I don't agree with Anderson going in at all, and the biggest reason is he hasn't had a good game since back in December or January for pete's sake.
He's played what... 4 games since then? The guy's been injured TJ, not sucking. He's our #1, not Hammond.
He's not been our #1 since January and they were out of the playoffs when he was the #1 goalie
SensKat wrote: HE'S BEEN INJURED.....
He was always our #1. He was on IR for the majority of the time you are talking about. Lehner is more of the reason that they were out of the playoffs than he is, by a LONG shot.
At the beginning of the season, he was playing lights out, Karlsson was sucking, Methot was injured, they couldn't score goals, and the D were simply pathetic.
Hammond may have come in and given them a boost to get them where they are now, but he is quite simply not solely responsible for them being where they are now. If the rest of the team can't play hockey no matter which goalie is in net, that's on them, not the guy in the crease.
Kat you were right and I was wrong--and you were right by a big margin over my Healyesque garbage
-- Edited by tjlincoln on Monday 27th of April 2015 07:05:37 PM
I don't agree with Anderson going in at all, and the biggest reason is he hasn't had a good game since back in December or January for pete's sake.
He's played what... 4 games since then? The guy's been injured TJ, not sucking. He's our #1, not Hammond.
He's not been our #1 since January and they were out of the playoffs when he was the #1 goalie
SensKat wrote: HE'S BEEN INJURED.....
He was always our #1. He was on IR for the majority of the time you are talking about. Lehner is more of the reason that they were out of the playoffs than he is, by a LONG shot.
At the beginning of the season, he was playing lights out, Karlsson was sucking, Methot was injured, they couldn't score goals, and the D were simply pathetic.
Hammond may have come in and given them a boost to get them where they are now, but he is quite simply not solely responsible for them being where they are now. If the rest of the team can't play hockey no matter which goalie is in net, that's on them, not the guy in the crease.
Kat you were right and I was wrong--and you were right by a big margin over my Healyesque garbage
-- Edited by tjlincoln on Monday 27th of April 2015 07:05:37 PM
I've already accepted that the series is over - but something that bothered me last night I didn't see addressed anywhere...at one point in the 2nd period, Habs iced the puck and then there was a TV Timeout. I was under the impression that part of the punishment of icing the puck includes no TV Timeout on those plays. Maybe I'm confused and that didn't happen? But Montreal definitely got a break there if that was the case.
I can only imagine how mentally drained these guys must be, after that 2 month run then losing their assist coach right before playoffs. Must have been brutal.
38.4 Situations Subject to Video Review - The following situations are subject to review by the Video Goal Judge:
(i) Puck crossing the goal line.
(ii) Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged.
(iii) Puck in the net prior to, or after expiration of time at the end of the period.
(iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge / League Office Video Room determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. However, a puck that enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or that deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping, shall be ruled a good goal. See also 49.2.
(v) Puck deflected directly into the net off an Official.
(vi) Puck struck with a high-stick, above the height of the crossbar, by an attacking player prior to entering the goal. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick in relation to the crossbar. If the puck makes contact with the portion of the stick that is at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.
(vii) To establish the correct time on the official game clock, provided the game time is visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitors.
(viii) The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).
-- Edited by SensKat on Sunday 26th of April 2015 10:56:02 PM
so, its clear that hockey ops COULD have called down and allowed goal, but chose not to.
38.4 Situations Subject to Video Review - The following situations are subject to review by the Video Goal Judge:
(i) Puck crossing the goal line.
(ii) Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged.
(iii) Puck in the net prior to, or after expiration of time at the end of the period.
(iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge / League Office Video Room determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. However, a puck that enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or that deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping, shall be ruled a good goal. See also 49.2.
(v) Puck deflected directly into the net off an Official.
(vi) Puck struck with a high-stick, above the height of the crossbar, by an attacking player prior to entering the goal. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick in relation to the crossbar. If the puck makes contact with the portion of the stick that is at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.
(vii) To establish the correct time on the official game clock, provided the game time is visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitors.
(viii) The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).
-- Edited by SensKat on Sunday 26th of April 2015 10:56:02 PM
The CBC broadcast gave me a headache, top to bottom, bunch of wankers. Not gonna miss not listening to that drivel. I don't expect much from the former players - they'll have their bias and level of unprofessionalism - but journalists like Romanuk, who I used to respect back in the day, absolutely disgusted me.
I'm a fan of the CBC overall, so I have to come to their defense on this one: it's Rogers SportsNet that calls all the shots, controls all the content and decides who the hosts, on-air personalities and in-game team are. CBC is nothing but the carrier for the "big games" now, and that's only for a few years until Rogers moves all hockey to their own channels (ie/ CITY, SportsNet, SN360, etc). The Canadian Broadcasting Corp has nothing to do with HNIC now at all other than carrying the signal.
That said, it shows how lucky we are to have TSN as the local broadcaster now.
I've said it before 100x, if human cloning was allowed, Gene should clone Pageau 12 times. He's got the will and guts to win like Alfie. Unfortunately, Stone, Hoffman and Karlsson are the ones with the skill and didn't come through today.
The CBC broadcast gave me a headache, top to bottom, bunch of wankers. Not gonna miss not listening to that drivel. I don't expect much from the former players - they'll have their bias and level of unprofessionalism - but journalists like Romanuk, who I used to respect back in the day, absolutely disgusted me.
Absolutely magical season. Lots of young players to be excited about. That run they went on proved they are developing a style of play. They need to build on that. Winning teams have certain styles and stick to them (i.e. Detroit, Anaheim, LA).
and, when mtl gets eliminated, they wont be proud of their team like we are of our own. they'll burn ****, and want everyone fired and traded.
I don't want trades -- they might improve the team. Firings? Nah, I'd rather they keep them. It'll be more fun to watch a bigger implosion when Price *CAN'T* save them.
yep, sad its over but cant feel anything but pride for what these guys were up against and what they pulled off. it was a lot more fun that a tank ride! and its going to be so good for these guys next year and in years to come. great things ahead!
They made history this season. So many people had given up on them.... they proved all the doubters wrong, and look what they accomplished. Going to be a great season next year.
