[PDSF] Edmonton Oilers (P2) vs. Los Angeles Kings (P3) | Oilers win series 4-2

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, -DLC- said:

Welcome to battling advserity, Oilers. Our team has to do it every single year with calls that often don't favour us (it's improving a lot mind you).

 

As some of our fans do point out...."good teams find a way". McDavid playing ref didn't help his team, as he stood there to make the call.

I’m still pissed about Joel Otto’s goal. Life ain’t fair. Deal with it McBaby…

[McBackup]

1 hour ago, -DLC- said:

Welcome to battling advserity, Oilers. Our team has to do it every single year with calls that often don't favour us (it's improving a lot mind you).

 

As some of our fans do point out...."good teams find a way". McDavid playing ref didn't help his team, as he stood there to make the call.

Nope the Coil are used to having everything handed to them. The moment the league doesn't bend over backwards for the Mordor team the world is ending. 

[McBackup]

I’m starting to suspect the league is going to bend over backwards for McMeme and Neon Leon next game and call everything in their favour. Par for the course when it comes to Edmonton but we wouldn’t want the orcs throwing more stuff on the ice when the series moves back to Alberta.

[DS4quality]

2 hours ago, -DLC- said:

Sure does to me.

It's still inconclusive if you ask me. The puck is already on the way down spining. Even the close up doesn't show contact

[McBackup]

4 minutes ago, DS4quality said:

It's still inconclusive if you ask me. The puck is already on the way down spining. Even the close up doesn't show contact

It does look like it was touched, but that’s the thing, it has to be 100% conclusive to overturn a goal. This is not 100% conclusive. It might be 90% or something, but that isn’t enough.
 

And that’s the thing about the playoffs too, it’s a 7 game series. It’s swings and roundabouts.

 

It’s like Calgary fans and their incessant crying about the no-goal in 2004. Conveniently ignoring that Joel Otto kicked it in against the Canucks in 89, the year they won. 

 

[DS4quality]

6 minutes ago, McBackup said:

It does look like it was touched, but that’s the thing, it has to be 100% conclusive to overturn a goal. This is not 100% conclusive. It might be 90% or something, but that isn’t enough.
 

And that’s the thing about the playoffs too, it’s a 7 game series. It’s swings and roundabouts.

 

It’s like Calgary fans and their incessant crying about the no-goal in 2004. Conveniently ignoring that Joel Otto kicked it in against the Canucks in 89, the year they won. 

 

I just honestly can't see where it's touched. It might have grazed tape, but I still don't see it. I've watched the review like 60 times now. I have no stake in the series, so it doesn't affect me any. 

But if 90% of everyone says it happened, and then there is 10% like me who just don't see it, you're absolutely right it is inconclusive and can't be overturned

[DeNiro]

13 hours ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

 

It’s because it’s not three on three where McDavid and Draisaitl thrive.

 

The lack of open ice is becoming an issue for them. 

[burrowsalex14]

If there is debate about the high stick I think it is inconclusive. 

[Boudrias]

IMHO the Oilers have outplayed LA in every game. Losing in OT should focus them.

 

My observation does not make me a Oiler fan. But if I have to cheer between LA or the Oilers I pick the Oilers. If the Oilers win the series and go up 

against the Jets then I will be cheering for the Jets. Life is simple.

 

Bottom line is that Abby knocked out the Oilers AHL team and move on to the 2nd round. Go Abby! Go Hogs!

[NewbieCanuckFan]

7 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

It’s because it’s not three on three where McDavid and Draisaitl thrive.

 

The lack of open ice is becoming an issue for them. 

I will say that didn't the league change the rules because of how successful the 80s Oilers were (re: situations where there was minor penalties made by both teams so there would be a 4 on 4; the league 'created' offsetting penalties where both players will still be sent off by it would remain a 5 on 5 situation?)

[drdeath]

Having seen more angles I’m now 100% convinced that the puck hit Villardi’s stick. But theres still more to the conversation.
 

Friedman and as a result a lot of other people have said it didn’t matter that the puck hit Ekholm because he never gained possession. However in the rule book possession is only ever mentioned with respect to the offending team that high sticked the puck. possession and control are never mentioned in the pre-requisites for a washout and play to continue.
 

The yellow below would indicate no goal but the blue immediately afterwards indicates goal.

 

It seems like we need to make a distinction between whether or not the “puck [was] struck by a high stick” which would mean no goal since it only deflected off of a defending player and possession was gathered next by the offending team or whether it was more incidentally “contacted by a high stick” which is the blue highlight and would mean it was a good goal because it was batted to an opponent. The fact that Ekholm didn’t gain possession in this blue scenario doesn’t actually mean anything the way the rule is worded. 
 

[Wise Guy]

2 hours ago, DS4quality said:

I just honestly can't see where it's touched. It might have grazed tape, but I still don't see it. I've watched the review like 60 times now. I have no stake in the series, so it doesn't affect me any. 

But if 90% of everyone says it happened, and then there is 10% like me who just don't see it, you're absolutely right it is inconclusive and can't be overturned

I think it was touched but irregardless, it had no effect on the play. The Oilers are where they are because of stupid penalties and not being able to kill them off. They need to stop making excuses and start finding a way to win

[Wise Guy]

2 minutes ago, drdeath said:

Having seen more angles I’m now 100% convinced that the puck hit Villardi’s stick. But theres still more to the conversation.
 

Friedman and as a result a lot of other people have said it didn’t matter that the puck hit Ekholm because he never gained possession. However in the rule book possession is only ever mentioned with respect to the offending team that high sticked the puck. possession and control are never mentioned in the pre-requisites for a washout and play to continue.
 

The yellow below would indicate no goal but the blue immediately afterwards indicates goal.

 

It seems like we need to make a distinction between whether or not the “puck [was] struck by a high stick” which would mean no goal since it only deflected off of a defending player and possession was gathered next by the offending team or whether it was more incidentally “contacted by a high stick” which is the blue highlight and would mean it was a good goal because it was batted to an opponent. The fact that Ekholm didn’t gain possession in this blue scenario doesn’t actually mean anything the way the rule is worded. 
 

The blue does not allow what happened if it was touched, the LA player batted (made contact) and it did not go to an opposing player so no goal(assuming it was touched).

[MaxVerstappen33]

It is typical playoff hockey. Great regular season teams rarely translate good into playoff teams. Exceptions are the Hawks and Pens

 

And good playoff teams have a hard time making the playoffs. 

 

[MaxVerstappen33]

40 minutes ago, drdeath said:

Having seen more angles I’m now 100% convinced that the puck hit Villardi’s stick. But theres still more to the conversation.
 

Friedman and as a result a lot of other people have said it didn’t matter that the puck hit Ekholm because he never gained possession. However in the rule book possession is only ever mentioned with respect to the offending team that high sticked the puck. possession and control are never mentioned in the pre-requisites for a washout and play to continue.
 

The yellow below would indicate no goal but the blue immediately afterwards indicates goal.

 

It seems like we need to make a distinction between whether or not the “puck [was] struck by a high stick” which would mean no goal since it only deflected off of a defending player and possession was gathered next by the offending team or whether it was more incidentally “contacted by a high stick” which is the blue highlight and would mean it was a good goal because it was batted to an opponent. The fact that Ekholm didn’t gain possession in this blue scenario doesn’t actually mean anything the way the rule is worded. 
 

 

It looked to me like he was trying to hit the puck. Either way, I don't see why it would have been a big deal to just call off the goal. Calling off the goal was the path of least resistance. Less controversial than letting it stand. 

[McBackup]

10 minutes ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

It looked to me like he was trying to hit the puck. Either way, I don't see why it would have been a big deal to just call off the goal. Calling off the goal was the path of least resistance. Less controversial than letting it stand. 

Because as it has been stated numerous times, in order to overturn a goal the evidence has to be 100% conclusive. I think it was probably a high stick, but I don't know that for sure, so the call stands. You don't make calls based on "path of least resistance" and the amount of controversy it will cause.

[MaxVerstappen33]

13 minutes ago, McBackup said:

Because as it has been stated numerous times, in order to overturn a goal the evidence has to be 100% conclusive. I think it was probably a high stick, but I don't know that for sure, so the call stands. You don't make calls based on "path of least resistance" and the amount of controversy it will cause.

Thats not what I meant. I think its 100% conclusive. The path of least resistance was to call it off. But they decided not to and now they are pretending that it wasn't conclusive 

[McBackup]

19 minutes ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

Thats not what I meant. I think its 100% conclusive. The path of least resistance was to call it off. But they decided not to and now they are pretending that it wasn't conclusive 

Because it isn't 100% conclusive. You are presupposing that they definitively saw that it was a high stick and declared it was a goal anyway and are now lying, rather than not being 100% sure so the call on the ice stands. They already waved off an OT goal due to a high stick in this very series, so that doesn't make sense unless you think the league is rigging the series in favour of the kings.

[CanucksJay]

I hate the oilers but I gotta say this. 

The reffing has been very one sided and shows the corrupt nature of this league. 

What's funny is hearing all these oilers fan cry about it when they were the same people laughing at us when we were getting screwed in 2011 against the Bruins. 

Anyway, this piss poor reffing has to stop. If I wanted to watch WWE, I'd go watch that. I watch hockey because it's supposed to be a sport not some rigged entertainment. 

 

 

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

Thats not what I meant. I think its 100% conclusive. The path of least resistance was to call it off. But they decided not to and now they are pretending that it wasn't conclusive 

Except it’s not 100% conclusive. Right call.