• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2018-2019 NHL Thread – Thunderstorm Warning

Probably would have been smart for the NHL to define continuous play.

Because no one stopping because of the whistle could easily be interpreted as such
 
pourdeac said:
No, I can read just fine. Continuous play means no one else touches the puck. Sissons would have gotten credit for scoring a goal had the whistle not blown...which is a new play.....it's called "a shot" afterall. Said rule was put in place to avoid situations where the goalie didn't really stop **a shot** on goal but the whistle blew.
Click to expand...

Your bias is showing. It's okay, as Pens fans go you aren't too bad. I do agree that the NHL should have defined "continuous play".
 
zqglass said:
Your bias is showing. It's okay, as Pens fans go you aren't too bad. I do agree that the NHL should have defined "continuous play".
Click to expand...
Explaining how the rules work is bias? LOL. Me thinks it's the other way around given the insistence that the NHL has to explain obvious rules and the call didn't exactly generate any blowback during the broadcast which would have happened had it been wrong...but I'll take the "not too bad".
 
pourdeac said:
Explaining how the rules work is bias? LOL. Me thinks it's the other way around given the insistence that the NHL has to explain obvious rules and the call didn't exactly generate any blowback during the broadcast which would have happened had it been wrong...but I'll take the "not too bad".
Click to expand...

We can both agree that the finals officiating as a whole was pretty terrible. From game 1-6.
 
Rule interpretation aside, how do you not auto review every play in which a goal is scored, is disallowed, or one team claims should have been a goal?
 
Buttermaker said:
Rule interpretation aside, how do you not auto review every play in which a goal is scored, is disallowed, or one team claims should have been a goal?
Click to expand...
Because when someone slapshots the puck into the net it doesn't need review? Otherwise, all non-obvious goals get reviewed and a coach can challenge certain calls. What is wrong with that?
 
Last edited:
pourdeac said:
Because when someone snapshots the puck into the net it doesn't need review? Otherwise, all non-obvious goals get reviewed and a coach can challenge certain calls. What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Clearly the non goal in the Preds game needed review, wouldn't you agree? Or do you think the refs got that one right?
 
Spot the Wonder said:
Marc Andre Fleury has waived his no movement clause and will be exposed in the expansion draft. It's all over for him in Pittsburgh.
Click to expand...

Not at all surprising. Would have been shitty on his part to not allow the team to do that, because Murray certainly would have been taken. Fleury will almost certainly be taken, though I don't know what his contract situation is. I can't imagine a better goalie being made available, though.
 
Buttermaker said:
Rule interpretation aside, how do you not auto review every play in which a goal is scored, is disallowed, or one team claims should have been a goal?
Click to expand...

Every goal, or potential goal, is reviewed by the league office. Remember when they stopped the game in order to award a goal in Game 4? Everything is looked at, they just don't pause unless there looks like there might be an issue. They also don't check things like offside or goalie interference on replay unless the play is challenged. I agree that the game 6 non-goal was not at all affected by the quick whistle, but unfortunately, the rule doesn't work that way. The linesman made a bad call to blow the whistle, and it may have cost the Perds the game. Hopefully they will address this in the offseason, like they did with the foot in the crease rule after it was not called on the Sabers-Stars finals.
 
redwing42 said:
Every goal, or potential goal, is reviewed by the league office. Remember when they stopped the game in order to award a goal in Game 4? Everything is looked at, they just don't pause unless there looks like there might be an issue. They also don't check things like offside or goalie interference on replay unless the play is challenged. I agree that the game 6 non-goal was not at all affected by the quick whistle, but unfortunately, the rule doesn't work that way. The linesman made a bad call to blow the whistle, and it may have cost the Perds the game. Hopefully they will address this in the offseason, like they did with the foot in the crease rule after it was not called on the Sabers-Stars finals.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. Damn, taking me back with that Stars cup reference. My friends from buffalo still have nightmares about that! At least they were screwed in the name of progress. A little trivia: who won finals MVP for the stars that year?
 
zqglass said:
I hope you're right. Damn, taking me back with that Stars cup reference. My friends from buffalo still have nightmares about that! At least they were screwed in the name of progress. A little trivia: who won finals MVP for the stars that year?
Click to expand...

Nieuwendyk baby!

I hated trading Igninla at the time, but it was clearly worth it.
 
It is not defined in the rulebook though (I PDF searched for it, #nerdalert).

Only took the NHL two days to address it. Par for the course
 
b634eb6029492e359d4782bc2117a014.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top