Jump to content
IGNORED

NHL 2020-21 (or just 2021)


Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
2 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

If there wasn't still grey area then, by your logic, the NHL would have dealt out several of your 10-game suspensions. I know. The dinosaurs are still in charge.

No, that’s not how the rules are per the CBA. Supplemental discipline is at the discretion of the commissioner’s office. That’s why the rulings are not consistent, because there’s no defined line to start from.

2 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

Don't fret. The trend is obvious.

Player protection is a priority and eventually the NHL will be a non-contact version of the sport. I'm sure you and your enlightened friends will enjoy the game very much.

Holy hell, you think the only solution is to make the sport non-contact? You’re over here talking about grey areas yet you yourself can’t seem to make an argument that isn’t black and white.

Hitting is part of the game. Hitting people in the head, or from behind into the boards, or at full speed from 90’ away should not be. They’re dangerous plays and that’s why they’re already against the rules. The problem is that penalties within the game are not enough of a deterrent to stop people from doing these things.

Hell, I still cringe every time I hear an announcer complain about a weak call because someone’s stick made contact with an opposing player’s glove. You know why they cracked down on slashing? Because somebody had the the tip of their finger cut off. Was it a freak accident? Sure. Is it preventable? Definitely. That’s the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Nikolaj Ehlers (#27 in blue) is properly getting a lot of credit for holding the scrum back from the injured Evans.  

Man, Tom Wilson just can't help himself. He's not just a goon, but he undermines his actual ability when he pulls stupid shit like this. He should be out for awhile. But it's the NHL, and th

I’m having a hard time seeing this. First, you said someone is really going to get hurt one of these days, even though the kid is out with a concussion. Then, you said you were thinking of something m

  • Administrator
3 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

If there wasn't still grey area then, by your logic, the NHL would have dealt out several of your 10-game suspensions. I know. The dinosaurs are still in charge.

Don't fret. The trend is obvious.

Player protection is a priority and eventually the NHL will be a non-contact version of the sport. I'm sure you and your enlightened friends will enjoy the game very much.

Annoyed GIF by 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Scheifele has a pretty good record with 237 penalty minutes in 575 career regular-season games, pretty good evidence that he didn't intend anything malicious. Another reason he only got four games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
24 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

pretty good evidence that he didn't intend anything malicious

No it’s not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

No it’s not.

He also testified himself that it wasn't intentional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
3 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

He also testified himself that it wasn't intentional.

Ooooooooooooh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
43 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Scheifele has a pretty good record with 237 penalty minutes in 575 career regular-season games, pretty good evidence that he didn't intend anything malicious. Another reason he only got four games.

I think a player’s history should only be relevant in that subsequent disciplinary action would be more severe. First offense should be x amount of games, second offense y amount, and so forth. A player shouldn’t be given leniency for a dirty play just because he’s not a dirty player. A dirty play is a dirty play.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

12 hours ago, billchao said:

Holy hell, you think the only solution is to make the sport non-contact? You’re over here talking about grey areas yet you yourself can’t seem to make an argument that isn’t black and white.

My point was that there is a lot of gray area. The other guy's argument was that it was black and white. 

My use of non-contact was merely to illustrate the one way you could make it less subjective. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Question: Why should a player be allowed to check another player when he doesn't have the puck? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

20 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Question: Why should a player be allowed to check another player when he doesn't have the puck? 

That would generally be ruled interference. Normally, a two-minute penalty.

It is one of those calls that are missed on a not infrequent basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

9 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

That would generally be ruled interference. Normally, a two-minute penalty.

It is one of those calls that are missed on a not infrequent basis.

That puts it a level beneath crosschecking, which appears to be the NHL's version of traveling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, measureoffsetinnm said:

That puts it a level beneath crosschecking, which appears to be the NHL's version of traveling.

Cross-checking can often be a two-minute penalty as well. It depends on the severity which is up to referee discretion.

Vicious shots may draw a five-minute penalty, but you'll also see a lot of small cross-checks go unpenalized from game to game.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, mcanadiens said:

Cross-checking can often be a two-minute penalty as well. It depends on the severity which is up to referee discretion.

Vicious shots may draw a five-minute penalty, but you'll also see a lot of small cross-checks go unpenalized from game to game.

 

imo, a cross check should 'never' be allowed, no matter what situation. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, Billy Z said:

imo, a cross check should 'never' be allowed, no matter what situation. 

The relative strictness that the league's officials call penalties ebbs and flows over time. 

I remember directly after the 04-05 lockout that refs were whistling all manner of obstruction penalties. Half the game was on the power play for one team or the other. Hooking penalties were very popular.

Practically speaking, you could call a boatload of penalties in most games, so they sort of pick and choose the more significant ones. If it erases a clear-cut scoring chance, it is much more likely to get a whistle. It's kind of like holding penalties in American football. Call too many penalties and the game would get tough to watch. Crackdowns, like the one I mentioned, can result in a cleaner game. It's up the NHL each year to set its referee's priorities.

All that said, the current standards are hardly the worst we've seen. The game in the 90s looked like a dance contest by comparison. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

(edited)

Pick tonight's scores:

Tampa @ Carolina

(TB leads series 3-1)

 

Vegas @ Colorado

(series tied 2-2) 

Edited by Billy Z
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

9 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

Cross-checking can often be a two-minute penalty as well. It depends on the severity which is up to referee discretion.

Vicious shots may draw a five-minute penalty, but you'll also see a lot of small cross-checks go unpenalized from game to game.

 

Yeah that is what I meant. They never call it until it is extremely egregious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2021 at 3:37 PM, Billy Z said:

Vegas @ Colorado

These two teams are stupid fast.

My club is going to have to stay in front of them and take advantage of their mistakes to win this one.

Big step up from the Leafs and Jets. That's for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • I understand the need to protect what people perceive to be their freedoms, but I don't think that there is a problem in enforcing things like the wearing of seatbelts or driving whilst drunk etc. I think it SHOULD be mandated, but am realistic enough to know that any government who tried to to this would become very unpopular very quickly. At the very least I think there should be a sort of "vaccination passport" where it became pretty obvious that being unvaccinated stopped you from doing thing you like to do - like going to restaurants, sporting events or even your job, which would be an incentive for them to get vaccinated. I kind of think that the greatest freedom you can have is being pretty sure that if you do get the virus it won't kill you. And there's a simple way to achieve that freedom.
    • I hadn't heard that, but given the stupidity of people out there refusing to take it (even for FREE, no less), I'm not surprised. It'll likely be upheld too because, while the case law is old, the case mostly on point has upheld such measures.
    • There's been a lot of stories in the news lately that, because enough people have not been vaccinated (thus starving the virus), we may be headed towards mandates.  Not desirable but the 30% to 40% not vaccinated are keeping Covid-19 rolling right along and harming those who have done their part to help beat down this pandemic.
    • Mind you, @Shorty, I get the whole “it’s not for you, it’s for the protection of others” part of it. 
    • It's like living in the 1900's and 2000's. Majority of people don't have a grasp of illness and just go to a doctor. The doctor writes them a script, they go to the pharmacy and move on.  I feel like you are not taking into account timing. Is an Asymptomatic person transmissible forever? What if he caught it 3 months after COVID hit. The vaccine didn't come out for half a year or more. Would he still be putting people at risk?  Given, he should have gotten tested. He should be consulting a medical professional. Those are the two major sins.   
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Armando Araujo
      Armando Araujo
      (46 years old)
    2. chris3putt
      chris3putt
      (54 years old)
    3. CrazyHorsePete
      CrazyHorsePete
      (34 years old)
    4. DHak20
      DHak20
      (44 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...