Flyers vs Tampa GNT

[SLY]

You're actually watching ESPN?

 

[TiLoBrown]

Jones...is a moron

 

[Winged_Wheel88]

Jones...is a moron

Jones is a killer!

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

You're actually watching ESPN?

I deserve a facepalm, but it was just on at the dinner table and I only started paying attention when I noticed they were discussing something besides Penn State, and sure enough it was the Flyers.

 

[juliansteed]

My analogies of other sports weren't intended to be perfect and if anyone thinks they were they missed the point. I'm simply stating the the onus needs to be on the team/player that has possession whether they like what the other team is doing or not, so long as that other team is doing nothing illegal. Former referee Kerry Fraser and the NHL rulebook seem to agree:

Fraser: The correct assessment of the Lightning-Flyers situation

 

[Vadered]

My analogies of other sports weren't intended to be perfect and if anyone thinks they were they missed the point. I'm simply stating the the onus needs to be on the team/player that has possession whether they like what the other team is doing or not, so long as that other team is doing nothing illegal. Former referee Kerry Fraser and the NHL rulebook seem to agree:

Fraser: The correct assessment of the Lightning-Flyers situation

Then the rules need to be changed. What about when a team killing a penalty plays the puck backwards from their offensive zone to their defensive zone? Isn't that against rule 72? What about when a team holds the puck behind their net while waiting for a line change to complete? I've seen that last longer than ten seconds. And finally, as I stated in my last post - hockey is the sport where the defense is MOST able to recover possession and force plays to occur. I'm not saying I want to watch a game where a team sits in their own d zone for ten minutes at a time. But don't act like the Bolts can't do anything about it. They can choose to attempt to recover possession.

And as for other sports. In football, a very common strategy is to run out the clock by intentionally downing the ball behind the line of scrimmage. Also, if the defense drops eleven guys into coverage, then the offense can take an entire quarter in one play. You won't see that happen, because it would be absolutely moronic to allow free territory gain except in very specific scenarios, but it's legal in football. In baseball, the onus is actually on the defense to start the play by the pitcher delivering a hittable ball (in the form of a strike). In basketball you are correct, the offense must advance and attempt to score, but keep in mind it's much easier to maintain possession in basketball than it is in hockey. They need to force the action because otherwise the game stalls out too easily.

Now after reading this, you might think I have no problem with teams not playing into the trap. That's not true. I don't want to see teams hold the puck in their zone for minutes at a time. But the only change that I feel needs to be made is that if a team holds the puck in their own defensive end for more than x seconds at a time without any serious attempt to recover possession by the defenders, the play is blown dead and a faceoff is held at center ice. My reasoning is this: neither team is forcing the action, so neither team should get any advantage. Why do the trappers get an offensive zone faceoff when they were never in the offensive zone to begin with? And you certainly wouldn't put it in the other offensive zone, as the other team might not have gotten it that far had they advanced it. They very reasonably could have made center ice though. Plus a faceoff at center relieves the problem by forcing the team that loses the draw to defend when the attackers have gained center. I think this is a fair solution to improve the quality of the game while not granting advantages to teams who aren't forcing play on either side.

(That said, the day the trap goes out of vogue cannot come fast enough!)

 

[juliansteed]

Then the rules need to be changed. What about when a team killing a penalty plays the puck backwards from their offensive zone to their defensive zone? Isn't that against rule 72? What about when a team holds the puck behind their net while waiting for a line change to complete? I've seen that last longer than ten seconds. And finally, as I stated in my last post - hockey is the sport where the defense is MOST able to recover possession and force plays to occur. I'm not saying I want to watch a game where a team sits in their own d zone for ten minutes at a time. But don't act like the Bolts can't do anything about it. They can choose to attempt to recover possession.

And as for other sports. In football, a very common strategy is to run out the clock by intentionally downing the ball behind the line of scrimmage. Also, if the defense drops eleven guys into coverage, then the offense can take an entire quarter in one play. You won't see that happen, because it would be absolutely moronic to allow free territory gain except in very specific scenarios, but it's legal in football. In baseball, the onus is actually on the defense to start the play by the pitcher delivering a hittable ball (in the form of a strike). In basketball you are correct, the offense must advance and attempt to score, but keep in mind it's much easier to maintain possession in basketball than it is in hockey. They need to force the action because otherwise the game stalls out too easily.

Now after reading this, you might think I have no problem with teams not playing into the trap. That's not true. I don't want to see teams hold the puck in their zone for minutes at a time. But the only change that I feel needs to be made is that if a team holds the puck in their own defensive end for more than x seconds at a time without any serious attempt to recover possession by the defenders, the play is blown dead and a faceoff is held at center ice. My reasoning is this: neither team is forcing the action, so neither team should get any advantage. Why do the trappers get an offensive zone faceoff when they were never in the offensive zone to begin with? And you certainly wouldn't put it in the other offensive zone, as the other team might not have gotten it that far had they advanced it. They very reasonably could have made center ice though. Plus a faceoff at center relieves the problem by forcing the team that loses the draw to defend when the attackers have gained center. I think this is a fair solution to improve the quality of the game while not granting advantages to teams who aren't forcing play on either side.

(That said, the day the trap goes out of vogue cannot come fast enough!)

But why do the rules need to change? Just because some people don't like it? I see absolutely no problem with the rule. It just needs to be enforced better and no doubt it will be next time. By that I mean the refs should have blown the play dead sooner. It's true that technically they could call a faceoff when teams do it behind their net to get a line change. Apparently in the opinion of the officials that is not in violation of the spirit of the rule but this is. Probably because when that happens the refs know they are waiting for their teammates to get into positions of their liking, not their opponents. But if they did blow the play dead in that instance it would also stay within the zone because the face-off is going to be at the closest circle to where the puck was when the whistle was blown. You say why should the trapping team get a faceoff in the offensive zone when they weren't even in the offensive zone but then why should the puck come outside the zone when it was never outside the zone? Sure they could have gotten it out (maybe) just like the trapping team could have entered the zone. But they chose not to. Again there is nothing in the rule book that says you have to forecheck but there is something in the rulebook that says you have to make an effort to keep the puck moving.

 

[Vadered]

And again, I'm saying that while that is the correct interpretation of the rules as they stand, we should change them. You don't think that the possessing team can make it out to center ice? Given that the trapping team has nobody in the zone with the puck, the very laws of physics dictate that it is impossible to turn the puck over prior to it exiting the zone.

Unless of course it is Matt Carle with the puck, then fucking anything is possible.

And by leaving the faceoff in the zone, you give the trapping team an advantage. You are giving them an incentive to trap, which we do not want. By putting it in the neutral zone, you both lessen this incentive to trap, and you end up with a confrontation at center ice, which IS THE VERY THING THE TRAPPING TEAM WAS LOOKING FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[juliansteed]

And again, I'm saying that while that is the correct interpretation of the rules as they stand, we should change them. You don't think that the possessing team can make it out to center ice? Given that the trapping team has nobody in the zone with the puck, the very laws of physics dictate that it is impossible to turn the puck over prior to it exiting the zone.

Unless of course it is Matt Carle with the puck, then fucking anything is possible.

And by leaving the faceoff in the zone, you give the trapping team an advantage. You are giving them an incentive to trap, which we do not want. By putting it in the neutral zone, you both lessen this incentive to trap, and you end up with a confrontation at center ice, which IS THE VERY THING THE TRAPPING TEAM WAS LOOKING FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I very well do think they could make it out of the zone. I thought I made that perfectly clear in my post. That being said, don't they have a guy at or near the blue line? Why can't he cause a turnover? Anyway that's a bit of a moot point because like I said I acknowledged that they could get it out Just like the trapping team could enter the zone if they wanted to. It's just that both choose not to. What they "could do" doesn't really concern me. I'm more interested in what actually happens. And I just happen to think that the location of the puck is a far better determining factor for where the faceoff should be than the location of the players, which the NHL rulebook seems to agree with. If you don't, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it I wouldn't suggest that the rules NEED to change, just that you would like to see them changed. I personally am not opposed to rule changes but I certainly don't see the need for it either. The rule makes perfect sense to me. While people may not have been fond of the trap in general before, nobody seemed to have a problem with this specific issue. What if Philly only stalled with the puck long enough for it become apparent the Bolts weren't going to send anyone but then decided to try to leave the zone? Would there be some sort of penalty to TB for applying that type of defense? Or does TB only need to be held accountable for it when the other team refuses to play with it? That's like when there's a scrum in front of the net and 1 guy gives another a mild jab and the refs aren't going to call it but then when the other player retaliates the ref decides to call them both. There's a reason why the expression "the ball is in your court" is used so often. I would say it applies here figuratively and almost literally as well.

 

[juliansteed]

And I agree that having the face-off inside the blue line puts the trapping team in a better situation. But its an advantage that the other team would willingly allow to happen. I can't blame Philly too much for this instance because it was a bit of an obscure rule, but it's not so obscure now. Going forward I would say that it would be the team's own stupid fault if they give this advantage to their opponents. And by giving them this advantage the team with the puck is discouraged from just standing there in their own zone doing nothing. I'm pretty sure we want that far less than we want teams trapping.

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

And by leaving the faceoff in the zone, you give the trapping team an advantage. You are giving them an incentive to trap, which we do not want.

This is exactly my argument. Look, I do not want to change the rules. If teams want to trap, let them trap. If teams want to exploit the trap by not giving into it, that is also fine.

What pisses me off is the refs lowing the play dead the very a player stops moving the puck. Yes it has to stay in motion, but at one point in that game our players was doing circles, moving the puck, but the second it stopped moving it was whistled dead and a faceoff was in our zone. They need to allow more time before they blew the play dead, and I believe they were talked to possibly during last game because they were indeed wrong.

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

And I agree that having the face-off inside the blue line puts the trapping team in a better situation. But its an advantage that the other team would willingly allow to happen. I can't blame Philly too much for this instance because it was a bit of an obscure rule, but it's not so obscure now. Going forward I would say that it would be the team's own stupid fault if they give this advantage to their opponents. And by giving them this advantage the team with the puck is discouraged from just standing there in their own zone doing nothing. I'm pretty sure we want that far less than we want teams trapping.

But you are also giving them an advantage if you play into a 1-3-1 trap. 2-2-1 traps can be beaten easily, though the Devils used to own us with it.

A 1-3-1 is a whole different ballgame because it completely loads up the neutral zone and then has a guy sit wayyyyy back ready for a dump and chase. Not as easy to beat.

If a 1-3-1 is allowed, then what the flyers did was allowed. Like I said in my last post, I do not want any more rule changes, but I also don't want refs just taking the game into their own hands and making up rules on the fly.

 

[juliansteed]

[/B]

But you are also giving them an advantage if you play into a 1-3-1 trap. 2-2-1 traps can be beaten easily, though the Devils used to own us with it.

A 1-3-1 is a whole different ballgame because it completely loads up the neutral zone and then has a guy sit wayyyyy back ready for a dump and chase. Not as easy to beat.

If a 1-3-1 is allowed, then what the flyers did was allowed. Like I said in my last post, I do not want any more rule changes, but I also don't want refs just taking the game into their own hands and making up rules on the fly.

Not sure if you read all the previous posts or not, but when "advantage" was 1st mentioned, it was in the context of the faceoff being in the defending zone as opposed to outside since the team most likely would have gotten it out there. It was suggested that that was unfair and I was simply stating that was their own choice. It's upto them to pick their poison I guess. Either accept the faceoff in their own zone or suck it up and try to break though the trap. There are all sorts of advantages and disadvantages that occur throughout the game but they are all fair. There is no unfair advantage of the 1-3-1 setup. Are other teams not allowed to try to stop them using whatever legal methods they see fit? Are they supposed to make it easy for them? If it's that tough to beat then I guess it's a good coaching strategy for as long as it remains legal, and I guess they'd be wise to start using it themselves. Then again, it can be beat as shown many times in the past. It just may not be that easy.

Also we seem to be going in circles here, but as mentioned earlier they didn't make any rules up on the fly. Someone suggested a change in the rules may be necessary to which I don't necessarily agree nor disagree either way. But as the rules are right now, the faceoff was held where it should have been.

 

[juliansteed]

This is exactly my argument. Look, I do not want to change the rules. If teams want to trap, let them trap. If teams want to exploit the trap by not giving into it, that is also fine.

What pisses me off is the refs lowing the play dead the very a player stops moving the puck. Yes it has to stay in motion, but at one point in that game our players was doing circles, moving the puck, but the second it stopped moving it was whistled dead and a faceoff was in our zone. They need to allow more time before they blew the play dead, and I believe they were talked to possibly during last game because they were indeed wrong.

It's pretty obvious that the Flyers were in violation of the intent/spirit of the rule and that is why the play was blown dead even if the puck was in continuous motion. At the same time I think they did the right thing by not giving the Flyers a delay of game penalty either, which they debatably could have according to the rules. Unless rules change, then going forward I believe they should as Kerry Fraser was saying.

If the whistle was blown for some other random reason (fan ran out on the ice or something was thrown on the ice) with all players set up where they were then I would say it would be fair for the faceoff to be at center, because normally it would be assumed that the team with the puck should be able to carry it out and who's to say they wouldn't have taken it all the way to the other zone and generated a scoring chance? But in this case they are the ones who chose not to try to beat the other team's perfectly legal defense so I don't think there is anything unfair about having to have the faceoff in their zone.

 

[beantownmaniac]

IMO, it's wrong to penalize one team for using their strategy but not the other. If the guy with the puck is forced to move, the other team should be forced to forecheck. Or are we taking forechecking out of the game now? Other than the first whistle, the Flyers kept the puck moving.

Rule 72 - Refusing to Play the Puck

72.1 Refusing or Abstaining from Playing the Puck - The purpose of this section is to enforce continuous action and both Referees and Linesmen should interpret and apply the rule to produce this result.

Sounds like Tampa was breaking the rule also. If they're just sitting back, they're not playing the puck, correct?

Edit: if you notice, there is no mention of the responsibility being only on the puck handler.

 

[juliansteed]

IMO, it's wrong to penalize one team for using their strategy but not the other. If the guy with the puck is forced to move, the other team should be forced to forecheck. Or are we taking forechecking out of the game now? Other than the first whistle, the Flyers kept the puck moving.

Rule 72 - Refusing to Play the Puck

72.1 Refusing or Abstaining from Playing the Puck - The purpose of this section is to enforce continuous action and both Referees and Linesmen should interpret and apply the rule to produce this result.

Sounds like Tampa was breaking the rule also. If they're just sitting back, they're not playing the puck, correct?

According to Fraser, it applies to the team with possession. And teams can forecheck as much as they want. They can also forecheck as little as they want. And how come nobody wanted to penalize Tampa for their strategy before this but only when another team does something like this to "counter" it? People can ask for a rule change all they want but in the meantime it was called properly, if anything it might have been allowed to go on too long before being blown dead.

 

[juliansteed]

For the record, I don't think the other side of this debate is completely unreasonable at all. In fact as I mentioned that's how I felt at 1st but the more I think about it, the more I realize the refs did indeed get it right and the more I am happy with the current rules being what they are.

 

[beantownmaniac]

According to Fraser, it applies to the team with possession. And teams can forecheck as much as they want. They can also forecheck as little as they want. And how come nobody wanted to penalize Tampa for their strategy before this but only when another team does something like this to "counter" it? People can ask for a rule change all they want but in the meantime it was called properly, if anything it might have been allowed to go on too long before being blown dead.

I never said anything about penalizing Tampa. IMO, the face-offs should have been at center ice. Frasier can imply whatever he wants. What I posted is the rule as it is written in the NHL rulebook, and there is nothing that stats the responsibility is in the player with the puck. In fact, the way the rule is written, Tampa should have had the face-off in their zone because it was in fact them who refused to play the puck.

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

There is no unfair advantage of the 1-3-1 setup. Are other teams not allowed to try to stop them using whatever legal methods they see fit? Are they supposed to make it easy for them? If it's that tough to beat then I guess it's a good coaching strategy for as long as it remains legal, and I guess they'd be wise to start using it themselves. Then again, it can be beat as shown many times in the past. It just may not be that easy.

Also we seem to be going in circles here, but as mentioned earlier they didn't make any rules up on the fly. Someone suggested a change in the rules may be necessary to which I don't necessarily agree nor disagree either way. But as the rules are right now, the faceoff was held where it should have been.

Yes they did though. The refs blew the whistle when they were not supposed to. The first whistle was fine. The puck was stopped for about 15 seconds and nothing was happening.

The second whistle was blown the second pronger stopped moving even though he picked the motion right back up. That is a terrible call of the refs part and I feel they only made it because they were losing patience just like the fans.

Everyone in the hockey world is on the Flyers side here. They did not do anything wrong. What you don't seem to be agreeing with is my argument. Why should the Flyers "have" to play into a trap like this? Answer is they don't have to. And they didn't. The hockey world blasted the lightning for their tactic and gave kudos to the flyers for not giving into it.

I don't think a rule change is necessary, but at the same time the refs cannot blow a play dead that is stopped for a few seconds. Dmen sit behind the net all the time and don't move the puck for longer than Pronger held it. That never gets whistled and why should this? It's the same thing. Looking for a breakout but it wasn't there.

 

[beantownmaniac]

For the record, I don't think the other side of this debate is completely unreasonable at all. In fact as I mentioned that's how I felt at 1st but the more I think about it, the more I realize the refs did indeed get it right and the more I am happy with the current rules being what they are.

I have to respectfully disagree with the quote in bold. I've shown you the written rule and nowhere does it state the player with the puck, and in fact it looks more like Tampa was guilty of not playing the puck. The Flyers were playing the puck and in fact were the ONLY ones playing the puck. IMO the only time you should be able to sit back and wait for the puck to come to you is when you're short-handed.