'Gear "Sitings" 2007-2008'

[ahurtt]

It looks like Ozzie has masking tape on his right outside roll.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by chakal

Yes the removed the Nazi-like rule but they still kept the interference against the goalie though. And Hull goal was good, the rule said that nobody can be in the crease, but when the guy who has control of the puck scores and is in the crease, it was good if he didn't interfere with the goalie, or else, any breakaway goal would have been ruled "no-goal".

But On the Red Wings goal yesterday, I saw the overhead camera angle and Turco was clearly unable to challenge the shot because Holmstrom was clearly in the crease way before the shot comes.

On Sportscenter this morning Barry "The Mullet" Melrose and Buccigross (NHL2Nite reunited!) were talking about that, and they both agreed it was goalie interference and that the goal should have been disallowed. Score one for bad hair and worse suits.

Dragon

[jacksonh]

I think the problem is there is just too much going on around the crease for the refs to even pay attention to the puck. I'd like to see the actual calling of a goal offloaded from the refs responsibilities so that they can focus on what the players are doing, not whether or not the puck is in the net.

[Psychopomp]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Score one for bad hair and worse suits.

Dragon

Nice You get a gold star for the day!

[TxAg35]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Score one for bad hair and worse suits.

Dragon

I lol'd!

[WillyGrips13]

Originally Posted by jacksonh

I think the problem is there is just too much going on around the crease for the refs to even pay attention to the puck. I'd like to see the actual calling of a goal offloaded from the refs responsibilities so that they can focus on what the players are doing, not whether or not the puck is in the net.

Keep in mind it's whether the GOALIE is in the crease when ANY contact occurs that goalie interference should be called provided the offensive player was not pushed into the goalie by a defending player. I.E. If Holmstrom wasn't in the crease but accidentally brushed him with his butt, it should still be called goalie interference even if Holmstrom wasn't all the way in the crease.

If the GOALIE is outside the crease, the offensive player contacting the goalie has to be doing so intentionally for it to be called goalie interference. So intent is what has to be deciphered by the ref in that scenario.

So in conclusion, contrary to what many dopey TV commentators think (Ed Olcyk I'm lookin' right at you) you can be called for goalie interference whether the goalie is in or out of the crease. Any contact with the goalie in the crease except forced by a defender should be called goalie interference; while contact with the goalie outside the crease has to be intentional for goalie interference to be called.

[JDes]

Ok well first off I didn't think it was a goal because of the way he raised his knee up in the air to deflect it. But the thing is Homer and Franzen are paid alot of money to do what they're doing. They bother the other team. They stand in front of the net and do the dirty work. Everyone gets so pissed at them that they either end up taking penalties, or in this case just don't even bother fighting with them in front of the net. The other thing I believe is, I doubt Marty Turco is blaming the goal on the ref and whoever was watching the tapes in Toronto, I bet he is thinking of a better way to react next time it happens. My opinion is you either communicate with your defense about what their job is and what you want them doing in front of the net, or to push your screen out so that you can come out further and challenge.

The one point I don't agree with you guys on is that Homer doesn't allow Turco to come out and challenge..... That's like saying that Scott Stevens should get an interference penalty for hitting Paul Kariya and not letting him skate through toward the net. This is hockey guys I'm from Detroit so I've been watching this same thing happen all year, and yes sometimes I think they're getting too close but you know what, in the picture above there there is no contact between the two they are very very close but that's why he scores alot of goals in a season.

[VirtueTech]

It was amazing to see how well Detroit "played within the rules of the game" last night...all of their players...bending the rules to their limits.

All border line.....

Draper was thrown from the face off circle at least 5 times. No wonder he was #1 in the league this year, he is a great cheater.

I'm not condemning these guys, I'm was a professional paintball player so I know alot about cheating, or playing within the rules of the game rather, but it is interesting to see.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by outlaw1215

That's a nice beard turco has there!

Its ok, I guess

[VirtueTech]

It's cool to see these pads side by side.

[TxAg35]

[quote=VirtueTech;1215524]It's cool to see these pads side by side.


QUOTE]

The more i see Nabby's pads, the more i feel sorry for them, they need to be retired after this season! Kinda a contrast between Marty's "bling" pads!

[Dharmaboy]

Originally Posted by chakal

Can you tell me how that was a goal? I always thought it was written in the rulebook that when a opponent is in the crease and creates obstruction on the goalie, the goals isn't allowed.

I like the new NHL with more scoring chances, but when an obvious "refused goal" is allowed, I just stop watching, it's not fun to see a league going against it's own rule just for the sake of it. Before moving on the shot, Holmstrom's right skate was also in the crease.

I agree. that was a really bad call. Though they would have still lost the game. Still bad no-call.

[moocat]

Originally Posted by Matt The Hammer

Ozzie with the Brian's knee pads:


Still can't get over the extensions that were added to his game pads following the Avalanche series...

They did a spotlight on Ozzie and Hasek on FSN Detroit a couple of months ago about them breaking in new gear and Ozzie had a new set of Itechs he was trying to break in that he's obviously decided not go with (although the gloves he's wearing now are the ones he was breaking in with the pads).

Most of his time was spent talking about how he liked his current pads and that Ozzie and the training staff had to keep opening them up and changing the foam because they were breaking down so bad. They showed how the top of the pad was splitting apart from it being opened and sewed shut so many times.

If you look at another pic that was posted in this thread it really doesn't look like what they did to the pads was an extension so much as they had to rig a new top binding.

Believe me those things were ragged when they showed them. It's a shame he didn't go with the shiny new Itechs.

[JetstoOilers81]

Originally Posted by VAPORDEUX6038

Seems like an ignorant thing to say. Have you seen him play? He's one of the most technically sound goalies in the NHL, has the poise and confidence of a veteran and doesn't get rattled. I dont know, seems like a perplexing pick if you're gonna try and call a bust.

Hmmmmm. interesting. the poise of a veteran.

[jacksonh]

Originally Posted by JDes

The one point I don't agree with you guys on is that Homer doesn't allow Turco to come out and challenge..... That's like saying that Scott Stevens should get an interference penalty for hitting Paul Kariya and not letting him skate through toward the net. This is hockey guys I'm from Detroit so I've been watching this same thing happen all year, and yes sometimes I think they're getting too close but you know what, in the picture above there there is no contact between the two they are very very close but that's why he scores alot of goals in a season.

Except that Paul Kariya isn't a goalie and Stevens wasn't in his crease and Kariya had the puck. The rule is that the goalie is allowed to establish any position he wants in his crease.

If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.