse the mess while we are under construction.
My impressions (for what they are worth)
I’m not near as big a hockey fan or hockey expert as many are here, so take this for what it’s worth.
The Avs played tough, and gave a good effort, but the Penguins were the better team. Especially in the deeper lines. The fact that the Avs played so well, after being in Miami the night before and having to travel was pretty great.
I guess I expected this year for the Av’s to be a rebuilding year of sorts. New coach, new goalie, lots of young kids and a few of them maybe rushed a little. But playing the Pen’s to the wire, on the road, on a back to back game, with injuries mounting, was really impressive to me.
The Av’s may not be there yet, but I like where the wagon is pointing.
I totally agree. Despite the loss (and the stupid PP goal debacle about which I woke up still bitter) it was a fun, exciting, impressive game. The boys did me proud…well, except for the aforementioned boners.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 12:11 PM MST up reply actions
Ha!!
You said Boners!! J/K I couldn’t help it :0
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
totally did that one on purpose! ; -)
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 12:15 PM MST up reply actions
I know;) But someone had to point it out.
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
i figured either you or canary would be on it!
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 12:17 PM MST up reply actions
Totally beat the Canary to the punch! Yeah Me!
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
Sorry, I’m slow today. The cooking class set the school on fire and we’ve been outside for the last 45 minutes…
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 4, 2009 12:28 PM MST up reply actions
LOL!! really?? that’s hysterical!
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 1:03 PM MST up reply actions
That ROCKS!! And I am still thinking I should quit my job and go to culinary school.
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
I had a friend go through culinary school…he said it’s one of the hardest things he’s ever done.
What’s wrong gl…those men in uniform not doing it for you anymore? :)
Just something I’ve always thought I wanted to do, When I started this job I was 22 and didn’t know what I wanted to do with my life. sometimes I think it’s my intended career, Sometimes I don’t. And if you knew most of our men in uniform you would know the answer to that question!
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
i’m ready to quit teaching. we should go become chefs together!!
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 1:37 PM MST up reply actions
I can totally see the two of you
on Iron Chef or better yet Throwdown with Bobby Flay. You just seem like two gals who could handle a big knife with ease :-)
Colorado Avalanche: Please excuse the mess while we are under construction.
that would be pure entertainment, i tell ya
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 1:54 PM MST up reply actions
Throwndown Episode #1
Beachie: “Bobby, I’m going to show you how I heat up a Hot Pocket.”
Bobby: “Um, why are we in your bedroom and isn’t that John-Michael Liles?”
Colorado Avalanche: Please excuse the mess while we are under construction.
bwahahahaha! that’s funny.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 2:15 PM MST up reply actions
Totally?
K. Lets do it!
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
I saw this and it has brought my morning to a halt.
Jesus Saves! Duchene gets the rebound and scores!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Dec 4, 2009 9:51 AM MST reply actions
Dare I ask where is the armrest of that guy’s seat? You know the armrests on the aisle don’t fold up.
by Inebriated Simian Miscreants on Dec 4, 2009 12:36 PM MST up reply actions
yea, there is nothing good happening within say 5’ of him.
Jesus Saves! Duchene gets the rebound and scores!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Dec 4, 2009 12:53 PM MST up reply actions
don’t they require passengers of his size to buy two tickets now? that is a major safety hazard because the aisle is so blocked.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 1:04 PM MST up reply actions
I dare say that the food cart wouldn’t make it past him in any event.
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - Time to grow a pair, boys!
How did he get his seat belt on for take off and landing?
by c0nquistad0rian on Dec 4, 2009 3:09 PM MST up reply actions
anyone else think that market for clark is drying up a bit?
Jesus Saves! Duchene gets the rebound and scores!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Dec 4, 2009 9:54 AM MST reply actions
Columbus is still looking for a D-man, Dredger said it on “NHL On The Fly” the other night, which by the way it the greatest show ever. Hockey Sports Center FTW!
by Avalanche318 on Dec 4, 2009 10:17 AM MST up reply actions
Foote, perhaps?
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Dec 4, 2009 10:19 AM MST up reply actions
lol
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 10:23 AM MST up reply actions
I think we should trade Clark to Columbus now for Torres, or else we might as well wait for the trade deadline when his value will go up, just because of the deadline.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 10:24 AM MST up reply actions
How about Liles for Umberger? or do both Liles and clark for umberger and torres.
Jesus Saves! Duchene gets the rebound and scores!
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Dec 4, 2009 11:39 AM MST up reply actions
Hockey stick on the ice, instead of thumb in the ass…good one, David. I agree on those tough breaks, but the one that made me shit my pants was the lost sight of the puck, or whatever. The NHL allows replays for damn near everything, so I hate the fact they can’t use them for things like losing sight of the puck. Like it really matters the ref lost sight of the puck in the first place, when there are fifty cameras watching it better than he can. It just doesn’t make sense. The cameras should be able to reverse any call, and the coaches/captains should be able to use them to make the calls the referees are missing. If the coaches or captains are wrong, give them a delay of game penalty or something, but don’t screw up the whole outcome of a game. I think it’s ridiculous. It pisses me off more than anything.
agreed
i just don’t understand why the moment the whistle is actually sounding isn’t the marker for play ending. who cares if the intent started earlier. they have cameras for a reason. it’s a stupid rule and needs to change given the technology available.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 12:15 PM MST up reply actions
Agreed.
I’m still bitter. But this seems like it would fix things.
This is a hockey board — You fuck with our Hejduk, and the spirit of Lappy is coming. =)-Jibbles
It handcuffs the referee badly. I guarantee if you took out the “intent” rule refs would be forced to blow the whistle way too prematurely, because they don’t want to have a goal scored when a play should have been frozen.
The rule is fine, the refs misuse it.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 12:22 PM MST up reply actions
Yeah, I see what you’re saying about handcuffs, but that’s what I’m talking about. I think they should be handcuffed, for that very same reason. If a camera can change things, it should be able to change anything. If a lineman calls a whistle for no reason, ‘cause he jumped the gun, give the possessing team a faceoff in the offensive end. No big deal. If he misses a whistle, and the other team scores a goal, drop everything to go to the PP. Erase the part of the game that shouldn’t have ocurred. It just flat out doesn’t make sense to use the cameras for only part of the game. It make no sense.
I don’t know, maybe I’m missing something. All I know is that those cameras are there for more than just watching a game, and they’re not used enough in the call-making process. I think those referees should only be there for an extra set of eyes, not the final word. That would provide much more integrity, self confidence for players who already have integrity, and it would instantly remove the possibility of a referee w/preference changing the outcome of a game.
the NHL uses those cameras to decide on suspensions, whether the officials made a call or not. Officials can’t see everything….so why can’t the replay help on these types of calls?
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 4, 2009 12:38 PM MST up reply actions
I have to agree that it should be reviewable. It the case of last nights goal, it’s not like it was being batted around in the crease under guys. It went straight through the friggin goalie. Another example was the goal Les Ailes had taken away. That puck also was in the net, that’s why the official couldn’t see it and “intended” to blow the whistle.
“Intent” is one thing, clear goals under review are another thing. The whole intent thing without review is allowing officials to decide the game instead of the players. Sure you don’t want every play reviewed (like football these days). But certain things should be reviewed. Intent is giving the official the all the power, the replay booth should be able to challenge that.
The 2009-10 Avalanche: Have the wheels fallen off?
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Dec 4, 2009 12:36 PM MST up reply actions
If the team that deserves a goal is going to get the goal they deserve by using cameras to change calls, play that damned camera. That’s the bottom line. I don’t see how anyone making the NHL rules is so blind to that.
Only reason I can think is that they want to maintain the old process, since all the oldies were done similarly, and they just don’t want to change the rules too much. It might have too much effect on records, or whatever. I don’t care. They’ve already made way too many changes, if that’s their intent, to preserve the game the way it originally began.
I do agree that there needs to be a process for refs to go in and correct a mistake, which this clearly was on potential goals.
What the NHL really needs in these cases are for the referee to make the call to be able to watch the play on a TV and say "I did intend to blow the whistle, but my intention was incorrect. Since the puck went over the line before I actually blew the whistle (meaning everyone on the ice was still playing) then the goal stands.
But saying “play only stops when the whistle is blown, and not a moment earlier” you’re going to create a hell of a lot more problems than you solve.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 2:49 PM MST up reply actions
“I did intend to blow the whistle, but my intention was incorrect. Since the puck went over the line before I actually blew the whistle (meaning everyone on the ice was still playing) then the goal stands.
I like this idea, but I have a hard time believing there are too many refs who would admit being wrong.
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
Maybe
but that’s a different problem altogether
OR
You can send it to Toronto and for this only (goalie covering the puck) and they can say "yeah, he had the wrong intention.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 2:57 PM MST up reply actions
this is exactly what i’m talking about. the ref looks back at the play (or whomever does) and realizes that the puck was not frozen and the play was still going and the puck crossed the line before the whistle…reviewable. that’s all i’m asking for is for it to be reviewable. if the puck had not crossed the line before the whistle then it wouldn’t be a goal regardless of whether or not he blew it too soon. intent should not trump review.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 2:54 PM MST up reply actions
Agree
this is where the problem with the rule is, is that it doesn’t allow for the ref to correct faulty intent, THAT’s the problem.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 2:58 PM MST up reply actions
You can see him raise his hand to his mouth but it does not actually show when the play is supposed to stop. This is a fine line that I have also argued that the refs do need to let the play develop a little more. If a goaltender has fallen on a puck then or covers with a glove then the play is dead, that is to protect the goalie.
Fluery however was not in any case at all the play was still moving, he did not lay on the puck or hold it with his glove. The intent rule needs to become obselete at that point because there was no cover and no need to protect the goalie.
Agree
I think the ref should be given ample opportunity to let the play develop and then have the ability to go back and say “No the play was dead here” or "The play wasn’t dead at all.
Making the whistle the end-all be-all removes this ability from the refs.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 3:00 PM MST up reply actions
So then the stoppage of play actually comes down to the whistle being blown, signaling that play has been stopped by the sound of the whistle.
Hypothetical
That happens quite often:
Goalie covers the puck as the guy goes hard to the net, the goalie attacker AND puck go into the net before the ref can blow the whistle. By adding this rule, you have now made this a goal with no room for argument.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 3:13 PM MST up reply actions
i still don’t see the distinction. in the case of “is the puck frozen or not” the puck WON’T cross the goal line if it is in fact frozen so intent vs whistle blow is moot. if it’s not frozen, it might and intent becomes questionable. if the puck does cross the line, “did it do so before the whistle” becomes the deciding question as to whether it was a goal or not.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 3:11 PM MST up reply actions
There are two problems:
1- refs are going to blow the whistle so early that they are going to blow the whistle before the puck is actually frozen, instead of “intending” to.
2- there are plenty of cases where the puck gets knocked out of a goalies hand when the play is frozen by physical play.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 3:15 PM MST up reply actions
but knocked out of the hand because of players whacking at it and trickling through from the momentum already created and without additional stick action are two completely different things.
and i disagree that the refs would start blowing the whistle sooner. i don’t see why that would happen. i would think they’d be more apt to let it play out.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 3:23 PM MST up reply actions
Here
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. In the “Whistle and nothing else decides” this play is a goal, even though the goalie CLEARLY had it covered.
Did the refs wait too long to blow the whistle? yeah they did. But if you say “whistle is the only deciding factor” then this is a goal… and there’s no way to fix it. With the “intent” rule, there was a mechanism in place to allow the refs to get it right.
the "Whistle"rule only works if the referees get that rule perfect, and clearly they aren’t and won’t be.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 3:21 PM MST up reply actions
this totally does not apply to what i’m saying. the goaltender was run into and THAT caused the puck to still be alive. i am talking specifically about the type of goal from last night. shot was made, puck never stopped moving underneath the goal tender and into the goal. no additional action on the part of the player caused the puck to go in the goal after it went under the goal tender. in this specific type of situation, if the puck does cross the line before the actual whistle, it should be a goal no matter when the ref “intended” to blow the whistle.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 3:28 PM MST up reply actions
this totally does not apply to what i’m saying. the goaltender was run into and THAT caused the puck to still be alive. i am talking specifically about the type of goal from last night.
This is exactly the point I’m trying to make. Yes it solves last nights problem, but it has unintended consequences. The above situation would be one of them.
I think what you’re getting at is that there should just be a rule for “whistle blows on situations where there’s no extra contact”, but that seems even harder to enforce and calls for even more referee discretion.
But if you have a “whistle or nothing” rule.. then the above situation becomes a giant problem. Great you’ve solved one problem and then caused another.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 3:37 PM MST up reply actions
I think what you’re getting at is that there should just be a rule for "whistle blows on situations where there’s no extra contact", but that seems even harder to enforce and calls for even more referee discretion.
How is what I’m saying any different than reviewing the goal for “a distinct kicking motion” or “high stick above the crossbar?”
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 3:43 PM MST up reply actions
I agree that this should be reviewable. I’ve never said anything different.
But there was a certain sentiment that the rule should be that the play isn’t dead until the ref blows the whistle (and maybe that’s not what you were saying, but it was an argument here" which means that extra physical stuff that jars the puck loose would be ok now.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 3:54 PM MST up reply actions
of course i mean reviewable. nothing is black and white and everyone makes mistakes. that’s why toronto gets involved. in this situation, the review is easy. two questions:
1. was there additional contact?
Yes? no goal
No? see question #2
2. did the puck cross the line before the whistle actually blew?
Yes? goal
No? no goal
I don’t see how it’s that difficult of a concept.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 4:02 PM MST up reply actions
1. was there additional contact?
Yes? no goal
No? see question #2
You could make the argument that Galiardi initiated contact. Obviously this case is clear-cut, but this wasn’t a case of the puck trickling through and the ref blowing the intent too quickly, there was a play after what the ref thought was a goalie freeze.
But i do think the NHL needs to institute a way to replay these.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 5:41 PM MST up reply actions
Perhaps
there needs to be a set definition for a freeze. Maybe something like “the goalie must clearly have possession of the puck in his glove, under his pads, etc.”
Let’s say the ref thinks he sees a freeze and tries to blow the whistle, but the puck gets loose and goes in before the whistle. Because of the intent rule, the ref initially waves it off.
Then they go upstairs, check to see if a. the puck was frozen when the intent to blow the whistle was made and b. if the puck crossed the line before the actual whistle went.
If the goalie has frozen (clearly has possession of) the puck, regardless of when the whistle actually went, then it’s no goal. If, like in Gally’s case, the goalie never had possession, then you go back and check to see if the puck crossed the line before the whistle actually went.
Doing it this way would in theory get the right call in more cases than the current way, would it not? It doesn’t eliminate the problem of pucks crossing the line after a very quick whistle, but it would eliminate a lot of the problems. And if there’s a set definition for freezing the puck, maybe it would allow the refs to be more consistent in their whistling time.
by ExiledAmongYou on Dec 4, 2009 6:04 PM MST up reply actions
I think we’re making it more complicated than it really needs to be.
The review could just be “Should the ref have intended to blow the whistle or not?”
“If no, did the puck cross before he actually blew the whistle”
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 9:48 PM MST up reply actions
isn’t that what i said but in different terms?
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 5, 2009 10:47 AM MST up reply actions
I don’t think I can debate this any better. From the other posts I have read it is sounding more like everyone is wanting a situation like that reviewed.
In a sense the intent rule still gives complete control to the refs on whether a goal counts or not. I looked up the rule on NHL.com and found that with this rule the refs judgement is final. Maybe that needs to be revised so that a review can be obtained.
My intial arguement was that the NHL needs to do whatever it can to make the correct call. In this case I feel that the intent rule without any review hurts any obligation that the NHL has to make the correct call.
I don’t think I can debate this any better. From the other posts I have read it is sounding more like everyone is wanting a situation like that reviewed.
In a sense the intent rule still gives complete control to the refs on whether a goal counts or not. I looked up the rule on NHL.com and found that with this rule the refs judgement is final. Maybe that needs to be revised so that a review can be obtained.
I completely agree with you, this should be reviewable.
I don’t agree with tossing it aside, as refs will make mistakes the other way, and that a “Whistle or nothing” rule will cause the same types of problems.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 3:52 PM MST up reply actions
Agree
But the problem on BOTH of those was the referee’s use of the rule, not the rule itself. In fact, in both problems it came because the referee blew the whistle (or intended to blow the whistle) TOO quickly. Making it “when the whistle blows”only exacerbates that problem.
Changing the rule leads to a whole slew of other problems, which has even less leniency for correcting mistakes. It makes it so black and white that if you try and correct the mistake the ref made… then your handcuffed by your own rule. Making it “When the ref blows the whistle” makes refs mistakes less likely to be fixed.
Every sport allows the refs to have a delayed reaction. Basketball referees can blow the whistle and say “no shot”, football refs throw flags that allow them to discuss the foul. Soccer refs can process information. Only baseball umps have to make an indication, but even then they can say “no that ball was foul”. The call doesn’t need to be made right when the ball hits the ground.
It’s necessary because it does take moments for the brain to process incredibly complex information, and this stuff is incredibly complex fast paced stuff.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 2:46 PM MST up reply actions
Problem
If you are saying a play is dead after the whistle, then replay can’t ever change anything after the whistle, because players will stop playing anything after the whistle. If it’s a quick whistle (and there will be) you have no chance to correct that mistake.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 1:03 PM MST up reply actions
However
In this case the whistle was blown well after the puck crossed the line, it was a goal. If it had been able to be reviewed then it would have been over turned. We will never have any idea when he intended to blow the whistle we only have the sound of the whistle to signal that the play had stopped.
It was a blown call that caused the Avs at least a point, because Pittsburg couldn’t score after the second goal. The
You can actually see the refs hand moving to his mouth to blow the whistle in the replay. So I think the ref made the right call as far as intent. But he definitely “blew the call whistle”. I think that it sucks, and refs are going to screw it up from time to time. But it’s going to go in our favor too- it already has, at least once this season, although I can’t remember when. The real problem is not the “intent” rule, it’s the ref blowing the whistle too damn quick.
No amount of review is going to consistently over turn the refs, especially after a whistle blows. Otherwise, soon there will be no refs and the game will take hours and everyone will argue about it forever. You HAVE to have refs, and you can’t sit there and do thier job for them. What you CAN do is discipline them for blown calls, and make that decision public.
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
But it’s going to go in our favor too- it already has, at least once this season, although I can’t remember when.
The “Intent to Blow” rule is the reason we won one of the Detroit games, I think the one in Colorado.
Bills fan? In Colorado? It's more likely than you think.
by UZ on Dec 4, 2009 6:17 PM MST up reply actions
In this case
Yes, but not over a lot of cases. There will be a case where The ref blows the whistle and the rebound comes out to a guy wide open in front of the net who put it in, and since the refs would have a quick whistle … Then this could happen often.
Since the ref blew the quick whistle you take away a goal that never would have been taken away had you not handcuffed him.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Dec 4, 2009 2:39 PM MST up reply actions
maybe i don’t understand the rulebook. are the only “goals” subject to review those that have been ruled a goal by the ref? can toronto review something the ref ruled as not a goal?
if both the ref calling it a goal and the ref calling it a no goal are reviewable decisions, then i don’t see your point jibs. being able to review a high stick or kicking motion has not changed the way the refs call the game, has it? why would this change it then? and why would they blow a play dead sooner? i am confused.
2009-2010 Avs: a game away from being up on blocks
by BeachNSnowGirl on Dec 4, 2009 1:20 PM MST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Mile High Hockey
Related FanShots on Mile High Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
