Thursday Morning Coffee- Well that was UGLY...
But for those of you about to go into the traditional CDC line of thinking "ZOMG!!!1!!! We sHoulda kikd ther assez!!!", you all need to sit down and take your Ritalin. If you look back at some of the great teams over the years, you will discover a startling fact: They didn't win all their games 20-0!! I know, I was shocked too. I will give you a moment to wrap your head around that and meet you on the other side of the jump.
Yes the win was Zack Stortini ugly, but until they start handing out style points for wins, I will take those 2 points thank you very much. Do you think teams like Detroit over the last few years, or the Islanders and Oilers of the 80's won all their games handily? Hell no. Sometimes they found themselves trailing to teams beneath them, but were still able to get the job done. Good teams find a way to win. Did the Canucks stink up the joint last night? No, but they certainly didn't bring their A game. The Oilers were motivated, capitalized on an early break and for 40 minutes did a hell of a job getting into the shot lanes and neutralizing 5 on 5 chances. What do good teams do in those circumstances? They kill them on the power play. 3 for 4, and all of them things of beauty, as Daniel Sedin moved to within one of tying Brendan Morrison's franchise record for regular season OT goals. He had 2 helpers as well, to match Henriks 3 assists as he moved 5 points ahead of Alex Ovechkin in the scoring race. Oh, and Alex Burrows scored too. He now leads the Canucks in goals with 22, and has more goals than Jarome Iginla, Corey Perry, Patrick Kane and Niklas Backstrom. Just sayin'. I do feel bad for former Kamloops Blazers standout Devan Dubnyk, who is still searching for his first win in the NHL. The Oilers? Not so much. Everything goes in circles. Nearly every team has had times like this. They'll get through it, get some high draft picks and be back someday. They were spoiled in the 80's, let's hope they start to realize that and appreciate it, instead of responding to criticism with the tired "5 cups" response. Yeah, we get it. Time to move on. Like I had mentioned earlier it was not the Canucks A game, but we did see a number of decent efforts last night. I thought both Steve Bernier and Aaron Rome played well in their returns. Brad Lukowich made a number of smart plays and continues to improve each game. Sami Salo was solid, and his game-tying goal was one of his best, as he fired a quick shot top corner from the slot before Dubnyk could get squared to the shooter. Mason Raymond buzzed the net all night, and had a beauty hit late in the game as the Canucks were pressing. He also drew the penalty in OT that led to Daniel's game winner, his 6th of the season. The officiating last night was dreadful for both teams, with missed and botched calls, and let's face it, that call in OT was a little soft. Not phantom, but soft. Considering our luck in that department lately, the best thing to do is not say a word. Daniel and Henrik were NHL.com's 2nd and 3rd stars of the night, beat out by some goalie, something Brodeur? Not sure which one it was though...
No rest for the wicked
The Canucks are back at it tonight against the Stars, who have really struggled on the road lately. The Canucks lead the season series against the Stars 2-1, the last one a 3-1 in Dallas on January 2nd. Goaltending is a bit of an issue right now for the Stars as Alex Auld has been given 2 straight starts over Marty Turco, whose performances lately just aren't what people expect from a goalie of his caliber. The Stars currently sit in 10th place in the Western Conference, 4 points behind the 8th place LA Kings. The problem for the Stars is also the reason why they're still in the playoff hunt. They lead the league in OT/SO points with 11, and if this team can't start converting these games into that 2nd point, they are going to be left out of the post-season dance. We have lots of pre-game coverage coming up today so make sure you check back for that.
After tonight's tilt with the Stars, a day off before 3 huge games. Saturday the Canucks take on the Chicago Blackhawks at GM Place, as they will be looking to show the last match, where a late goal from Mikeal Samuelsson helped them steal 2 points in the United Center was no fluke. After that it's the hottest team in the East as the Buffalo Sabres, our expansion cousins roll into town for a rare visit. They looked good against Phoenix the other night, chasing Ilya Bryzgalov in a 7-2 win, but then went into Anaheim and lost 5-4 to the Ducks. That was their first regulation loss to a Western conference club this season, as they buck the trend. It will be a goaltenders battle for sure, let's just hope that it lives up to it's billing, unlike recent games against Washington and Pittsburgh. Wednesday marks the last game of the home stand before the Road Trip From Hell (tm). The St. Louis Blues are in town for 4th and final meeting against the Canucks, and you can be certain this one will be wild, as these two teams have developed a serious dislike for each other.
0 recs |
116 comments
|
Comments
some other thoughts on the game
http://trevorpresiloski.com/2010/01/postscript-canucksoilers-wait-you-mean-we-won/
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/recap?gid=2010012006&prov=ap
Apparently Pat Quinn thinks Raymond’s hit was a “cheap headshot”
http://watch.tsn.ca/nhl/clip257799#clip257799
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/recap?gameId=300120006&campaign=rss&source=NHLHeadlines
and this one is fun, a rare one for you: Misguided Leafs Angst! http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2010/1/21/1262728/thursdays-my-friday-otherwise-im
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 21, 2010 8:01 AM PST reply actions
I noticed Buttman in the stands
Shanahan was interviewed about his new job with the league and mentioned that he was chatting with a few of the players on behalf of the league. Apparently he has some for of player liaison position. Why would the league would show up at the game? It did seem convenient to me considering some of the talk in Vancouver,
I am sure there is simple explanation. Does anyone know why the leprecon Bettman might have appeared with Shanahan in tow at the Canucks game last night? Was it just damage control?
Bernier?
Great teams win when they are playing well. It’s an age old cliche but it is true. And I think that’s what happened last night.
I was bowling last night so only caught pieces of the game. How did Bernier look? Did he make me look like an idiot for bashing him yesterday?
No, he looked like Bernier unfortunately. Although he did bust out some sick hits and played an aggressive game his offense was sucking hard.
I read an article a couple years ago that said something along the lines of “Taylor Pyatt’s stick: Where offensive puck control comes to die.”
That would aptly describe Bernier’s offensive game last night. Although it wasn’t just him, I felt the 2nd line was invisible last night as a whole.
So Bernier gets put on the second line that is playing very well and then they are invisible? I wonder why that could be?
by Section 312 on Jan 21, 2010 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
Mariners fans call Franklin Gutierrez “Death to Flying Things” maybe we should call Bernier “Death to Scoring Chances”???
by Section 312 on Jan 21, 2010 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
Until Sammy went back with them in the 3rd.
Where he will hopefully stay!
"Insult is the price of clarity"
His repeated use of this sentence suggests he thinks it’s more pithy, profound and powerful than it actually is. I’m not sure exactly what it means: "I’m being insulted because I was clear"? "I appeared to be insulting Burrows but actually I was just being clear"?
Greek to me. He may as well have said "Turnips are the price of sincerity." Or "Vaseline is the price of getting *****ed."
"narwal"
as soon as he went back to line 2 the positive effect was immediate.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 21, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions
Great teams win when they are playing well.
Stop the presses.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
Supposed to say aren’t. Hadn’t had my coffee yet.
by Section 312 on Jan 21, 2010 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 21, 2010 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
It’s OK I grew up with a group of friends who would mercilessly rip anyone apart for even the smallest error when speaking. I am used to it and I would have done the same thing.
They were spoiled in the 80’s, let’s hope they start to realize that and appreciate it, instead of responding to criticism with the tired “5 cups” response. Yeah, we get it. Time to move on.
So am I supposed to appreciate the 80s, or am I supposed to move on? Isn’t it possible to do both?
Btw, that was me with the “tired response”, not so much to criticism as to some lame anti-Edmonton jokes. So I came up with my own lame response, and called it exactly that if you read the comments thread. I guess the rule is you guys can dish it out but you can’t take it? If repartee like that is still going to piss you guys off even 20 years after the fact, you need to develop a thicker skin.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
I guess you are right, when the jokes start flying, all bets are off. So your “5 cups” comment was just as valid as the jokes.
Los Angeles, CA
It was intended in the exact same spirit. Yo mama …
It certainly seems the surest way to strike a nerve out there on the Left Coast.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 21, 2010 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
I always find that nickname that people from other parts of Canada give us weird- the left coast. I feel like no one from BC ever uses that term, am I wrong?
by Beantown Canuck on Jan 21, 2010 12:56 PM PST up reply actions
I prefer the Wet Coast, myself.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
no man! that will scare the free agents away!
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 21, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
No…I have used it in the past.
Lotusland…now there is a classic…
"Insult is the price of clarity"
His repeated use of this sentence suggests he thinks it’s more pithy, profound and powerful than it actually is. I’m not sure exactly what it means: "I’m being insulted because I was clear"? "I appeared to be insulting Burrows but actually I was just being clear"?
Greek to me. He may as well have said "Turnips are the price of sincerity." Or "Vaseline is the price of getting *****ed."
"narwal"
I know it was you, and I saw all that but honestly that wasn’t aimed at you.
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 21, 2010 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
just to further clarify
the jokes were good… I like to see fans banter back and forth. I just get a little tired of after the fact the whole you suck, you havent won a cup thing. that was then and this is now. you’re a lot more level headed than some, and I know it’s frustrating when your team hits a spell like this. Perhaps the way I put that didn’t come across well, so if I offended you I apologize, that wasn’t the intent of the comment.
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 21, 2010 10:20 AM PST reply actions
No offence, just give and take. You = Alex Burrows; Me = Zack Stortini. Stuff is gonna get said.
Surprised you’re not reminding me of the Millionaires’ Stanley Cup triumph back in ’15. Damn, then Cyclone Taylor was a helluva player.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 21, 2010 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
Hey I'll bite. Go team!

'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Jan 21, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
he was, I have a book about the Patrick family and their history with hockey here on the West Coast, pretty interesting read, I will track down the title if you want to hunt it down
http://waachcast.blogspot.com/ < WAACHCast Blog
by canucklehead666 on Jan 21, 2010 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
The Oilers almost did it to the Canucks, I was almost expecting a loss for Vancouver.
I just watched the Raymond penalty in OT again, they called it tripping, which it was not. But it was a holding, since the Edmonton player was using his hands to try to grab and stop Raymond from passing by. You can use your body to do that , but not reaching out with your hands. So, to me, it was definitely a penalty.
Los Angeles, CA
I think he pushed Raymond but didn’t hold him, and there’s nothing wrong with pushing; it should not have been a penalty and we got a lucky break on the call. Luckily for the league, this time it appears to have been an honest mistake, but for a team going thru as rough a stretch as the Oilers, that was a brutal time for it.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
To be honest, I didn’t think that was a legit penalty. I normally agree with holding calls if you need to reach because you’re out of position, but the defender had position on Raymond. He did stick out his arms and push Raymond, but that should be legal as long as you’re not reaching around to impede a player.
The unfortunate thing is that his stick, from the perspective of the ref along the opposite boards, looked like it was near the skates and when Raymond went down he called it. Pretty weak call in OT to be honest.
It was pretty soft. It wasn’t a dive or a phantom call but definitely not a call that should be made in OT. I agree with that.
Well, I agree that you can push back when a guy with the puck is heading towards you.
But once the guy with the puck passed you by a few feet, you cannot reach out and push him from behind.
If you could do that, you might as well hold out your arm and let him tow you, like a trailer.
Los Angeles, CA
But once the guy with the puck passed you by a few feet, you cannot reach out and push him from behind
Why not? Seems perfectly OK to me: it’s not interference if the guy is the puck carrier, it’s not tripping, and it’s not holding. Man, if we’re gonna start calling “2 minutes for pushing,” then we’ll have to call about 10 penalties on each team every time players go to the front of the net.
Do we want hockey or do we want basketball?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Ok, how about this: you carry the puck by me, and as soon as you passed me, I punch you in the stomack so hard that you pass out. Remember, I did not hold you back and I did not trip you. No holding and no tripping. I didn’t even stand in front of you. Just a straignt karate punch to your side, a little bit from behind. What say you?
Los Angeles, CA
That’s already covered under “unsportsmanlike.” Nothing unsportsmanlike about pushing an opposing puck carrier outta position, tho.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Right. I just took what happened to Raymond, and made the push into a punch, just to demonstrate my point.
But where exactly do you draw the line between a strong and fast push, and a punch? To me, the Oiler player did not handle Raymond cleanly because Raymond gained position on him. So he reached back after Raymond passed him.
I call that cheating, after Raymond defeated him. When you try to cheat, even just a little, you are at the mercy of the referee. It is his decision.
I agree that it was an unfortunate time for Edmonton, and the call could have gone either way. But these calls should even out, in the long term. As we know, the Canucks had their share, as well.
Los Angeles, CA
No cheat whatsoever; you’re allowed to push the puck carrier from in front, from the side, from behind, subject only to “boarding” rules for safety. It has ever been so and I’d hate to see that change.
The OT penalty last nite was just a mistaken call, an honestly mistaken one, cuz the official’s view was from an angle that made it look like there musta been a trip, even tho there wasn’t. We caught a lucky break.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
… you’re allowed to push the puck carrier from in front, from the side, from behind
Hey, if the rule clearly states that you can reach out from behind, from any distance, and push the puck carrier with your two hands, without any attempt to check him with your body, then you are right and I am wrong.
I am surprised though that I hardly remember seeing this in the past. Why not always grab the guy with your hands and shove him aside, instead of trying to use your body and stick? It would be much easier. In case of Raymond, you can even lift him and throw him over the boards…:)
Los Angeles, CA
1. The rules don’t state what you can do, they state what you can’t do.
2. As for grabbing a guy w/your hands … that’s “holding.”
3. As for “from any distance,” I would think it should go w/out saying that it’d have to be w/in arms-length distance, no?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Further, I have been thinking this over and have one of those ideas that … well, I’m not even sure myself if I’m serious or not. Towit:
Let’s just acknowledge reality and call diving for what it is: a skill. Yes, a skill. Your job as a player is to do what you can to help your team win games; anything less than that is disloyalty to both your teammates and your fans and you’re not a disloyal kinda guy, are you? Diving helps win games, which is why every player in the league does it (or its little sister, “embellishment”). The new NHL makes it so; we’ve all seen it.
So I propose we stop w/the pretense and just say it straight up: Burrows embellishes, so does Datysuk, so does Crosby, so does Ovechkin, so do they all. Maybe a select group even succeeds at it more often than most, but hey, just as some guys skate faster or shoot harder – let’s call those “legacy skills” – some guys dive better than others.
Superior speed can win games, so too superior shooting or superior checking … and so can superior diving. Put it in the skills competition at the all-star game, already. It’s part of the game now, an integral part, and will remain so for as long as the new NHL continues to call penalties for “inappropriate touching.”
There, doesn’t it feel better to come clean? Out damn hypocrisy, we have nothing to hide! So, what name to give to the trophy for the best diver in a given year? Any suggestions? The Bettman Award?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
So what next? The Mark Messier award for leadership goes to which ever player gets away with the most cheap shots that help his team win? Why not just remove all rules build up the glass a couple more feet and let them go nuts. Last team with a guy who is still breathing wins.
Diving is cheating and should be called as a penalty. End of story.
And as for your continued passive aggressive comments about the new NHL rules feel free to stop watching the NHL if you don’t like it. I for one am glad that there is some semblance of pace, flow and excitement in the game now. Like it was before the mid 90s. You want to go back to that shit we watched from around 97-04? Go nuts but count me out.
by Section 312 on Jan 21, 2010 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
But they don’t call it as a penalty cuz, well, they can’t. Most dives are mere embellishments and are tough to be certain of. So diving is here to stay, and yes, it is indeed a skill. Sadly. And will remain so for as long as hockey is refereed like basketball. Also sadly.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Tough to be certain of? Then call it if they are kind of sure. They would be right more than wrong and then diving would slowly die out. Fans would just have to put up with the occasional bad call.
But enough of that, casual, since you seem to really hate the way the NHL is refereed now. Instead of just complaining about it why not propose some changes? Be part of the solution.
by Section 312 on Jan 21, 2010 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
Sure. Go back to the old rules, but w/smaller goalie pads. All this current rigamarole is supposed to beat the trap, but watch the old games (like they showed during the strike) and see … no trapping, cuz teams could just fire it in and forecheck like hell.
Goalies didn’t “control rebounds,” then. Heck, trap-master Lemaire himself used to score one or two every year from outside the blue line, the goalies were happy just to make the first save. And a wandering goalie could be (lightly!) body-checked and caught outta position instead of being sacrosanct as they are now, so goalies weren’t such a 5th d-man back then, either.
Instead, we have “trapezoids;” much as basketball has “the key.” and we have b-ball-style touching penalties, too. Coming next; a 24-second shot clock. Win it at the foul line, guys!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Gee casual I’m getting the feeling you don’t like basketball. Hey I have an idea what about bigger nets? OR smaller nets and NO goalie?
We have trapezoids like basketball has the key? Oh my god NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! “We” also have a red line just like basketball has a center court line…….I am starting to see a pattern developing here….conspiracy alert.
And your wrong….
no trapping, cuz teams could just fire it in and forecheck like hell.Makes no sense. Not least because you couldn’t fire it in a forecheck like hell in the late 90s and early 00s. Because interference with the stick by forward and D men alike made it damn near impossible to get in on the forecheck. Plus by the time you got in there the goalie had played the puck up to the red line where the other team dumped it in and couldn’t get to it. Oh man, those were the days.
The 90s? No, I’m thinking back to, like, the 70s. Watch a few games of that era and see what I mean.
Why was the trap invented only relatively recently? Do we really think that the great hockey minds of the past never conceived of clogging up the neutral zone, or is it that something else changed first in order to make the trap effective whereas previously it wouldn;t have been?
What changed? For my money, it starts in the net with bigger goalie pads and more rules to protect the goalie and let him roam as an extra d-man. Lemaire had/has his greatest coaching successes by combining the trap with a puck-handling goalie, and that’s no coincidence.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Um well in the old days there were fewer coaches on the whole and on the bench, no video rooms, etc etc etc so it would have been harder for them to coach a trap. Plus if it was easy to think of ways to revolutionize things then we would need a different word for it. Guys shoot the puck way harder now than they did in the 70s. WAY harder. Smaller pads are a safety issue.
Casual, as far as I can tell you are confusing correlation and causation.
I’m sure this won’t change your mind, but have a look anyway.
Goalies turn over, so do fw’s, and sometimes it’s rapid when you get a “changing of the guard” era.
Might it be a correlate but not a cause? Yes, that is indeed possible, and lacking a control group we can;t really prove it definitively one way or the other, but from watching games over the years, I still think the goalies are the key.
Narrower (but still safe) pads would help, as would allowing goalies to be body-checked, gently but still allowing the fw to finish the check and keep the wanderer out of position for a coupla seconds. That would reduce the extra d-man effect a lot, methinketh.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Smaller pads might lead to slightly more goals. But the problems with the NHL 7-10 years ago wasn’t a lack of goals. It was a lack of chances, flow, excitement etc etc. Goals are great but I like to watch good up tempo hockey regardless of how many pucks go in the net.
By reducing rebound control and the ability of the goalie to be a d-man, the flow would be much better, IMHO.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Rebound control is a goalie skill, not a function of higher tech pads. As I mentioned, read the blog post, the basics of his argument are certainly sound.
It’s both.
I skimmed the post and will read in more detail later. Believe it or not, Ive been working productively all thru this discussion but … no time to spare!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Back then Casual, they just called it good defense.
And Scotty Bowman coached something called the “Left Wing Lock”, a precursor of the trap, going back to his earliest coaching days.
The old way was wrong. I loved the game then, I love it now…but looking at it as someone that saw it both ways, I will take some of the “calls” that happen for the free wheeling game we have now.
Sure, they can tweak…maybe let the goalies out of that Trapezoid…but the game is pretty good now.
"Insult is the price of clarity"
His repeated use of this sentence suggests he thinks it’s more pithy, profound and powerful than it actually is. I’m not sure exactly what it means: "I’m being insulted because I was clear"? "I appeared to be insulting Burrows but actually I was just being clear"?
Greek to me. He may as well have said "Turnips are the price of sincerity." Or "Vaseline is the price of getting *****ed."
"narwal"
But from what I saw, initially the guy had position on Raymond, and it was ok ot push. But then Raymond passed him, and the guy was still reaching out and impeded his movement.
Los Angeles, CA
THANK YOU
I have tried to say the sme thing, but for some reason, some don’t get it.
I understand trying to be fair Cas’, but really, when you reach out with both hands to impede the guy, and prevent a scoring chance, that is not weak at all.
In today’s NHL, a penalty in the first period is a penalty in O/T. they say that shit all the time.
As much as Edmonton fans ar complaining, it was a real call, the guy was by him. The only thing he could do is push.
Its called interference, or holding, not tripping.
That is the only mistake the ref made on that one…
Mind you, like I said earlier, I understand their pain…it was a big call, and if the tables were turned, I would probably complain too.
Because it ended the game.
But its not like it was a phantom call like Burr’ on Ward, with two players going the opposite way and touching knees.
No, this prevented a scoring chance, and was a clear example of a player that was already beat taking a penalty to try and stop the guy who beat him.
A big call, not a bad one.
"Insult is the price of clarity"
His repeated use of this sentence suggests he thinks it’s more pithy, profound and powerful than it actually is. I’m not sure exactly what it means: "I’m being insulted because I was clear"? "I appeared to be insulting Burrows but actually I was just being clear"?
Greek to me. He may as well have said "Turnips are the price of sincerity." Or "Vaseline is the price of getting *****ed."
"narwal"
NHL RULE 56: INTERFERENCE
Here is an extract from this rule:
A player who is behind an opponent, who does not have the puck, may not use his stick, body or free hand in order to restrain his opponent, but must skate in order to gain or reestablish his proper position in order to make a check.
Please note: may not use his stick, body, or “free hand”….
Los Angeles, CA
A player who is behind an opponent, who does not have the puck, may not use his stick, body or free hand in order to restrain his opponent, but must skate in order to gain or reestablish his proper position in order to make a check.
Please note, “restrain.” That means “holding.” Pushing is just fine. So no, this does not settle the controversy. You are more than welcome to use your free hand (or both hands) to push a puck-carrier, you just can’t grab on. Grebeshkov did not grab, he merely pushed; no infraction.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I disagree. By pushing, you can also easily restrain. He already lost position on Raymond, and was pushing him sideways, slightly from behind, to impede Raymond’s forward movement. That to me is clearly “restraining”.
Holding, as you said, equals restraining, but it is not the only form of restraining,but you can also restrain using other means. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Los Angeles, CA
Pushing is not, and never has been, considered “restraint.” Until today, perhaps.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
May be this one helps.
Rule 57 Tripping
57.1 Tripping – A player or goalkeeper shall not place the stick, knee, foot, arm, hand or elbow in such a manner that causes his opponent to trip or fall.
The Edmonton player used his hand, and caused Raymond to fall, in the middle of a scoring chance. May be the referee was right, and by the rule, this was indeed tripping. By this rule, tripping is more than what I thought.
Los Angeles, CA
I think it was intended to mean it’s tripping if you, you kmnow, trip the guy. otherwise, Mitchell’s hit on Toews – where Mitchell’s arm and shoulder made contact with Toews, causing Toews to fall – would be tripping, too.
Look, you’re now parsing words like a lawyer to try to justify the call. But it wasn’t a trip. And it wasn’t a hold. It was a half-desperate but valid move by Grebeshkov to push Raymond, the puck-carrier, off course.
Or will we then call every push that occurs when players battle for position in front of the net? Wonder if that’d lead to even more diving calls, eh?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I am justifying the call because I honestly think that Raymond beat the defenceman.
I just don’t like hands reaching backwards to impede forwards from scoring.
Personally, I believe that if you can’t stop the guy while he is still in front of you, sorry, you are beaten and deal wit it. To me, this is the fair thing to do.
I can see your point, but what you are defending opens the door to the stifling defensive game of the past, which I didn’t like to much.
Los Angeles, CA
I’ve seen legal checks from behind on puck carriers my whole life and clean hits that way have never been considered penalties. Watch for it next few games, watch how often it happens and how natural it looks and I suspect you’ll agree.
And I’m only talking about in open ice. Along the boards, watch how often a puck carrier gets pushed – more gently these days cuz they’re quicker to call board-ng – but on almost every play when the D-man and the fw are in tight along the boards, the d-man pushes the fw from behind to throw him off balance a thereby reduce his effectiveness. Pushing is not a penalty.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Jesus…why is this so hard for you?
No, you are NOT welcome to push, FFS!
Its called interference when you do. He made a guy go down with that push, when he was clearly beaten already.
Its a penalty… and the “semantics” argument is pretty weak. One of his hands seems to open and grasp too…does that count?
Jesus…the guy was beat, and resorted to a physical play to try and stop his check. On a scoring chance.
Not a bad call at all. I understand taking a position and all, but that was a penalty. Not a bad call, honest or no.
I think that maybe its something that could have been let go in O/T…but the young refs decided to enforce the mantra of " a penalty in the first is a penalty in O/T "
Thats the only controversial aspect of it. If they have a penalty to bitch about, maybe the one or Stortini…but that was the same as the almost call on Welly too.
"Insult is the price of clarity"
His repeated use of this sentence suggests he thinks it’s more pithy, profound and powerful than it actually is. I’m not sure exactly what it means: "I’m being insulted because I was clear"? "I appeared to be insulting Burrows but actually I was just being clear"?
Greek to me. He may as well have said "Turnips are the price of sincerity." Or "Vaseline is the price of getting *****ed."
"narwal"
Its called interference, or holding, not tripping.
Can’t be intereference cuz Raymond had the puck. Can’t be holding cuz Grebeshkov never grabbed on or held, he simply pushed. And it wasn;’t tripping, the replay was clear.
It was just an honestly bad call. As a Canucks fan, I’m OK w/ that; as a hockey fan in general, I’d like to see less mistakes.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
If you want to see a good example of interference, watch the replay of Raymond crushing Smid five feet from the puck halfway through the third period. Quinn saw it as a head shot, others saw Raymond leaving his feet and throwing a flying elbow, I saw what might have been boarding if Smid had the puck and was definitely 100% interference since he didn’t. A huge crunching check with Smid in a vulnerable position just beginning to reach for the puck in full view of both officials … and yet somehow they missed that one. Smid, a promising young defenceman with past concussion issues, left the game and did not return.
Then they called the tickytack one on Cogliano v. Samuelsson out on the 3-metre springboard that tied it up (which was a penalty, albeit not exactly a dangerous one), followed by the ridiculous phantom call on Grebeshkov in overtime that decided the @#$%^&* game.
Meanwhile, Smid is out and another minor leaguer has been called up to replace him. And you guys wonder why Oiler fans are upset?
(Note: Some of you are calling it fair and square, but the ones who are rationalizing the Grebeshkov penalty need to change the prescription on your Canucks Nation glasses. That was a @#$%^&* joke.)
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 21, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
agreed, Bruce. Lame calls on our tying goal and winning goal. Horse shit.
by Sean Zandberg on Jan 21, 2010 2:55 PM PST up reply actions
Guys with biased opinions calling out other guys with biased opinions always makes me laugh. Thanks for the chuckle.
The unbiased guys on NHL Network, including that ref-protector Kevin Weekes, both thought the Raymond hit on Smid was way out of line. They pointed out how far away from the puck it was and how Raymond made absolutely no attempt to make a play on it. Today, with the player’s health in question, I am much more concerned about that one than yet another freaking loss.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 21, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
Didn’t see the game so I am not saying you are wrong. But you are clearly biased towards your team and your calling out Nucks fans for doing the same. It’s funny.
If your on the ice though you should be aware at all times that you might get hit. Puck or not. I am sure it was a penalty but if Smid didn’t see Raymond coming it’s his own fault he is hurt.
???
I’d have to see the play again to pass judgement on whether it’s a penalty or not. Raymond’s no headhunter, but anyone can mistime a hit or get carried away in the heat of battle.
But S312, the idea that players are responsible even for illegal, blindside hits against them … gotta disagree. Not saying raymond’s hit was good or bad, just saying that in general, it’s not possible to defend against every possible dirty hit. You gonna blame Patrice Cormier’s latest victim, too?
BTW, anyone got a link to the Raymond hit?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
I said you should be aware at all times when on the ice that you might get hit. I have no sympathy for someone who gets creamed admiring their pass or whatever. Even if you are no where near the puck. You like old school hockey eh casual? You should be OK with guys getting laid out when they have their heads up their asses. That’s old school.
by Section 312 on Jan 22, 2010 12:34 AM PST up reply actions
You should watch Raymond’s hit again. I just did it, three times in a row:
Both Raymond and Smid are skating towards the puck. Smid is much closer to the puck than Raymond, but while Smid is moving very slowly, Raymond is skating 5 times faster. A split second before Smid touches the puck (he is about 3-4 feet away from it, Raymond hits him. What else do you expect him to do? He has a choice to take the body, or try to handle the puck, and being hit himself. The obvious choice is to take the body.
This is what happens when one player is flying and the other one is barely moving: the one that is barely moving will be flattened by the fast one. How can you call this hit illegal?
Los Angeles, CA
Globe stirring trade rumours...
You guys caught this yet?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/globe-on-hockey/let-the-speculation-begin/article1439153/
Sedins – Burr
Raymond – Kesler – Grabner
Bernier(ugh) – Backes – Sammy
Hansen – RyJo – Rypien
?????
That wouldn’t look too bad. I wanted Backes when Gillis signed him to that offer sheet and I think with the right line mates he is still a very good scorer.
by Section 312 on Jan 21, 2010 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
Someone has to go the other way…right?
"Insult is the price of clarity"
His repeated use of this sentence suggests he thinks it’s more pithy, profound and powerful than it actually is. I’m not sure exactly what it means: "I’m being insulted because I was clear"? "I appeared to be insulting Burrows but actually I was just being clear"?
Greek to me. He may as well have said "Turnips are the price of sincerity." Or "Vaseline is the price of getting *****ed."
"narwal"
Anyone heard if Grabner is likely to return to the Canucks any time soon? He’s been back with the Moose for 3-4 weeks now. Would love to see him return and add some more firepower to the lineup (assuming he can recapture the form he showed prior to the ankle break).
by British Canuck on Jan 21, 2010 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, somehow, after two games, Demitra doesn’t seem too exciting to watch. I know that he said a couple of days ago that he needs a few more games to get back in form, but right now he is just invisible. I hope I am wrong.
Los Angeles, CA
Sedins-Burrows
Raymond-Kesler-Sammy
Hansen-Backes-Bernier
Glass-Ryjo-Rypien
That’s what I’d do. Unless they can somehow trade Bernier to the Blues then I’d put Grabner on the third line.
No spot for Grabner? He was good before he got hurt. Hansen to me isn’t as good of a fit with Backes and Bernier as Sammy.
by Section 312 on Jan 21, 2010 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed – a physical 3rd line that can also score goals is just what the Canucks need and Backes, Sammy and Bernier would provide that (well, maybe Bernier wouldn’t provide the scoring but he’d provide the physical presence to compliment Backes and Sammy). Wellwood and Demitra are just too ineffectual at the moment.
by British Canuck on Jan 21, 2010 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
So was Bernier’s promotion just the attempted “pump” in “pump and dump?”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Could be...
You have to wonder though…how many times he can get traded with an eye towards his “potential”.
"Insult is the price of clarity"
His repeated use of this sentence suggests he thinks it’s more pithy, profound and powerful than it actually is. I’m not sure exactly what it means: "I’m being insulted because I was clear"? "I appeared to be insulting Burrows but actually I was just being clear"?
Greek to me. He may as well have said "Turnips are the price of sincerity." Or "Vaseline is the price of getting *****ed."
"narwal"
How many times can potential be sold, even if unrealized? Well, if the Vancouver Stock Exchange is any indication, a lot!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Do we still have the VSE?
Yep…plenty of criminals there. I made some money a long time ago, when a friend told me to invest what I coiuld in a particular company.
The fact that some dirty Russian and the Hells Angels turned out to be behind the play did not surprise me.
I got mine Jack!
Bernier does seem the odd man out is we got Backes. Hansen and others demonstrate the speed that Backes would need to paly with, and he has sure shown us as a Blue that he likes to hit!!
"Insult is the price of clarity"
His repeated use of this sentence suggests he thinks it’s more pithy, profound and powerful than it actually is. I’m not sure exactly what it means: "I’m being insulted because I was clear"? "I appeared to be insulting Burrows but actually I was just being clear"?
Greek to me. He may as well have said "Turnips are the price of sincerity." Or "Vaseline is the price of getting *****ed."
"narwal"
Bernier for Backes? Maybe Demo into the deal, too?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
If they are trading Backes they are getting young players. Hansen, maybe Grabner, Schneider? Who knows but it would be a straight salary dump or they would move Kariya and not Backes.
Backes is UFA soon so their motivation might be that they’ve talked to Backes’ agent and he wants more than they think he’s worth. Demo might be a possibility, but he’s also UFA soon; Bernier has a year to go, and even after that he’s still RFA so a Bernier-Backes deal at least gets the Blues something.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
And more if we toss in a sweetener like Hansen or Shirok or Grabner. All three are cheap.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Schneider is the no.1 trade bait. I’m curious why St.L would consider giving up a good young players, unless as casual mentioned, it’s a UFA demand issue, their core is still a couple of years away from peak performance.
If I had a team and my GM traded Backes, who has one more year after this one on his 3 year deal, for Bernier I would fire him so fast his head would spin.

by 

























