Beware 2 Rulebooks

[Baggins]

On 12/24/2018 at 11:35 AM, spur1 said:

Yes an interference call was warranted. 

The rest was not as it was clean otherwise. 

The simple truth is it would have been a clean hit had it been timely. As it was late it's actually a cheap shot on an unsuspecting player. As I said, by the rule book, a suspension was justified. I just thought 4 games was rather harsh given it was the finals.

[WHL rocks]

On 12/19/2018 at 3:05 PM, Trebreh said:

had Virtanen done that to Hedman he would certainly get at least a phone call or a fine. Buttttt Canucks so 

I think the league and many fans including me think the game was getting a bit soft. Lately they are trying to bring a bit more physicality back into the game.. 

 

A defenseman rarely gets hit behind the net anymore. Forchecker pulls up time and time again instead of finishing the check. 

 

Problem is more of these types of hits against Stecher vs TBL and Boeser vs WPG are creeping back into the game...

 

The NHL has to bring physicality back into the game and I'm all for it..  it's was getting a bit soft for my point of view as a decades long NHL fan. 

 

But can't have these "borderline" head shots.. 

[Baggins]

12 minutes ago, WHL rocks said:

I think the league and many fans including me think the game was getting a bit soft. Lately they are trying to bring a bit more physicality back into the game.. 

 

A defenseman rarely gets hit behind the net anymore. Forchecker pulls up time and time again instead of finishing the check. 

 

Problem is more of these types of hits against Stecher vs TBL and Boeser vs WPG are creeping back into the game...

 

The NHL has to bring physicality back into the game and I'm all for it..  it's was getting a bit soft for my point of view as a decades long NHL fan. 

 

But can't have these "borderline" head shots.. 

The only way around it is to ban all head contact as they have in Europe. The result though is less hitting. You can't have it both ways. In the NHL head contact on it's own isn't illegal. It's how it happens that determines legal or not. There's always going to be a fine line there. So you have to decide whether you want the physical play to continue, and accept injuries can happen, or or ban head contact and accept a less physical game as a result.

[WHL rocks]

21 minutes ago, Baggins said:

The only way around it is to ban all head contact as they have in Europe. The result though is less hitting. You can't have it both ways. In the NHL head contact on it's own isn't illegal. It's how it happens that determines legal or not. There's always going to be a fine line there. So you have to decide whether you want the physical play to continue, and accept injuries can happen, or or ban head contact and accept a less physical game as a result.

I agree with you Baggins.  I'll take the physicality.  

 

It's very difficult for officials on ice because of the speed of the game. 

 

I posted on here about lack of physicality a little while back..  

 

For me as an old school guy the game needs physicality.. 

 

I so feel the Boeser hit was from behind and it caused wip lash. I think that should be a penalty. Doesn't have anything to do with head shot. 

 

Now Boeser does need to be aware of his surroundings but a player facing the net on the blue line getting that hit I don't agree with..  

Edited December 26, 2018 by WHL rocks

[Baggins]

4 hours ago, WHL rocks said:

I agree with you Baggins.  I'll take the physicality.  

 

It's very difficult for officials on ice because of the speed of the game. 

 

I posted on here about lack of physicality a little while back..  

 

For me as an old school guy the game needs physicality.. 

 

I so feel the Boeser hit was from behind and it caused wip lash. I think that should be a penalty. Doesn't have anything to do with head shot. 

 

Now Boeser does need to be aware of his surroundings but a player facing the net on the blue line getting that hit I don't agree with..  

I agree with you on the Boeser hit. There should have been a penalty on that play imo. But no matter how many sets of eyes are on the ice things will get missed, or will see it differently in the moment. You have to allow for human error, there's no way around it without making everything reviewable. Which of course would really slow the game down with coaches constantly demanding reviews.

 

People keep saying the players need to be protected, from concussions in particular. I'm an old school, old timer. The way I see it the players are aware of the risk and are paid very well to play. Therefore they've accepted that risk for the money they receive. I prefer the physical game as well. Therefore I accept our players can get hurt in the process as well.

[spur1]

11 hours ago, elvis15 said:

So, as stated in the rules for contact to the head, if the hit is legal apart from the head contact, then the hit is fine. Since the hit wasn't legal (due to being late) and head contact was made, it becomes more than just an interference penalty.

 

That's what people fail to understand, that there are nuances to these rules. Like in the Karlsson suspension thread, people are saying that's legal - and not even in the context of "because there was no suspension on the Stecher hit" - and a shoulder to shoulder hit. People have their ideas no how and why things are legal or not, but often they have very little understanding of the rules.

 

And that's what Baggins is trying to get across, not that the league is great about consistency or even just optics on some hits make it very tough, but that people often think their team is getting the short end of the stick. It's not some conspiracy - and even if it was, it's not all against us.

 

Careful, he'll have you crying in your oatmeal.

 

Yeah, Nux goes a little far sometimes, but this is too much even for me in this thread.

Only one problem with your scene. There was no headshot. The only thing Horton’s head hit was the ice after landing on his back and having his head whip back. 

[Duodenum]

Not to be an "out to get us" sympathiser but Travis Green (and by extension, the Canucks) win over 70% of challenges.

Meaning over 70% of the time Green things the refs/linesman are wrong, they are:

 

[elvis15]

4 hours ago, spur1 said:

Only one problem with your scene. There was no headshot. The only thing Horton’s head hit was the ice after landing on his back and having his head whip back. 

Re-read my post. I never once said headshot, and I never said what caused Horton's concussion. I said contact to the head, which is what this is:

 

From there, it's just to determine if it is a legal hit or not. As you've already said yourself, since it was interference, it was not a legal hit. And since it wasn't a legal hit, any contact to the head also becomes illegal.

 

Beyond that, I refer you back to my previous post, and one part in particular I've bolded:

16 hours ago, elvis15 said:

So, as stated in the rules for contact to the head, if the hit is legal apart from the head contact, then the hit is fine. Since the hit wasn't legal (due to being late) and head contact was made, it becomes more than just an interference penalty.

 

That's what people fail to understand, that there are nuances to these rules. Like in the Karlsson suspension thread, people are saying that's legal - and not even in the context of "because there was no suspension on the Stecher hit" - and a shoulder to shoulder hit. People have their ideas no how and why things are legal or not, but often they have very little understanding of the rules.

 

And that's what Baggins is trying to get across, not that the league is great about consistency or even just optics on some hits make it very tough, but that people often think their team is getting the short end of the stick. It's not some conspiracy - and even if it was, it's not all against us.

[The Lock]

6 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

Not to be an "out to get us" sympathiser but Travis Green (and by extension, the Canucks) win over 70% of challenges.

Meaning over 70% of the time Green things the refs/linesman are wrong, they are:

 

70% sure, but according to this we've also challenged less than 25% of the number of times other teams have challenged the refs. We challenge among the least of all teams.

 

This chart seems almost placed in a way to make Vancouver look like the world's out to get them, but look at teams like Detroit where Jeff Blashill challenges 40 times and wins less of those challenges. Green's just being smart about when he challenges according to this which is good on Green this chart doesn't really say much about the refs being "against us".

Edited December 26, 2018 by The Lock

[elvis15]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

70% sure, but according to this we've also challenged up to 25% of the number of times other teams have challenged the refs. We challenge among the least of all teams.

 

This chart seems almost placed in a way to make Vancouver look like the world's out to get them, but look at teams like Detroit where Jeff Blashill challenges 40 times and wins less of those challenges. Green's just being smart about when he challenges according to this which is good on Green this chart doesn't really say much about the refs being "against us".

If anything, that says to me the Canucks video staff is much better about quickly reviewing replays and getting smart challenges in.

[Duodenum]

26 minutes ago, The Lock said:

70% sure, but according to this we've also challenged less than 25% of the number of times other teams have challenged the refs. We challenge among the least of all teams.

 

This chart seems almost placed in a way to make Vancouver look like the world's out to get them, but look at teams like Detroit where Jeff Blashill challenges 40 times and wins less of those challenges. Green's just being smart about when he challenges according to this which is good on Green this chart doesn't really say much about the refs being "against us".

Oh I know. I'm definitely not on the side of the "out to get us" crew. 

 

Thought I'd throw some more fuel onto this fire from a graphic I found 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Here we go again. In Mtl..nothing called on that ugly little Finnish c**t, eh?

 

#riggeddeckleague doesn't care if Cdn markets drag each other down with injuries &/or dirty play. They'll call this illegal shyte a "regional rivalry", or some such crap.

Frenchie reffs didn't SEE that obvious f***ing call?! Oh..sure

 

You CAN'T beat TWO rulebooks.

[Baggins]

7 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Here we go again. In Mtl..nothing called on that ugly little Finnish c**t, eh?

 

#riggeddeckleague doesn't care if Cdn markets drag each other down with injuries &/or dirty play. They'll call this illegal shyte a "regional rivalry", or some such crap.

Frenchie reffs didn't SEE that obvious f***ing call?! Oh..sure

 

You CAN'T beat TWO rulebooks.

Canucks have gotten away with similar interference behind the play. You just don't pay attention. You see that type of interference when the play turns the other way all the time. It rarely gets called.

 

This is what Canucks coach Travis Green told reporters in Montreal about the play: “I’ve watched it a lot of times. First of all, it’s not a dirty play by their player at all. (Pettersson) gets hooked a little bit. Petey actually pushes back on him, leans back and probably tries to give a little bit of a reverse hit, and two young guys fall to the ice. It’s not a penalty.”

 

“It was a pretty innocent play,” Sutter said of the Pettersson injury.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/takeaways-pettersson-incident-not-dirty-play-eyes-canucks/

Edited January 4, 2019 by Baggins

[Nuxfanabroad]

Poor Baer..yet another example of the damaging impact of TWO Rulebooks, in the #riggeddeckleague

 

Cody MacLeod hit on Baer. NOTHING!

Some no-name for Lost Vegans?  ..NOTHING!

 

Careers get kiboshed when a league sanctions violence towards some UNfavoured outfits. F***ing unforgivable!!!

[Nuxfanabroad]

Evidence keeps adding up.

 

Getzlaf up to his old BS. Hope he gets run over by a bus.

[ButterBean]

We should be creating a team that can play both styles and adjust against different teams. Tired of the injury and refs excuse. Winners focus on winning and losers focus on losing. 

[KelownaCanucksFan]

Error oops

Edited February 15, 2019 by KelownaCanucksFan

[Nuxfanabroad]

1 hour ago, ButterBean said:

We should be creating a team that can play both styles and adjust against different teams. Tired of the injury and refs excuse. Winners focus on winning and losers focus on losing. 

Bigger team..sure. Many of us been clamouring for that a long while. But CALL the dirty crap..especially when guys ain't looking!

[spur1]

Wonder what Virt will get when he pays Gooflaff back

[brokensticks]

The discussions about 2 rule books, inconsistent refereeing and imagined conspiracy theories really all stems from one main issue. We as Canadians know and understand the game of hockey because most of us have played the game at some level. But this is big business owned by billionaires. When the NHL expanded in the late 60's and 70's, their mission was to sell the game to an uninformed audience in the USA. They originally sold the violence (e.g. Broad Street Bully era) but that was not sustainable.

Keep in mind that there will soon be 32 teams in the league and only 7 of them are in Canada. Bettman is still trying to sell a game to an American audience in an arena full of people that, very likely, have never played the game or learned how to skate. How often do you hear the arena announcer say in an excited voice "IT'S A CAROLINA HURRICANE POWER PLAY" (substitute any other US team). We don't do that in Canada because we know when it's a power play - you don't have to tell us..

During the regular season, they want lots of power plays because it adds to the excitement of the game hence the abundance of phantom calls (I saw one recently where a player stepped on an opposing players stick and there was a penalty called because, apparently, you're not allowed to have your stick on the ice). During the playoffs, we are back to selling violence.

Pipe-Dream Solution: Start our own league.