Poll: Sharks or Avs

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 61 to 72 of 72

Thread: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

  1. #61
    Dennis's Avatar
    Dennis is online now
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    2,994
    Location
    Hamilton, ON
    Rep Power
    43

    Dobber Sports Veteran

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    Quote Originally Posted by niconasr View Post
    The thing that bothers me is, if he's considered to still be in play, why aren't the Avs called for too many men? They had 6 players on the ice if we count Landeskog, no?
    I'm going to look more into it later but from what I understand, by the written rule, Landeskog was in an awkward "limbo" where he's not considered part of play in application of the "too many men" rule but is considered in play in the application of offside rules. If anyone could elaborate or correct me that would be appreciated.

  2. #62
    Location
    Brampton, Ontario
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Titan

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis View Post
    I'm going to look more into it later but from what I understand, by the written rule, Landeskog was in an awkward "limbo" where he's not considered part of play in application of the "too many men" rule but is considered in play in the application of offside rules. If anyone could elaborate or correct me that would be appreciated.
    I haven't looked into it, nor am I a rules expert, but my understanding is that you can have 6 players on the ice as long as neither the player going on, or the player going off the ice is part of the immediate play with the puck, and as long as they are both within a reasonable distance from the bench. With that, they still count towards being offside, or they can get a penalty if they interfere with an opposing player, etc. If the player changing off punches an opposing player, he doesn't get suspended as though he's reaching into play from the bench, because he counts as being on the ice. Same for offside. Just because you are not a part of the play and close to the bench, in the process of changing off (or on) it doesn't mean you get the advantage of not counting as a player if you are standing in an offside position.
    Associate Editor for DobberHockey (Wednesdays). Click that Ramblings button on the the menu bar!
    (No I don't have a hockey problem...)

  3. #63
    Location
    Ontario
    Rep Power
    40

    Administrator

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    There's a section in the offside rule for this situation. The player coming off is still considered offside until he is completely off the ice. So to "tag up" in that situation a) The player coming off has to be completely off and b) The replacement player has to get out of the zone. The first condition was not met.


    Contact me for Frozen Tools bug reports and inquiries
    Follow Frozen Tools on Twitter @FrozenTools
    Follow me on Twitter @DH_EricDaoust

  4. #64
    Location
    Ontario
    Rep Power
    40

    Administrator

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    Quote Originally Posted by niconasr View Post
    The thing that bothers me is, if he's considered to still be in play, why aren't the Avs called for too many men? They had 6 players on the ice if we count Landeskog, no?
    The thing that bothers me is you're expecting the refs to call penalties according to the rules. Sort of a lost cause by now, no?


    Contact me for Frozen Tools bug reports and inquiries
    Follow Frozen Tools on Twitter @FrozenTools
    Follow me on Twitter @DH_EricDaoust

  5. #65
    Location
    Vancouver Island
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Jedi

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    he was tagged up.

    ...

    until he wasn't. Had he stayed on the ice as the '6th man' for a 1/2 second longer, the goal counts
    Follow me on twitter: @doylelb4

  6. #66
    Godin's Avatar
    Godin is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,907
    Location
    GTA
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports All-Star

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    Quote Originally Posted by niconasr View Post
    The thing that bothers me is, if he's considered to still be in play, why aren't the Avs called for too many men? They had 6 players on the ice if we count Landeskog, no?
    They cant review too many men so if it wasnt called by the ref's, they cant use video review.

    Where i though the Sharks won this game was that they won juat about every battle. They kept coming up with the puck.

    Also, i think its time for Colorado to change coaches. This team should be better. For one, they kill too much time on the power play by taking the puck up to center ice then dropping it to the rushing defenceman 30 geet behind him.

    ...and Makar looked really good for Colorado. Such skill and poise.

  7. #67
    niconasr's Avatar
    niconasr is offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,292
    Location
    Montreal
    Rep Power
    34

    Dobber Sports Pro

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    Quote Originally Posted by ericdaoust View Post
    The thing that bothers me is you're expecting the refs to call penalties according to the rules. Sort of a lost cause by now, no?
    Haha, fair point!

    Thanks for the explanation about the rule, though. Makes sense.

  8. #68
    niconasr's Avatar
    niconasr is offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,292
    Location
    Montreal
    Rep Power
    34

    Dobber Sports Pro

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    That being said, those type of situations is why I hate offside reviews.

    We shouldn't be taking goals off the board after the fact when the margin is that small. But that's a whole other debate I guess.

  9. #69
    Godin's Avatar
    Godin is offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    4,907
    Location
    GTA
    Rep Power
    50

    Dobber Sports All-Star

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    Quote Originally Posted by niconasr View Post
    That being said, those type of situations is why I hate offside reviews.

    We shouldn't be taking goals off the board after the fact when the margin is that small. But that's a whole other debate I guess.
    Totally agree. If offside is reviewable, everthng else should be as well. Why pay 2 linesman? Or 2 refs for that matter.

  10. #70
    Rep Power
    40

    Dobber Sports Supreme Grand Master

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    where's hr?? We need to get our votes in before tonight's series starts!! haha

  11. #71
    Rep Power
    13

    Dobber Sports Padawan

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    Offside review must be gone for next year after what happened with Landeskog.
    It was the right call, yes, but surely nobody wants to see games decided that way going forward. Brutal.

  12. #72
    Location
    Los angeles
    Rep Power
    0

    Dobber Sports Recruit

    Default Re: Pacific Final: (2) San Jose Sharks vs (WC) Colorado Avalanche

    The game is very intense, I don't know how to choose it! But I hope Sharks can enter the Stanley Cup!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •