| Review:
Tampa Bay @ Edmonton (Game #28) [message #839436] |
Tue, 10 December 2024 21:30  |
|
|
|
 |
 tardigrade81
Messages: 2330
Registered: November 2022
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
2 Cups
|
|
That was tense. Tampa really pushed and the refs weren't giving us any favors. What a win though. We needed that going into Minnesota in two days.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Kr55
Messages: 10828
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
Oooh, caught the end, some good action. Jack and Louie obsessing about a puck crossing the line after it was touched by a super high stick that would negate the goal anyways, lol.
Skinner outduels Vaselineski. Keep it up Stu.
[Updated on: Tue, 10 December 2024 21:43]
"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
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Mike
Messages: 1402
Registered: August 2005
Location: Moncton, New Brunswick
1 Cup
|
|
| Kr55 wrote on Wed, 11 December 2024 00:42 |
Oooh, caught the end, some good action. Jack and Louie obsessing about a puck crossing the line after it was touched by a super high stick that would negate the goal anyways, lol.
|
So did I understand correctly that you can bat the puck out of the air with a high stick, and as long as it hits an opposing player before going in the net, it's good? I don't think I ever heard that before.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Perkele
Messages: 226
Registered: July 2006
Location: St. Catharines
No Cups
|
|
My interpretation of that rule (although I absolutely could be wrong) is that if you bat a puck with a high stick and it is going to go into the net then the goal will not count (even if a defender or goalie touches it on the way in) but if it is highsticked but is not going to go into the net but then is hit by an opposing player to change the trajectory of the puck so that it now goes into the net then the goal will count. So last night, the high stick was pushing the puck from above the net to the crease area (would not have gone in the net on its own) but then it bounced of Nurse (or maybe Skinner) and changed direction. So if it was seen to cross the line (thankfully it wasn't) then it would have been a good goal.
Someone please correct me if my thoughts are wrong.
#teamBath(i)robe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kr55
Messages: 10828
Registered: May 2002
Location: Edmonton
6 Cups
|
|
| Perkele wrote on Wed, 11 December 2024 08:18 |
My interpretation of that rule (although I absolutely could be wrong) is that if you bat a puck with a high stick and it is going to go into the net then the goal will not count (even if a defender or goalie touches it on the way in) but if it is highsticked but is not going to go into the net but then is hit by an opposing player to change the trajectory of the puck so that it now goes into the net then the goal will count. So last night, the high stick was pushing the puck from above the net to the crease area (would not have gone in the net on its own) but then it bounced of Nurse (or maybe Skinner) and changed direction. So if it was seen to cross the line (thankfully it wasn't) then it would have been a good goal.
Someone please correct me if my thoughts are wrong.
|
I thought that a change of possession was what would cancel out the high stick. An Oilers player would need to have some level of control over the puck, which was not really possible in that situation. A high stick leading to a deflection that goes in is still not a goal. I don't think there was any way that goal would count.
80.3 Disallowed Goal – When an attacking player causes the puck to
enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of
the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the
goal shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck
makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick
at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal
shall be allowed.
A goal scored as a result of a defending player striking the puck
with his stick carried above the height of the crossbar of the goal
frame into his own goal shall be allowed.
[Updated on: Wed, 11 December 2024 09:34]
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perkele
Messages: 226
Registered: July 2006
Location: St. Catharines
No Cups
|
|
| Kr55 wrote on Wed, 11 December 2024 11:29 |
| Perkele wrote on Wed, 11 December 2024 08:18 |
My interpretation of that rule (although I absolutely could be wrong) is that if you bat a puck with a high stick and it is going to go into the net then the goal will not count (even if a defender or goalie touches it on the way in) but if it is highsticked but is not going to go into the net but then is hit by an opposing player to change the trajectory of the puck so that it now goes into the net then the goal will count. So last night, the high stick was pushing the puck from above the net to the crease area (would not have gone in the net on its own) but then it bounced of Nurse (or maybe Skinner) and changed direction. So if it was seen to cross the line (thankfully it wasn't) then it would have been a good goal.
Someone please correct me if my thoughts are wrong.
|
I thought that a change of possession was what would cancel out the high stick. An Oilers player would need to have some level of control over the puck, which was not really possible in that situation. A high stick leading to a deflection that goes in is still not a goal. I don't think there was any way that goal would count.
80.3 Disallowed Goal – When an attacking player causes the puck to
enter the opponent’s goal by contacting the puck above the height of
the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the
goal shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck
makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick
at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal
shall be allowed.
A goal scored as a result of a defending player striking the puck
with his stick carried above the height of the crossbar of the goal
frame into his own goal shall be allowed.
|
Yeah, I think your interpretation is correct after reading the rule you posted. Thanks for the info.
#teamBath(i)robe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perkele
Messages: 226
Registered: July 2006
Location: St. Catharines
No Cups
|
|
On a somewhat unrelated note, I wanted to take a minute to complain about the offside rule that cost us a goal in the first period. I know that according to the rules it was the right call so I am not complaining about the calls last night. I think a pretty easy fix for the offside taking a goal off the board rule would be to say if the defensive team gains possession of the puck the ability to challenge the offside goes away. Anyhow, just my 2 cents.
#teamBath(i)robe
|
|
|
|
|
 |
CrusaderPi
Messages: 7814
Registered: December 2003
Location: AB Highway 100
6 Cups
|
|
What are we gaining with even having an offside rule? Why do we care what order the puck and players cross a certain line? All this angst. All this drama. All this minutia. For what? What's the benefit here?
Please do not feed the bears. Feeding the bears creates a dependent population unable to survive on their own. Bears.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
oilfan94
Messages: 418
Registered: June 2006
Location: USA
No Cups
|
|
| Perkele wrote on Wed, 11 December 2024 12:21 |
On a somewhat unrelated note, I wanted to take a minute to complain about the offside rule that cost us a goal in the first period. I know that according to the rules it was the right call so I am not complaining about the calls last night. I think a pretty easy fix for the offside taking a goal off the board rule would be to say if the defensive team gains possession of the puck the ability to challenge the offside goes away. Anyhow, just my 2 cents.
|
I think it should be based on if the goal was scored as a result of the entry. Did the opposing team have ample time to clear the zone? 30+ seconds later is too long. All the players kept playing like normal and Tampa couldn't get the puck, and that is their fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad our guys came out on top and it didn't go to overtime and keep me up pass my bedtime. Cheers all.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Skookum Jim
Messages: 4432
Registered: March 2006
Location: Burnaby, BC
4 Cups
|
|
Good game overall.. the one goal against was on Bouchard.. got a glimpse of maybe why he wasn't picked for Team Canada.. TC can't afford to have unforced Grade A mistakes like that.. he's still on his career path..
McDAVID! Oh YEAH Baby!! (Thank you Lord!)
Tic-Tac-Tao!
Keep on Rockin' in the Free World
|
|
|
|
|
|
tardigrade81
Messages: 2330
Registered: November 2022
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
2 Cups
|
|
| Skookum Jim wrote on Wed, 11 December 2024 08:00 |
Good game overall.. the one goal against was on Bouchard.. got a glimpse of maybe why he wasn't picked for Team Canada.. TC can't afford to have unforced Grade A mistakes like that.. he's still on his career path..
|
Wild next
Anyone else scared ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
oilfan94
Messages: 418
Registered: June 2006
Location: USA
No Cups
|
|
Crazy that this is only our 3rd win this season when scoring less than 4 goals, and our first win when scoring only 2 goals. I wonder what the metrics are like that for other teams.
|
|
|
|
