GDT [RS #50] Rangers vs Calgary Flames — Back to the Grind

[jamsim1967]

52 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

How about we go back to 1 point apiece after 60, and be done with all the circus bullshit.  Save OT for the playoffs where it used to be a novelty.

 

The shootout does nothing for me, but I know some people like it.

3 on 3, and the shootout are just gimmicks, which the league doesn't and has never needed. If they feel they need, or want overtime, just go back to 4 on 4. More than enough open ice. 

[Ozzy]

12 minutes ago, jamsim1967 said:

Exactly. He allowed (intentionally) the puck to hit his skate, and pushed his skate forward into the goal. Anybody whose played soccer knows that's a shot, and not a deflection, which is why the rule was put in place. He had nothing to lose. Do it, and let the referees, and Toronto decide.

 

I saw the same thing, Jam.  I think they blew that one, but I'm not surprised either. 

 

Gimme back those days of Dave Newell, Ron Wicks, Andy Van Hellemond, and Wally Harris!!!  With linesmen like John D'Amico and Ray Scapinello!!  Those guys did it with 3 guys and got most of it right...without replay!

[Ozzy]

4 minutes ago, jamsim1967 said:

3 on 3, and the shootout are just gimmicks, which the league doesn't and has never needed. If they feel they need, or want overtime, just go back to 4 on 4. More than enough open ice. 

 

I still think they had it right all along with the 1 point apiece for a tie after 60.  The game was fine the way it was, in my opinion.  All this extra-curricular bullshit with the 3v3 and the shootout??  I don't like that skills crap....save that shit for the All-Star game.

 

I always figured less is more with the NHL.

[jamsim1967]

6 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

 

I saw the same thing, Jam.  I think they blew that one, but I'm not surprised either. 

 

Gimme back those days of Dave Newell, Ron Wicks, Andy Van Hellemond, and Wally Harris!!!  With linesmen like John D'Amico and Ray Scapinello!!  Those guys did it with 3 guys and got most of it right...without replay!

When it took them 5 minutes to make a decision, you knew something was wrong. The call of no goal should have been made on the ice. Video has made the referees lazy, knowing that video will get them off the hook ... "Don't blame me, that call was made in Toronto"

[Sharpshooter]

That was one of the worst calls I've seen. Was I surprised it was called a goal? Hell no. I have zero faith in the referees and the NHL offices. These last couple of years with these calls and the Rangers have been pretty brutal.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Sharpshooter

[Ozzy]

1 minute ago, jamsim1967 said:

When it took them 5 minutes to make a decision, you knew something was wrong. The call of no goal should have been made on the ice. Video has made the referees lazy, knowing that video will get them off the hook ... "Don't blame me, that call was made in Toronto"

 

@Keirik said the same thing.  I texted him with "NO GOAL", and once it started taking a while, he said..."this is taking too long".  I knew we were getting the wet-willie!  LOL

[phillyb]

11 hours ago, phillyb said:

It’s gonna count

 

11 hours ago, phillyb said:

He 100% kicks it, not even accidentally on purpose. But it’s gonna count 

 

Just gonna pat myself on the back for these lol. The NHL needs a lot of rule changes and this is one of them. 
I wouldn't be surprised to hear in 10 years that a letter was sent to the refs/owners in the middle of the season that says, "we're gonna stop caring about the kicking motion rule" a la skate-in-crease in '99 lol. 

[jamsim1967]

7 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

 

I still think they had it right all along with the 1 point apiece for a tie after 60.  The game was fine the way it was, in my opinion.  All this extra-curricular bullshit with the 3v3 and the shootout??  I don't like that skills crap....save that shit for the All-Star game.

 

I always figured less is more with the NHL.

I don't even watch the all star game anymore. I don't need to see skills, or goals that would never be allowed to happen on the ice in a REAL game, and when you've got goalies, supposed to be the best of the best, giving up 10 goals, why bother? But it's all in fun, right? It's not for me.

[phillyb]

11 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

 

 

It makes me so stupidly and irrationally angry that this man uses CAL instead of CGY. 

[Sharpshooter]

3 minutes ago, phillyb said:

 

It makes me so stupidly and irrationally angry that this man uses CAL instead of CGY. 

The man clearly wants the Golden Seals back.

[Ozzy]

3 minutes ago, phillyb said:

 

It makes me so stupidly and irrationally angry that this man uses CAL instead of CGY. 

 

Not exactly working with the faculty of Harvard there, Philly!!  LOL

[jamsim1967]

4 minutes ago, phillyb said:

 

 

Just gonna pat myself on the back for these lol. The NHL needs a lot of rule changes and this is one of them. 
I wouldn't be surprised to hear in 10 years that a letter was sent to the refs/owners in the middle of the season that says, "we're gonna stop caring about the kicking motion rule" a la skate-in-crease in '99 lol. 

The problem is the owners. They want ticket revenue, add revenue, and all the other revenues in between. I'm sure most are businessmen, and probably not the biggest hockey fans. And in order to get every last penny, they think the fans need to see more goals so we get that garbage that took them 5 minutes to make the decision. I wouldn't be surprised that the call goes to Toronto, but Toronto patches the call to someone else (Morty, sales mgr in Sheboygan) who ends up making the decision.

 

Just wait until they start allowing goals that are thrown into the net. "Well it wasn't a distinct throwing motion. I mean he didn't wind up, which is why the rule was put into place. Will have to let Toronto decide"

[Cash or Czech]

 

I love when we finish our chances

[jamsim1967]

53 minutes ago, Gravesy said:

Yeah. It's an absolute joke. Any type of open ice hit is a klaxon for someone to get their handbag out. 

By all means stand up for your team mate after a dirty hit, but come on.

I don't think I said that, but I do agree. I get tired of seeing someone deal out a good hit to somebody skating with his head down, only to immediately get sideswiped by someone protecting his teammate. If you want to protect your teammate, how about telling him to keep his head up, this is the NHL? I hated Scott Stevens, but secretly wished he played for the Rangers for those exact hits.

[LindG1000]

25 minutes ago, phillyb said:

 

 

Just gonna pat myself on the back for these lol. The NHL needs a lot of rule changes and this is one of them. 
I wouldn't be surprised to hear in 10 years that a letter was sent to the refs/owners in the middle of the season that says, "we're gonna stop caring about the kicking motion rule" a la skate-in-crease in '99 lol. 

 

9 minutes ago, jamsim1967 said:

The problem is the owners. They want ticket revenue, add revenue, and all the other revenues in between. I'm sure most are businessmen, and probably not the biggest hockey fans. And in order to get every last penny, they think the fans need to see more goals so we get that garbage that took them 5 minutes to make the decision. I wouldn't be surprised that the call goes to Toronto, but Toronto patches the call to someone else (Morty, sales mgr in Sheboygan) who ends up making the decision.

 

Just wait until they start allowing goals that are thrown into the net. "Well it wasn't a distinct throwing motion. I mean he didn't wind up, which is why the rule was put into place. Will have to let Toronto decide"

 

The "no kick" thing exists for one very clear reason: blades are sharp. Blades raised off the ice can cause absolutely catastrophic injury - and that has to be regulated. That makes total sense.

 

The "distinct kicking motion" thing is stupid, though, because instead of an entirely objective thing (the blade of the skate remained on the ice), the issue becomes unnecessarily subjective. There's little doubt in my mind that what Mangiapane did should absolutely be a legit goal. 

[RichieNextel305]

6 hours ago, Pete said:

Then why upgrade if its there?

 

I'd just as soon roll with what we have. Maybe a depth move for 4C. Nothing of value should go the other way. Not with this coach. 

 

An OT winner in a game that probably shouldn't have been in OT doesn't change that. It's a feel good moment, and you take the points, but they just played a very even game with a bubble wild card team. That doesn't inspire more confidence than before the break... 

I said the talent is there. I never said the team was complete.

 

There is a good amount of talent in that room. I think we can all agree there, no? A Vezina winner, a Norris winner, a guy who has been an MVP finalist, a guy who (and he’s having a rough go at the moment) has scored 50, a legit #1C in Mika. There is talent. 

My point is that there is no perfect team in this league. There is no guarantees in this league. Yes, we have talent. We need more to go over the hump IMO. Holes exist. Fill them.

 

Giggity.

Edited February 7, 2023 by RichieNextel305

[Sod16]

4 hours ago, Ozzy said:

How about we go back to 1 point apiece after 60, and be done with all the circus bullshit.  Save OT for the playoffs where it used to be a novelty.

 

The shootout does nothing for me, but I know some people like it.

Exactly, it wasn't so broke to begin to warrant all of these silly ideas to change it over the years.  I think eliminating the loser point for OT losers only exacerbates things by putting an added premium on 3X3 play which has nothing to do with what wins games in regulation or the playoffs.

[Br4d]

4 on 4 OT that ends at 10 minutes and goes to a shootout.

 

Can't eliminate OT and make ties a thing and no point for the losers again because that would make teams go into a shell and play for the point at the end.  I remember those games and they sucked.

 

The extra point in OT lets the home-crowd go home with a consolation prize and the NHL isn't going to eliminate that.

[Ozzy]

Hard for teams to go into a shell these days, I think Brad.  I hear where you're coming from, but think of all those times we try to sit on a lead nowadays.  It never works, and the team that's pressuring us always seems to score....usually in the last minute too!!  LOL

 

I think the days of "sitting on a lead" by going into a shell are pretty much done.  There's way too much talent, speed and too many ways to break a "trap" now.

 

I'm also an old fuck who likes the old style of "Rock 'em, Sock 'em" hockey.  Last night's game was a pretty good example of some old school games from yesteryear.  Seemed to get over well with the whole crew too! 

[Pete]

5 hours ago, RichieNextel305 said:

I said the talent is there. I never said the team was complete.

 

There is a good amount of talent in that room. I think we can all agree there, no? A Vezina winner, a Norris winner, a guy who has been an MVP finalist, a guy who (and he’s having a rough go at the moment) has scored 50, a legit #1C in Mika. There is talent. 

My point is that there is no perfect team in this league. There is no guarantees in this league. Yes, we have talent. We need more to go over the hump IMO. Holes exist. Fill them.

 

Giggity.

I hear you, and I guess that just brings me back to my original point of if the talent is there and there's a clear issue that doesn't get fixed by a trade, why trade anyone?

 

I don't want to see assets going out the door for this coach. He gets a kick at the can with what we have. Make it work, or somebody else probably can. 

 

But what GG will tell you is that he's doing his job and it's up to the players to play harder.

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Pete

[RichieNextel305]

20 minutes ago, Pete said:

I hear you, and I guess that just brings me back to my original point of if the talent is there and there's a clear issue that doesn't get fixed by a trade, why trade anyone?

 

I don't want to see assets going out the door for this coach. He gets a kick at the can with what we have. Make it work, or somebody else probably can. 

 

But what GG will tell you is that he's doing his job and it's up to the players to play harder.

 

I’m not disagreeing with you there.

 

I guess I just have PTSD from the Lundqvist era, where we were in possession of a goalie who is truly special. I’d like to see the Rangers really go for it with this group before Igor is due for a new deal. And again, with how open this entire league is, a right move or 2 could go a long way for us come playoffs.

 

But I suppose we’ll see what the coming days and weeks will bring.

[Br4d]

8 hours ago, LindG1000 said:

 

 

The "no kick" thing exists for one very clear reason: blades are sharp. Blades raised off the ice can cause absolutely catastrophic injury - and that has to be regulated. That makes total sense.

 

The "distinct kicking motion" thing is stupid, though, because instead of an entirely objective thing (the blade of the skate remained on the ice), the issue becomes unnecessarily subjective. There's little doubt in my mind that what Mangiapane did should absolutely be a legit goal. 

 

They should change the rule to reflect the position of the skate.  "You cannot score a goal off of a skate blade that is not on the ice."  That would resolve the intent issue pretty clearly and it would make replays a bit easier.

[Sod16]

7 hours ago, Br4d said:

4 on 4 OT that ends at 10 minutes and goes to a shootout.

 

Can't eliminate OT and make ties a thing and no point for the losers again because that would make teams go into a shell and play for the point at the end.  I remember those games and they sucked.

 

 

It's the other way around.  Today, teams go into a shell to protect their point during regulation, resulting in many more regulation ties.  Look at the stats, namely the percentage of games ending in ties during the last year before OT (82-83) versus the percentage of regulation ties today (much higher)