| Review:
Edmonton @ Chicago (Game #37) [message #828620] |
Tue, 09 January 2024 21:00  |
|
|
|
 |
 HamBlaster
Messages: 797
Registered: June 2007
No Cups
|
|
Gross. What a gross effort.
Skinner was the only reason why this game wasn't 8 - 5 Chicago.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
watchman
Messages: 1272
Registered: October 2019
Location: River City
1 Cup
|
|
well that was horrible. horrible that SKINNER didn't get a star. 
...this time, it's for real (isn't it?).
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Adam
Messages: 6833
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
|
|
| HamBlaster wrote on Tue, 09 January 2024 21:09 |
Gross. What a gross effort.
Skinner was the only reason why this game wasn't 8 - 5 Chicago.
|
Well, they can't all be masterpieces...
"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 #FireBobbyNicks #FireKenHolland #FireKeithGretzky
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Skookum Jim
Messages: 3913
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
3 Cups
|
|
Worst effort of the year.. a win that stinks like a loss.
stick checks.. cough ups.. gave away possession all game..
Dopey .. like a bunch of guys off the street trying to play some drop-in hockey..
[Updated on: Tue, 09 January 2024 21:16]
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,
|
|
|
|
|
 |
NZ Oiler Fan
Messages: 903
Registered: October 2006
Location: Kensington, PEI
No Cups
|
|
Fugly game, but take the 2 pts and move on.
At least we got 2 pts from a team that Calgary managed to lose to, widening our lead over them.
Too bad the OOTS didn't favour us much, but we learned last year how hard it can be to catch teams ahead of you once you get too far behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam
Messages: 6833
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
|
|
| NZ Oiler Fan wrote on Tue, 09 January 2024 21:24 |
Fugly game, but take the 2 pts and move on.
At least we got 2 pts from a team that Calgary managed to lose to, widening our lead over them.
Too bad the OOTS didn't favour us much, but we learned last year how hard it can be to catch teams ahead of you once you get too far behind.
|
This is exactly it. This is a game where you just get out of town and put it behind you. We lost several games earlier this year where we probably deserved a better fate, so there's no point spending much time on over-analyzing this and we ain't giving back the points.
What did we learn tonight? Playing down to the opponent is dangerous, and it's not good for anyone. Let's not do that again and just be happy we got away with it tonight.
My ONE real critique? The team needs to practice 6-on-5 a lot more. Is there any team worse at scoring in to empty nets than us? I swear, some of our guys feel like it's not a real point if it's in the empty cage. They need to keep that killer instinct. Just bury it. Don't be cute, and don't be over-passing it so someone else can have it. That kills us. Put it in the net and ice the game.
"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 #FireBobbyNicks #FireKenHolland #FireKeithGretzky
|
|
|
|
|
 |
inverno76
Messages: 2126
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...
2 Cups
|
|
| Adam wrote on Tue, 09 January 2024 22:05 |
| NZ Oiler Fan wrote on Tue, 09 January 2024 21:24 |
Fugly game, but take the 2 pts and move on.
At least we got 2 pts from a team that Calgary managed to lose to, widening our lead over them.
Too bad the OOTS didn't favour us much, but we learned last year how hard it can be to catch teams ahead of you once you get too far behind.
|
This is exactly it. This is a game where you just get out of town and put it behind you. We lost several games earlier this year where we probably deserved a better fate, so there's no point spending much time on over-analyzing this and we ain't giving back the points.
What did we learn tonight? Playing down to the opponent is dangerous, and it's not good for anyone. Let's not do that again and just be happy we got away with it tonight.
My ONE real critique? The team needs to practice 6-on-5 a lot more. Is there any team worse at scoring in to empty nets than us? I swear, some of our guys feel like it's not a real point if it's in the empty cage. They need to keep that killer instinct. Just bury it. Don't be cute, and don't be over-passing it so someone else can have it. That kills us. Put it in the net and ice the game.
|
My thoughts were the same after the game. That 2-9-1 stretch could’ve easily been 6-6. 2nd Vancouver loss, Jets OT loss, Wild and the Stars should’ve been ours with any goaltending. I’ll take the odd underserved win once in a while. Might be a much needed wake up call.
Save of the game was on Nuge last night. He ripped that puck.
|
|
|
|
|
NetBOG
Messages: 2868
Registered: January 2006
Location: Parts Unknown
2 Cups
|
|
Oilers move a full game up on Nashville for the 1st wildcard. Next target are the Kings who are only 4 points ahead (all Bettman Loser points).
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Kr55
Messages: 9658
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
Dickinson just carrying the Hawks on his back. Wonder if they will take Connor Brown for him. Would be a nice way to ensure the tank! Sharks are stiff competition for 32nd.
"We need to get better immediately. That starts today"
- Lowe, 2013
"Next year I would forecast as another developmental year"
- MacT, 2015
5 x $5,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
 |
tardigrade81
Messages: 1891
Registered: November 2022
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
1 Cup
|
|
Skinner on another level
|
|
|
|
|
 RDOilerfan
Messages: 3723
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
|
|
The Oilers lost several games this year where they were the better team by a mile and lost. This game, they brought their C game, give a hat tip to the Hawks as those guys played their asses off but the Oilers won the game. Whether you play your best game and win or your worst, they count exactly the same in the standings. You don't get extra for style points.
Skinner was great and won them the game. Payback for a few stinkers early in the year. The hockey gods didn't give the Oilers any breaks early on, they repaid a few breaks last night.
Once again the NHL comes out looking like clowns on the offside review. If they can allow that Makar goal a few years ago, a goal where to the naked eye, it looks 2 feet offside, how can they not allow the 3rd goal? I thought the purpose of the offside review is to make sure you don't have what happened on that Duchense goal happen again. If you have to slow the play down to frame by frame and zoom in 10 times to see if a puck is millimeters offside, that's not what the review is for. They need to make it where if you can't make the call in 1 min of review, then leave the call on the ice. If it takes you 5-10 mins to figure it out, then clearly it had zero impact on the play and is too close to call.
|
|
|
|
|
RDOilerfan
Messages: 3723
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
|
|
With how they are playing and their schedule in January, it wouldn't surprise me if the Oilers were second in the Pacific by the end of the month. They are 4 points behind the Kings and 8 points behind Vegas but have 3 games in hand on Vegas. Unreal turnaround.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
smyth260
Messages: 950
Registered: November 2007
No Cups
|
|
I’ve seen a lot of comparisons to the Makar offside challenge, even by the Spector, and it’s driving me a little crazy because people are debating the wrong thing.
The NHL is actually being consistent here with the whole possession thing. They are saying Draisaitl didn’t have possession so he was offside once he touched the puck in the zone. Draisaitl would have had to clear before touching that puck.
They also said Makar didn’t have possession. The difference was it was another player who was in the zone before the puck. That player cleared the line and then Makar touched the puck, gaining possession.
They have been consistent with their idea of possession in both plays. The difference in the Makar goal is that the offside player cleared.
The real debate in the comparison of these calls should be about:
1) What is possession? In my opinion both Makar and Draisaitl had possession, along with the McDavid OT goal that was disallowed last year.
2) Do we need offside challenges at all? That’s a no for me.
[Updated on: Wed, 10 January 2024 10:51]
Clean house or bust
|
|
|
|
|
|
tardigrade81
Messages: 1891
Registered: November 2022
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
1 Cup
|
|
Sometimes those wins happen! Not too worried about it. Skinner has been awesome for us lately. Shows we can win in every which way
Detroit will be a stronger test though. Hope we are up for the challenge tomorrow
|
|
|
|
|
RDOilerfan
Messages: 3723
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
|
|
The Oilers have been playing mostly great hockey for a long time and their turnaround is pretty amazing. As much as fans want the team to give it their best every night, it's impossible for any team to play their best game every night. So if they are going to have a bad game, best to do it against a very bad team that was depleted and get the win.
I'm expecting a better effort against the Wings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam
Messages: 6833
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
|
|
| smyth260 wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 10:48 |
2) Do we need offside challenges at all? That’s a no for me.
|
If I had my way, I would scrap both offside and goaltending interference reviews. I don't think they're good for the game. They both only take goals off the board. I'm fine with a level of human error, especially when we're talking about skates being a millimeter over the line. Will you get a ridiculous Duchene goal? Yep, eventually it'll happen but it's a once in a decade mistake that the league can take up with its officials.
Goalie interference - I think that's gamesmanship and players should be able to push that boundary with the refs relied upon to make the call in real time, not to wipe out goals because of incidental contact.
If you have to have the reviews, I think it should be the war room making the call so there's a greater level of consistency. Having individual refs make calls while watching the video on an iPad? It is ridiculous.
"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 #FireBobbyNicks #FireKenHolland #FireKeithGretzky
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7642
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
| Adam wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 11:05 |
| smyth260 wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 10:48 |
2) Do we need offside challenges at all? That’s a no for me.
|
If I had my way, I would scrap both offside and goaltending interference reviews. I don't think they're good for the game. They both only take goals off the board. I'm fine with a level of human error, especially when we're talking about skates being a millimeter over the line. Will you get a ridiculous Duchene goal? Yep, eventually it'll happen but it's a once in a decade mistake that the league can take up with its officials.
Goalie interference - I think that's gamesmanship and players should be able to push that boundary with the refs relied upon to make the call in real time, not to wipe out goals because of incidental contact.
If you have to have the reviews, I think it should be the war room making the call so there's a greater level of consistency. Having individual refs make calls while watching the video on an iPad? It is ridiculous.
|
The NHL needs to have these ridiculous reviews. No one in that organization has the wherewithal to stand in front of a mic and say they accept the human element in the game and no one cares about the endless whining of partisans who don't get their way.
Personally I'd like to see game speed only reviews that are done in 90 seconds or less. I want the (hilarious) Duchene goal called back, but I don't particular care about slow motion millimeters or the debates about what constitutes possession. Of course my desired solution is getting rid of offsides entirely and creating an 'over and back' rule.
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
RDOilerfan
Messages: 3723
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
|
|
| CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 11:25 |
| Adam wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 11:05 |
| smyth260 wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 10:48 |
2) Do we need offside challenges at all? That’s a no for me.
|
If I had my way, I would scrap both offside and goaltending interference reviews. I don't think they're good for the game. They both only take goals off the board. I'm fine with a level of human error, especially when we're talking about skates being a millimeter over the line. Will you get a ridiculous Duchene goal? Yep, eventually it'll happen but it's a once in a decade mistake that the league can take up with its officials.
Goalie interference - I think that's gamesmanship and players should be able to push that boundary with the refs relied upon to make the call in real time, not to wipe out goals because of incidental contact.
If you have to have the reviews, I think it should be the war room making the call so there's a greater level of consistency. Having individual refs make calls while watching the video on an iPad? It is ridiculous.
|
The NHL needs to have these ridiculous reviews. No one in that organization has the wherewithal to stand in front of a mic and say they accept the human element in the game and no one cares about the endless whining of partisans who don't get their way.
Personally I'd like to see game speed only reviews that are done in 90 seconds or less. I want the (hilarious) Duchene goal called back, but I don't particular care about slow motion millimeters or the debates about what constitutes possession. Of course my desired solution is getting rid of offsides entirely and creating an 'over and back' rule.
|
I completely agree. They should be concerned about getting the blatantly obvious missed calls right. If a player is feet offside, you can see that in game speed in 90 seconds. If he's millimeters offside and you miss it, oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
RDOilerfan
Messages: 3723
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
|
|
If they want to keep reviews, I would make it so you can't zoom in to the play. Refs/linesmen can't zoom the play in when they make calls so if you can't tell what is happening without zooming it in, then it's too close to call.
I'd also limit the review time. The NHL tells everyone they have the best officials in the world and we need to trust their decisions. They are making the decisions in split seconds without the aid of multiple camera angles, without the ability to slow the play down to second by second and without zooming in. So asking us to trust the officials on the ice using the human factor but then when a review happens, using technology the officials don't get to use during game action makes no sense to me. The point of a review should be to get the missed calls that should have been blatantly obvious. You shouldn't need zoomed in views and slowed down images to see the blatantly obvious and it shouldn't take you 10 mins to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam
Messages: 6833
Registered: August 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
6 Cups
|
|
| RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 11:32 |
If they want to keep reviews, I would make it so you can't zoom in to the play. Refs/linesmen can't zoom the play in when they make calls so if you can't tell what is happening without zooming it in, then it's too close to call.
I'd also limit the review time. The NHL tells everyone they have the best officials in the world and we need to trust their decisions. They are making the decisions in split seconds without the aid of multiple camera angles, without the ability to slow the play down to second by second and without zooming in. So asking us to trust the officials on the ice using the human factor but then when a review happens, using technology the officials don't get to use during game action makes no sense to me. The point of a review should be to get the missed calls that should have been blatantly obvious. You shouldn't need zoomed in views and slowed down images to see the blatantly obvious and it shouldn't take you 10 mins to see it.
|
That would be fine - tell the refs they can review it but only at game speed. No slow-motion, no super-zoom. If they miss by a fraction of a centimeter, oh well. Although the NHL would hate that because someone would score an important goal, and the tv network would blow it up and show that they were a fraction of a centimeter off-side and argue that shouldn't count.
"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 #FireBobbyNicks #FireKenHolland #FireKeithGretzky
|
|
|
|
|
|
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7642
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
| Adam wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 14:41 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 11:32 |
If they want to keep reviews, I would make it so you can't zoom in to the play. Refs/linesmen can't zoom the play in when they make calls so if you can't tell what is happening without zooming it in, then it's too close to call.
I'd also limit the review time. The NHL tells everyone they have the best officials in the world and we need to trust their decisions. They are making the decisions in split seconds without the aid of multiple camera angles, without the ability to slow the play down to second by second and without zooming in. So asking us to trust the officials on the ice using the human factor but then when a review happens, using technology the officials don't get to use during game action makes no sense to me. The point of a review should be to get the missed calls that should have been blatantly obvious. You shouldn't need zoomed in views and slowed down images to see the blatantly obvious and it shouldn't take you 10 mins to see it.
|
That would be fine - tell the refs they can review it but only at game speed. No slow-motion, no super-zoom. If they miss by a fraction of a centimeter, oh well. Although the NHL would hate that because someone would score an important goal, and the tv network would blow it up and show that they were a fraction of a centimeter off-side and argue that shouldn't count.
|
The worst part about all of this is every review and reversed call only serves to undermine official authority. The second worst part is everyone questioning the 50/50 goalie interference and millimeter offside calls removes the focus from the ref decisions that destroy the game: The cowardly game management calls.
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
inverno76
Messages: 2126
Registered: September 2005
Location: Prince Albert, Saskatchew...
2 Cups
|
|
| CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 15:16 |
| Adam wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 14:41 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 11:32 |
If they want to keep reviews, I would make it so you can't zoom in to the play. Refs/linesmen can't zoom the play in when they make calls so if you can't tell what is happening without zooming it in, then it's too close to call.
I'd also limit the review time. The NHL tells everyone they have the best officials in the world and we need to trust their decisions. They are making the decisions in split seconds without the aid of multiple camera angles, without the ability to slow the play down to second by second and without zooming in. So asking us to trust the officials on the ice using the human factor but then when a review happens, using technology the officials don't get to use during game action makes no sense to me. The point of a review should be to get the missed calls that should have been blatantly obvious. You shouldn't need zoomed in views and slowed down images to see the blatantly obvious and it shouldn't take you 10 mins to see it.
|
That would be fine - tell the refs they can review it but only at game speed. No slow-motion, no super-zoom. If they miss by a fraction of a centimeter, oh well. Although the NHL would hate that because someone would score an important goal, and the tv network would blow it up and show that they were a fraction of a centimeter off-side and argue that shouldn't count.
|
The worst part about all of this is every review and reversed call only serves to undermine official authority. The second worst part is everyone questioning the 50/50 goalie interference and millimeter offside calls removes the focus from the ref decisions that destroy the game: The cowardly game management calls.
|
The best part is the offside challenges have brought Adam and RDF to an unexpected agreement. 2024 may be a year of miracles. Plan the parade!! TSN turning point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7642
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
| inverno76 wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 15:21 |
| CrusaderPi wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 15:16 |
| Adam wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 14:41 |
| RDOilerfan wrote on Wed, 10 January 2024 11:32 |
If they want to keep reviews, I would make it so you can't zoom in to the play. Refs/linesmen can't zoom the play in when they make calls so if you can't tell what is happening without zooming it in, then it's too close to call.
I'd also limit the review time. The NHL tells everyone they have the best officials in the world and we need to trust their decisions. They are making the decisions in split seconds without the aid of multiple camera angles, without the ability to slow the play down to second by second and without zooming in. So asking us to trust the officials on the ice using the human factor but then when a review happens, using technology the officials don't get to use during game action makes no sense to me. The point of a review should be to get the missed calls that should have been blatantly obvious. You shouldn't need zoomed in views and slowed down images to see the blatantly obvious and it shouldn't take you 10 mins to see it.
|
That would be fine - tell the refs they can review it but only at game speed. No slow-motion, no super-zoom. If they miss by a fraction of a centimeter, oh well. Although the NHL would hate that because someone would score an important goal, and the tv network would blow it up and show that they were a fraction of a centimeter off-side and argue that shouldn't count.
|
The worst part about all of this is every review and reversed call only serves to undermine official authority. The second worst part is everyone questioning the 50/50 goalie interference and millimeter offside calls removes the focus from the ref decisions that destroy the game: The cowardly game management calls.
|
The best part is the offside challenges have brought Adam and RDF to an unexpected agreement. 2024 may be a year of miracles. Plan the parade!! TSN turning point.
|
I like that we're all taking the time to grow. It's kind of inspiring.
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
RDOilerfan
Messages: 3723
Registered: January 2016
3 Cups
|
|
I am all for getting calls right but what I hate about the review process is it involves nothing about how the game is actually called and it I think makes it seem like the refs/linesmen are screw ups. I'm never one for sticking up for the refs/linesmen but generally, they get most calls right especially the linesmen. With the speed of the game, they don't miss very many. So to use video and slow it down to frame by frame and zooming in so you can see a puck be offside by an inch then reversing the call on the ice and telling everyone "the linesmen made a mistake" when in reality that puck is probably moving across that line at 30+ miles per hour, with sticks and legs all over the place, seems unfair to me for the linesmen.
So watching it in real time should be how they do it because that's how it's called on the ice. They should also make so the video coaches for teams are only able to request for a review using real time. If the video coach had to tell the head coach a play is offside only using real time video, you'd only see the blatantly obvious ones.
[Updated on: Wed, 10 January 2024 15:46]
|
|
|
|
