This day on July 5
Acquired: Scott Ferguson (2000) Allan Rourke (2007)
Departed: Georges Laraque (2006) Jaroslav Spacek (2006) Jan Hejda (2007)

Happy Birthday To: anm8r, shannon23, homeof99, DanW91

F.A.Q. Terms of Use F.A.Q. F.A.Q.
Members Members   Search Search     Register Register   Login Login   Home Home
 Oilers » GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6)Pages (4): [ «  <  1  2  3  4]
Switch to flat viewSwitch to tree viewCreate a new topicSubmit Reply
 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806129 is a reply to message #805971 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 02:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 8467
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

Oh.. and another thing..

The NHL HQ goalie interference reviews have been so inconsistent, no one seems to know exactly what interference is.. its like spinning a roulette wheel.. teams can't challenge without a real risk of getting a minor..

If the NHL is going to be so inconsistent with goalie interference judgements, then there shouldn't be a penalty for losing a challenge. Instead, teams should get a challenge without risk of a 2 minute minor, a lost challenge should just be the loss of the challenge.. JMHO



McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806145 is a reply to message #806129 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 09:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dragon_Matt  is currently offline Dragon_Matt
Messages: 492
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton

No Cups

but we won in spite of that. Just sit back and celebrate Kane's Hat-trick.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806151 is a reply to message #806129 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 11:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike  is currently offline Mike
Messages: 4837
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

4 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 05:39

Oh.. and another thing..

The NHL HQ goalie interference reviews have been so inconsistent, no one seems to know exactly what interference is.. its like spinning a roulette wheel.. teams can't challenge without a real risk of getting a minor..

If the NHL is going to be so inconsistent with goalie interference judgements, then there shouldn't be a penalty for losing a challenge. Instead, teams should get a challenge without risk of a 2 minute minor, a lost challenge should just be the loss of the challenge.. JMHO



Wasn't that the case when challenges first came in? You should get at least 1 if not 2 freebies without risk of a penalty. If you win the challenge, you don't lose your freebies. If you lose, you lose the freebie, and if you're out of freebies, then you get a penalty.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806153 is a reply to message #806151 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 12:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dragon_Matt  is currently offline Dragon_Matt
Messages: 492
Registered: January 2009
Location: edmonton

No Cups

Your first lost challenge should lose your timeout. 2nd lost challenge delay of game.


Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806155 is a reply to message #806153 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 12:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike  is currently offline Mike
Messages: 4837
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick

4 Cups

Dragon_Matt wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 15:13

Your first lost challenge should lose your timeout. 2nd lost challenge delay of game.


Sure, that would work. I've heard about the worry about the time it takes, but 1) they used to take excessively long amount of time to review a limited number of angles and 2) they do seem to have gotten a lot quicker about it, so non issue for me as a fan.



Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806174 is a reply to message #806155 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 16:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 17835
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 12:24

Dragon_Matt wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 15:13

Your first lost challenge should lose your timeout. 2nd lost challenge delay of game.


Sure, that would work. I've heard about the worry about the time it takes, but 1) they used to take excessively long amount of time to review a limited number of angles and 2) they do seem to have gotten a lot quicker about it, so non issue for me as a fan.


Honestly, I expect we were screwed anyhow. If they had won that it wasn't goalie interference, they still need to win that it's in before the whistle goes. I don't believe it was. Thankfully that wasn't the deciding goal.



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireChiarelli #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland #FireTippett

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806175 is a reply to message #806151 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 16:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 8467
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

Mike wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 10:50

Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 05:39

Oh.. and another thing..

The NHL HQ goalie interference reviews have been so inconsistent, no one seems to know exactly what interference is.. its like spinning a roulette wheel.. teams can't challenge without a real risk of getting a minor..

If the NHL is going to be so inconsistent with goalie interference judgements, then there shouldn't be a penalty for losing a challenge. Instead, teams should get a challenge without risk of a 2 minute minor, a lost challenge should just be the loss of the challenge.. JMHO



Wasn't that the case when challenges first came in? You should get at least 1 if not 2 freebies without risk of a penalty. If you win the challenge, you don't lose your freebies. If you lose, you lose the freebie, and if you're out of freebies, then you get a penalty.


I think they did.. but teams were using it as faint hopes on goals against.. primarily for off-sides.. which started to bog down the games.. then they put a price on it for being wrong.. a minor.. but they lumped in goaltender interference as well, which isn't logical.. one directly affects a goal.. the other.. sometimes an inch offside.. usually doesn't.. so in that case a penalty for a wrong challenge is fair.. but goaltender interference is different.. it can be the direct cause of a goal..

[Updated on: Fri, 13 May 2022 16:06]


McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806185 is a reply to message #806175 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 17:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 15299
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 16:05

Mike wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 10:50

Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 05:39

Oh.. and another thing..

The NHL HQ goalie interference reviews have been so inconsistent, no one seems to know exactly what interference is.. its like spinning a roulette wheel.. teams can't challenge without a real risk of getting a minor..

If the NHL is going to be so inconsistent with goalie interference judgements, then there shouldn't be a penalty for losing a challenge. Instead, teams should get a challenge without risk of a 2 minute minor, a lost challenge should just be the loss of the challenge.. JMHO



Wasn't that the case when challenges first came in? You should get at least 1 if not 2 freebies without risk of a penalty. If you win the challenge, you don't lose your freebies. If you lose, you lose the freebie, and if you're out of freebies, then you get a penalty.


I think they did.. but teams were using it as faint hopes on goals against.. primarily for off-sides.. which started to bog down the games.. then they put a price on it for being wrong.. a minor.. but they lumped in goaltender interference as well, which isn't logical.. one directly affects a goal.. the other.. sometimes an inch offside.. usually doesn't.. so in that case a penalty for a wrong challenge is fair.. but goaltender interference is different.. it can be the direct cause of a goal..

I like it being a risky decision. It punishes teams that don’t have good systems and people working behind the scenes. It’s the NHL, nothing should be easy.

No chance that goal was counting. Once the ref thinks about blowing it dead, she dead. The ref buggered up. Thats incompetence, not conspiracy.



East of the Rockies and west of the rest.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806190 is a reply to message #806185 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 20:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Skookum Jim  is currently offline Skookum Jim
Messages: 8467
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 16:34


No chance that goal was counting. Once the ref thinks about blowing it dead, she dead. The ref buggered up. Thats incompetence, not conspiracy.



Not conspiracy, bias.



McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!!
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
P. Chiarelli math.. T. Hall = A. Larsson, Yak= bag o'pucks (OK he got one right...) K. Russell = $4.1 M+NMC, G. Reinhart= M. Barzal + A. Beauvillier, J. Eberle = R. Spooner,

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806198 is a reply to message #806190 ]
Fri, 13 May 2022 23:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CrusaderPi  is currently offline CrusaderPi
Messages: 15299
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100

6 Cups

Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 20:42

CrusaderPi wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 16:34


No chance that goal was counting. Once the ref thinks about blowing it dead, she dead. The ref buggered up. Thats incompetence, not conspiracy.



Not conspiracy, bias.

its the same thing.

No one cares enough about Edmonton or the Oilers to be against us. We watch a bottom tier hockey club that no one thinks about except to laugh at.



East of the Rockies and west of the rest.

Send a private message to this user  

 Re: GDT: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6) [message #806236 is a reply to message #806198 ]
Sat, 14 May 2022 17:28 Go to previous message
Adam  is currently offline Adam
Messages: 17835
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB

6 Cups

CrusaderPi wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 23:00

Skookum Jim wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 20:42

CrusaderPi wrote on Fri, 13 May 2022 16:34


No chance that goal was counting. Once the ref thinks about blowing it dead, she dead. The ref buggered up. Thats incompetence, not conspiracy.



Not conspiracy, bias.

its the same thing.

No one cares enough about Edmonton or the Oilers to be against us. We watch a bottom tier hockey club that no one thinks about except to laugh at.


I could see the occasional ref having an issue with the Oilers or with superstars in general. I could even see some refs being dirty and getting paid to help push certain outcomes for gamblers.

I don't think it's a keep-the-Oilers down conspiracy though, and I think you're right - it's a combination of incompetent officiating coupled with stupid unclear direction from the league. They basically have instructed their officials not to call a certain amount of penalties - so how the refs decide where that line actually is is extremely difficult to understand. With two refs on the ice, potentially with different standards in mind, it is even harder to figure out what is and isn't a penalty in the NHL.

I will say, Game 7 of the playoffs tends to be when the NHL instructs their guys to call the absolute least, so expect some level of frustration tonight.



"Thinking that a bad team's best players are the reason the team is bad is the "Tambellini re-signing Lennart Petrell" of sports opinions." @Woodguy55
#FireLowe #FireChiarelli #FireBobbyNicks #FireKeithGretzky #FireKenHolland #FireTippett

Send a private message to this user  

Pages (4): [ «  <  1  2  3  4]  
Previous Topic:Pregame: Los Angeles @ Edmonton (Game #7)
Next Topic:Review: Edmonton @ Los Angeles (Game #6)
Oilers NHL Minors Speculation For Sale 


Copyright © OilFans.com 1996-2022.
All content is property of OilFans.com and cannot be used without expressed, written consent from this site.
Questions, comments and suggestions can be directed to oilfans@OilFans.com
Privacy Statement


Hosted by LogicalHosting.ca