• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

2016-2017 Pens----Still with 100% more Kessel

Seriously, that was some ridiculous Canadian home cooking. First we had a clear goal stolen from us. I counted three times where they literally TACKLED Crosby, no penalty. It was crystal clear they wanted the Sens to win this one.
 
 
I look for more of the same in game 7. Ott will play a tight defensive shell and hope to capitalize on a few chances. Pens seemed a little sloppy yesterday. We did put up a lot of shots, but many were shot right at Andersen. The quality chances we got were either misplayed or stoned byby andersen. Out PP has not been good when it matters. I know we scored 3 in game 5, but that game was already out of hand.
 
Pens got away from hitting. They need to blast those ******** into the boards like they did in game 5. This series should have been over last night. The talent level is not even close.
 
go back, watch the tapes of Games 4 and 5 to see what they did positive, and build from there. The crowd will have to give the Pens a boost to keep the pressure, aggressiveness and speed up. Ottawa can't match the Pens when they are flying. We'll see what happens tomorrow night, but the momentum the Sens have should even out with the Pens playing at home. Will be interesting, for sure.
 
I think the Pens did a lot right for 2 periods. The scoreboard probably deflated their spirits going into the 3rd. I get the whole doing everything right, no results type could've messed with our guys.

-Pens did lack that certain aggression that boosted them in game 5
-Anderson, like MAF stole this game. Bad shot's on goal though
- still feel good about our chances

Let's Go Pens!
 
Gents,

In last nights scuffle near the end of the game, Rust drove Carlsson, Ottawa's only great player, into the boards and was clearly intent on taking him down. One Ottawa player went to his assistance, Sid went after that guy, and then Methot came behind sid. There was no ******* eye gouging or similar. There was a large NHL player reaching over another and grabbing him to attempt to free his own player. That same player was grabbed by a linesman who separated him off Sid quickly --- like the officials knew who Crosby was.

On the disallowed goal, here is the actual NHL rule. It is complicated, but provides much room for the goal to have been disallowed because the goaltender was clearly interfered with in his crease. I would argue that the Dman forced this interference, but it is also clear that Daley did make contact and that this contact, in the crease, meant the goalie was impaired. Therefore the goal was correctly disallowed.

The problem was the rule; the officials made the correct call given the rule.

Rule 78 - Protection of Goalkeeper


The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.(a) If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
(b) If an attacking player initiates any contact, other than incidental contact, with the goalkeeper, while the goalkeeper is outside of his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
(c) In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). See also Rule 47 (c) - Charging.
(NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.
(NOTE 2) If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed to be contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
(NOTE 3)A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.
​
(d) If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact (a) is 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.
(e) If, after any contact initiated 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 interference.
(NOTE 4)The overriding rationale of subsections (d) and (e) above is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player.
(NOTE 5) In attempting to establish position in his goal crease, a goalkeeper who engages in acts which would otherwise warrant a penalty (e.g., cross-checking, slashing, etc.) will be assessed an appropriate penalty.
​
(f) When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent.
(g) If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
(NOTE 6)For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.
​
(h) Subject to (i) below, if an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
(i) In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and offensive player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
(j) In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.
(k) A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.
(l) An attacking player who, in the judgment of the Referee, initiates contact with the goalkeeper, whether inside or outside the crease, in a fashion that would otherwise warrant a penalty, will be assessed an appropriate penalty (minor or major and/or a game misconduct) and will be subject to additional sanctions as appropriate pursuant to Rule 33A - Supplementary Discipline.
(NOTE 7)For purposes of this rule, "contact", whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.
(NOTE 8) The above-stated standards relating to when a goal will be disallowed will be applied in all situations in which the puck enters the net regardless of whether it was directed into the net by the attacking or defensive team.
​
Click to expand...


Go Pens!!!

(No idea why this looks like ****)!!
 
Last edited:
it's done and over with, but I didn't see Daley interfered with Anderson and I looked for it multiple times.

He was being pushed by the dman, first of all and the puck was loose, which he could be in the crease trying to score. I didn't see any motions that Daley did that represented interference or impeded Anderson to make a play. Like I said, it's over and done, got to get ready for Game 7. All the marbles. Get mad and even.
 
Oh well. Next. All I want to see next game is ********&elbows flying with pucks in the back of their net.
 
bmoritz said:
Seriously, that was some ridiculous Canadian home cooking. First we had a clear goal stolen from us. I counted three times where they literally TACKLED Crosby, no penalty. It was crystal clear they wanted the Sens to win this one.
Click to expand...

It felt like I was watching the Steelers play the Cheatriots and refs.
 
Confluence said:
Gents,

In last nights scuffle near the end of the game, Rust drove Carlsson, Ottawa's only great player, into the boards and was clearly intent on taking him down. One Ottawa player went to his assistance, Sid went after that guy, and then Methot came behind sid. There was no ******* eye gouging or similar. There was a large NHL player reaching over another and grabbing him to attempt to free his own player. That same player was grabbed by a linesman who separated him off Sid quickly --- like the officials knew who Crosby was.

On the disallowed goal, here is the actual NHL rule. It is complicated, but provides much room for the goal to have been disallowed because the goaltender was clearly interfered with in his crease. I would argue that the Dman forced this interference, but it is also clear that Daley did make contact and that this contact, in the crease, meant the goalie was impaired. Therefore the goal was correctly disallowed.

The problem was the rule; the officials made the correct call given the rule.



Go Pens!!!

(No idea why this looks like ****)!!
Click to expand...

Terrible b.s. call. Home cooked calls and no calls. That **** has been going on for a long time. Hell it looks like the NFL. I guess pro sports really are ****** up all the same.
 
Refs 2 Pens 1

Saw it coming a mile away after that 1st.

Game 7 at home. Hold on to your butts.
 
thesteelcity said:
keep the positive vibes, MTC, we need them. I swear, with this team, they never do anything easy.
Click to expand...

Serious question ... Do you know of ANY pro team in Pittsburgh that does?
 
thesteelcity said:
keep the positive vibes, MTC, we need them. I swear, with this team, they never do anything easy.
Click to expand...

Ya got it. Pens looked in control most of the night. Bad quality shots and a less physical side to their game.
I see it again as a chess match. I think Sullivan knew what he was doing and if worse came to worse then a game 7.

The Pens look like they've exposed enough weaknesses in Ottawa. Their D sucks and the Pens really failed in burying chances. Some credit goes to Anderson, but shooting directly into his chest makes him look like a god more than he is.

Pens will win
 
Someone said Methot wasn't trying to eye poke Sid. I wholeheartedly disagree. As the picture from the Trib shows, Methot is clearly and closely watching where he puts his hand/fingers during this scuffle. He meant to go for Sid's eyes.

dt.common.streams.StreamServer.jpg
 
SteelBuckeye said:
Someone said Methot wasn't trying to eye poke Sid. I wholeheartedly disagree. As the picture from the Trib shows, Methot is clearly and closely watching where he puts his hand/fingers during this scuffle. He meant to go for Sid's eyes.

View attachment 3385
Click to expand...

Edit: Interesting to note that Methot is the only player in this pic with his gloves off. One can safely assume that he took the opportunity to remove them shortly before raking Sid's eyes. Intent.
 
SteelBuckeye said:
Edit: Interesting to note that Methot is the only player in this pic with his gloves off. One can safely assume that he took the opportunity to remove them shortly before raking Sid's eyes. Intent.
Click to expand...

Yea, that is odd that his gloves are off, but face washes with a gloved hand are very common in skirmishes.
 
If this game tonight goes south, I hope Sid and Geno go around cross checking guys in the back of the head, butt ending guys in the jaw and throw in a couple of eye gouges for good measure. As dumb as it is, I get that the refs just don't make calls in the playoffs. That said, this series especially and this playoffs in general around the NHL has been very poorly officiated. That marginally skilled teams like Ottawa can make the ECF by basically being allowed to play outside the rules, then take it to seven games by throwing the rule book out the window is an embarrassment to sports. The NHL needs to discipline officials for allowing this **** to occur, and they need to make their officials call the ******* rule book. Not my fault ****** teams like Ottawa would spend 40 minutes a game in the penalty box. Draft better, sign better free agents and try to keep up. Bunch a garbage, the NHL.

I don't know how anyone can say that this is good hockey or good for the league. This turns fans off, and is what keeps the NHL from growing in America.
 
Last edited:
Agreed Sarge.

The sport of hockey can make a great run. Sid and Ovechkin saved the league practically. Now with another generational wave making a stand. Gotta throw this goonery out the window. Johansen in Nashville called out the cheap play by Ryan Kesler. Our series shouldn't have been a game 7. I'd be ok with the loss, if the refs didn't throw their hand to influence the game. I hope the Pens KO the snot out Karlsson. Sid was damn near tackled and held on the floor every shift. Bullshit
 
Do or go play golf. Well **** golf. I'm pissed at all of the nonsense that has gone on in these games. The senators are not the better team by far. The last time I was this mad is when Mario played and they mugged him relentlessly without a foul.
 
Pens=determined

I don't want to hear about anything else. I want a win tonight. No ifs, and or buts. No refs, no excuses. Take care of freakin' business tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top