NHL 2015-16 Season

[mcanadiens]

Based on our recent discourse, last night's game with the CBJ was funny. It was on Fox Sports Ohio, so a rare chance for me to watch the whole game.

1. Alexei Emelin gets 5 and the game for interference. CBJ's Calvert was skating toward the Montreal goal roughly a moment after the Habs cleared the zone. Emelin smoked him. A definite interference penalty. Calvert stayed in the game, I suspect that if he had got up straight away it would have been a garden-variety minor. It was the sort of play I'd never have previously imagined a suspension for, but today you never know.

2. An aggressive hit by the CBJ brought Nathan Beaulieu to fight Nick Foligno and Foligno dusted him. Habs haven't done real well with the fighting stuff in a long time.

Also ironic is that the final score was, in fact, 2-1 The Canadiens did real well with only five defense for over two-third of the game. Actually, I thought it was a fairly entertaining contest all the way around.

 

 

[mcanadiens]

15 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

With Price out for a minimum of 6 weeks, we'll need all the whistles we can get!

Condon has done real well, but he nearly gave me a heart attack last night with that mishandled puck in the second period. It'll also be interesting to see Furcale when he gets his stab.

I'm really optimistic that the team will be just fine in the mean time, but Carey's got to be 100% when it really counts. Not sure if there was a mistake made on his comeback or not.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

1. Alexei Emelin gets 5 and the game for interference. CBJ's Calvert was skating toward the Montreal goal roughly a moment after the Habs cleared the zone. Emelin smoked him. A definite interference penalty. Calvert stayed in the game, I suspect that if he had got up straight away it would have been a garden-variety minor. It was the sort of play I'd never have previously imagined a suspension for, but today you never know.

The only thing I heard about that was that Torts was whining and pitching a fit over it… Typical. The tough guy who whines about everyone else's whining is typically the biggest dillwad of them all. Only a few days after standing up for Dubinsky and all that, he whines about a cleaner hit delivered to his own guy.

[tdiii]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

The only thing I heard about that was that Torts was whining and pitching a fit over it… Typical. The tough guy who whines about everyone else's whining is typically the biggest dillwad of them all. Only a few days after standing up for Dubinsky and all that, he whines about a cleaner hit delivered to his own guy.

Don't get me wrong, I despise Torts and his ilk. . . but there was nothing clean about that hit. 

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Don't get me wrong, I despise Torts and his ilk. . . but there was nothing clean about that hit. 

I said "cleaner." I could have said "slightly less dirty."

If you took my comment to say that the hit on Calvert was clean… I was not clear, and apologize. It was not. But it was, IMO, less dirty than the Dubinsky crap.

[RFKFREAK]

On 12/1/2015, 5:22:33, iacas said:

The NFL sells "violence" too but they've realized that they sell other things - perhaps far more so - than violence as well.

At the end of the day both sports ultimately sell entertainment. The NFL has taken big steps to expand beyond "violence as entertainment" into "skill and scoring as entertainment."

 

To each their own obviously but I find this era in the NFL, where they handcuff the defenses in order to promote scoring, to be less enjoyable for me.  In my opinion, their approach is to focus on offensive skill at the expense of defensive skill.

 

On 12/1/2015, 5:22:33, iacas said:

I wish the NHL would follow suit. You can sell "hate" or whatever the one email said, too, when one team beats a hated rival 5-4 just as easily as you can when they beat them 2-1. The former will likely be more entertaining, though.

I found last night's 2-1 NYR/NYI game to be very entertaining.  I love a good goaltending battle (which was on displace last night) and you're just not going to get that in a 5-4 game.

I'm partial to pitchers duels and games which highlight good defensive play (whether it's hockey, basketball, football, or soccer).  I just enjoy those kind of games more and they keep me on the edge of my seat. 

 

[mcanadiens]

39 minutes ago, tdiii said:

Don't get me wrong, I despise Torts and his ilk. . . but there was nothing clean about that hit. 

By today's standards, it was dirty. It was interference in the first place and open-ice hits as a whole are a problem, so Emelin was always going to get run. Your chances are a heck of a lot better if you can use the boards. Just ask Mike Foligno.

Bit of a shame given how the Habs have a really hard time hitting anybody in the first place.

 

 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, RFKFREAK said:

To each their own obviously but I find this era in the NFL, where they handcuff the defenses in order to promote scoring, to be less enjoyable for me.  In my opinion, their approach is to focus on offensive skill at the expense of defensive skill.

I found last night's 2-1 NYR/NYI game to be very entertaining.  I love a good goaltending battle (which was on displace last night) and you're just not going to get that in a 5-4 game.

I'm partial to pitchers duels and games which highlight good defensive play (whether it's hockey, basketball, football, or soccer).  I just enjoy those kind of games more and they keep me on the edge of my seat. 

You can have a good defensive battle without allowing clutching, grabbing, interference, and obstruction.

The NFL isn't telling DBs they can't touch a wide receiver. They're just telling them they can't lay the wood to them helmet to helmet like they used to do. Or that they can't wrestle with them ten yards down the field before the ball's thrown.

All I'm asking is that the NHL enforce the rules in the rule book. The players would adjust. You'd still see 2-1 games, and you'd still see good goaltending. In fact, better goaltending would be at a premium if scoring goes up. It'd be a point of separation. The Rangers have one of the best… they should want higher scoring games. In a 1-0 game, one lucky break could decide it, good goaltender or not.

[tdiii]

Just now, iacas said:

You can have a good defensive battle without allowing clutching, grabbing, interference, and obstruction.

The NFL isn't telling DBs they can't touch a wide receiver. They're just telling them they can't lay the wood to them helmet to helmet like they used to do. Or that they can't wrestle with them ten yards down the field before the ball's thrown.

All I'm asking is that the NHL enforce the rules in the rule book. The players would adjust. You'd still see 2-1 games, and you'd still see good goaltending. In fact, better goaltending would be at a premium if scoring goes up. It'd be a point of separation. The Rangers have one of the best… they should want higher scoring games. In a 1-0 game, one lucky break could decide it, good goaltender or not.

Good points, about which I agree.

Call the rulebook, but also interpret it correctly.  If you listen to the Dept Player Safety video on Rinaldo's hit on Clouturier, the NHL says the hit was not interference!!!!  Outrageous.  The  puck was 10' away from him when Rinaldo hit him!  Here's the link:  http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=853176 

As you said, Player Safety is a joke.  Compare this video where a 3 game suspension is imposed:  http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=790757&navid=DL|NHL|Microsite-PlayerSafety to the Dustin Brown face shot on Couture:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QwG-l8BEvg

I think a lot of the pushing, shoving, gloves in the face, etc. after any play is called need to go away.  They just lead to fisticuffs and cheap shots later in the game.

Allow for supplemental discipline for in game infractions that are not called.  The NHL can review games after the fact, and impose fines for stick work and other cheap play.  Now,  the whole policing the game crap goes away. 

Finally, get rid of fighting.  The NFL doesn't need it and it is at least as physical and emotional. 

 

[RFKFREAK]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

You can have a good defensive battle without allowing clutching, grabbing, interference, and obstruction.

The NFL isn't telling DBs they can't touch a wide receiver. They're just telling them they can't lay the wood to them helmet to helmet like they used to do. Or that they can't wrestle with them ten yards down the field before the ball's thrown.

All I'm asking is that the NHL enforce the rules in the rule book. The players would adjust. You'd still see 2-1 games, and you'd still see good goaltending. In fact, better goaltending would be at a premium if scoring goes up. It'd be a point of separation. The Rangers have one of the best… they should want higher scoring games. In a 1-0 game, one lucky break could decide it, good goaltender or not.

The NFL pretty much tells DB's you can't touch the receiver once they're 5 yards (or 10 yards at this moment I don't remember which) pasted the line of scrimmage.  Almost any contact passed that gets called goes against the defense unless the receiver turns his head around.  Almost every call against the defense gets gives the offense a first down, even if it penalty doesn't reach the required yardage to a first down (the ones that come to my mind that don't are offside, encroachment, and neutral zone infraction penalties).

I agree with the NFL on how they handle helmet to helmet hits and leading with the helmet but even considering that, the deck is easily stacked against defenses because that's the way the NFL wants it.

As for the NHL, I think Dubinsky got penalized and suspended because of the crosschecked while Crosby was on the ground.  The initial contact is a part of hockey and shouldn't draw a suspension, much less a major one, IMO, and, if did, I bet the players would negotiate it before they agree to the next CBA.  The fact that Beleskey didn't get a penalty for the hit or any punishment from the league was ludicrous, IMO,  and the fact that the Bruins ended up on the PP because McIlrath stood up for his teammate was incredulous to me.  I saw the hit on Maatta when it happened and it looked bad to me then and it still looks bad.

[mcanadiens]

Maybe the whole thing would be simpler if we just tell the players one thing. That thing is whatever you do, don't hurt em.

Blah. ... I guess I'm just showing my age. 

[newtogolf]

In terms of hockey today, I think it's more exciting than it was 10 years ago, but I'd prefer to see more open skating with potentially bigger (clean) hits than the clutching, grabbing and obstruction that is becoming common today.  I've been watching a fair amount of college hockey live at local rink and find that to be a more enjoyable product over most of the NHL games I've seen so far this season.

 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, RFKFREAK said:

As for the NHL, I think Dubinsky got penalized and suspended because of the crosschecked while Crosby was on the ground.  The initial contact is a part of hockey and shouldn't draw a suspension, much less a major one, IMO, and, if did, I bet the players would negotiate it before they agree to the next CBA.  

That wasn't a hockey play. Cross-checking someone on the neck? It's cross-checking, it's targeting the head, it's a high stick, all rolled into one.

[RFKFREAK]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

That wasn't a hockey play. Cross-checking someone on the neck? It's cross-checking, it's targeting the head, it's a high stick, all rolled into one.

That's the kind of play that happens pretty regularly now and historically.  Battles in front of the net like that are rarely penalized hence why I don't think the penalty and suspension were for that particular action by Dubinsky and that it was for hitting a defenseless player.

But I understand that, as part of your global argument, you feel it should be a penalty that's called every time it happens and that the league is giving no indication that that's a course of action that they're looking to take at the moment.   

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, RFKFREAK said:

That's the kind of play that happens pretty regularly now and historically.  Battles in front of the net like that are rarely penalized hence why I don't think the penalty and suspension were for that particular action by Dubinsky and that it was for hitting a defenseless player.

Like I said, that crossed the line beyond being a "battle in front of the net." Everything right up to the high-stick/cross-check/head-targeting was fine. Aside from some CBJ fans, you're about the only person I've heard calling that a hockey play.

18 minutes ago, RFKFREAK said:

But I understand that, as part of your global argument, you feel it should be a penalty that's called every time it happens and that the league is giving no indication that that's a course of action that they're looking to take at the moment.   

We'll see. The other shoe is possibly about to drop. There are lawsuits percolating…

[RFKFREAK]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

We'll see. The other shoe is possibly about to drop. There are lawsuits percolating…

That might be one of the only things that change how the NHL decides to penalize players (both with on ice penalties and suspensions) and change the culture of the game as to what is permissible and what isn't. 

[mcanadiens]

I finally bothered to actually look at the Dubinsky play and the one-gamer is probably close to right. A two-gamer may have been closer. Crosschecks are illegal anyway and this one was to the back of the head. It's debatable what they would have done back in the day, but today that's a suspension with the concussion issues. Dubinsky says that he just missed the placement of his crosscheck and, if you give him credit, that may justify not giving him more than they did.

9 hours ago, RFKFREAK said:

That might be one of the only things that change how the NHL decides to penalize players (both with on ice penalties and suspensions) and change the culture of the game as to what is permissible and what isn't. 

Really, they already have quite a bit. The frequency and sheer force of hits is way down from what it used to be. Most of the hits we see suspended today, wouldn't have even been questioned 10 to 15 years ago. Anyone here remember the Scott Stevens hit on Kozlov in 1995? It was a hit that absolutely set the tone for the Devils' Stanley Cup win. Today, that's a multi-game suspension.

[billchao]

1 hour ago, mcanadiens said:

Anyone here remember the Scott Stevens hit on Kozlov in 1995? It was a hit that absolutely set the tone for the Devils' Stanley Cup win. Today, that's a multi-game suspension.

I remember all those big Stevens hits and rewatch them from time to time when they replay the old games on TV.

Stevens himself has stated he couldn't play the way he did back then under today's rules. It was a different time.