Flyers vs Tampa GNT

[beantownmaniac]

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.

I agree. Why should Tampa be allowed to use their strategy, but not the Flyers? The Flyers strategy was not to p[lay into their opponents strength, which is a sound strategy in any sport. They kept the puck moving looking for a way to break the trap. Penalizing them for that is wrong, period.

 

[juliansteed]

IMO, it's wrong to penalize one team for using their strategy but not the other.

This is what I was referring to. Although technically you weren't saying anyone should be penalized but you are suggesting that Tampa should if Philly should, but I was mostly just speaking in general not towards yourself. As I mentioned earlier the logic is similar to a ref not showing any signs of calling an initial minor jab in a scrum but then when the other player responds to said jab the ref suddenly decides to call both.

But now with the final comment you made in the previous post suggesting that the faceoff should have been in the Tampa zone you are completely contradicting yourself, in addition to misinterpreting the rule. Why suddenly are you singling out Tampa as the only team refusing to play the puck. It's quite clear that Philly, the team who had the puck, were refusing to play it as well no matter if you think Tampa was guilty of it as well. But to be honest all of that is beside the point unless we are talking about delay of game penalties. But for face-off location it is all a moot point how the rule is interpreted and if Tampa was guilty as well, because the rule states that the faceoff will be at the nearest dot to where the puck was when it was blown dead, not in the defending zone of whichever team the refs think violated the rule.

 

[juliansteed]

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.

Actually as my most recent post shows indicates there is nothing in that suggests the faceoff should have been in the Tampa zone or even in the neutral zone regardless of who you believe it guilty of not playing the puck.

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

This is what I was referring to. Although technically you weren't saying anyone should be penalized but you are suggesting that Tampa should if Philly should, but I was mostly just speaking in general not towards yourself. As I mentioned earlier the logic is similar to a ref not showing any signs of calling an initial minor jab in a scrum but then when the other player responds to said jab the ref suddenly decides to call both.

But now with the final comment you made in the previous post suggesting that the faceoff should have been in the Tampa zone you are completely contradicting yourself, in addition to misinterpreting the rule. Why suddenly are you singling out Tampa as the only team refusing to play the puck. It's quite clear that Philly, the team who had the puck, were refusing to play it as well no matter if you think Tampa was guilty of it as well. But to be honest all of that is beside the point unless we are talking about delay of game penalties. But for face-off location it is all a moot point how the rule is interpreted and if Tampa was guilty as well, because the rule states that the faceoff will be at the nearest dot to where the puck was when it was blown dead, not in the defending zone of whichever team the refs think violated the rule.

Ok we are on two different pages here. I know you aren't referring to me, but I would never suggest the face-off gets put into the Lightning's zone. My only suggestion would be to bring the draw out to the neutral zone, if anything.

Again, as long as the refs allow it go on, which they should, I don't see a need for a rule change. Just don't blow it dead.

 

[juliansteed]

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.

Are you sure about everyone in the hockey world being on the Flyers side?

Fraser: The correct assessment of the Lightning-Flyers situation

Flyers-Lightning game comes to standstill during trap play

(Don't just look at the articles but the comments as well)

And again, the Flyers were obviously breaking the spirit/intent of the rule which is why the play was blown dead. The refs didn't decide to take it too far by giving them a delay of game penalty though which I also think was the right call.

 

[beantownmaniac]

Actually as my most recent post shows indicates there is nothing in that suggests the faceoff should have been in the Tampa zone or even in the neutral zone regardless of who you believe it guilty of not playing the puck.

There's also nothing in the rule that states the onus is only on the puck handler. the fact is, the Flyers were the only ones playing the puck. Tampa didn't even attempt to play it. It's not who I believe is guilty of playing the puck. As I just said, Philly was the ONLY team "playing" the puck. Tampa in no way should have been rewarded for just sitting back and NOT playing the puck, but the were with a offensive zone face-off on multiple occasions.

 

[juliansteed]

Ok we are on two different pages here. I know you aren't referring to me, but I would never suggest the face-off gets put into the Lightning's zone. My only suggestion would be to bring the draw out to the neutral zone, if anything.

Again, as long as the refs allow it go on, which they should, I don't see a need for a rule change. Just don't blow it dead.

You're right I wasn't referring to you and I don't think Beantown necessarily meant that he thinks that would be fair either but was just trying to make a point. But the rule is that the face-off will be closest to where the puck was when the play was blown dead. For faceoff purposes it doesn't matter what team you, me, the ref, or anyone else thinks was at fault. For delay of game penalty that would be another story.

 

[SuperFly]

You guys will have to forgive me for not wanting to read the 18+ pages but weren't the Flyers simply just "protesting" Tampa defense the entire game? They avg 30+ sog a game and they had 15. Seems like they were just playing the crybaby part the entire game trying to make an issue out of Tampa scheme.

As for the postgame comments byChris Pronger
"That's not hockey in my book, but whatever. The league's letting them do it. Would you pay money to watch that? I wouldn't either. That was a TV game, too. Way to showcase the product."

HIS team was the one slowing the pace to a stop. What a fucking bitch.

Weak sauce.

 

[juliansteed]

There's also nothing in the rule that states the onus is only on the puck handler. the fact is, the Flyers were the only ones playing the puck. Tampa didn't even attempt to play it. It's not who I believe is guilty of playing the puck. As I just said, Philly was the ONLY team "playing" the puck. Tampa in no way should have been rewarded for just sitting back and NOT playing the puck, but the were with a offensive zone face-off on multiple occasions.

I think you missed the point though. While I personally think the onus needs to be on the team with possession and you don't, that's a moot point. Tampa was "rewarded" with an offensive zone face-off because that's exactly where the rule states the faceoff should be regardless of who people think were or were not trying to play the puck.

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

Are you sure about everyone in the hockey world being on the Flyers side?

Fraser: The correct assessment of the Lightning-Flyers situation

Flyers-Lightning game comes to standstill during trap play

(Don't just look at the articles but the comments as well)

And again, the Flyers were obviously breaking the spirit/intent of the rule which is why the play was blown dead. The refs didn't decide to take it too far by giving them a delay of game penalty though which I also think was the right call.

i) The first time that a player abstains from advancing the puck you or I would shout at that player to move/advance the puck and if no movement results blow the whistle to conduct a face-off on the spot nearest to where play was stopped! (Rule reference: 72.1 - This would take place after no longer than 10 seconds of inactivity NOT 30 seconds.)

Puck was played. It was rarely inactive. Was never stopped for more than 5 seconds. Refs did not give a warning on the second whistle.



Prior to the linesman conducting the face-off you and I would both go to the offending team's coach at his players' bench. This is what we would say, "Coach whether you hate the other team's defensive system or not they are entitled to defend however they wish so long as their players don't violate any rules while doing it. The team that has puck possession must advance the puck through continuous motion as per rule 72

This kind of reverses the first rule and says puck must be in continuous motion. The first rule said no longer than 10 seconds on inactivity (Fraser's expertise states that). The puck was always in motion...again except for the first whistle which stopped play after about 5 seconds.

 

[beantownmaniac]

Are you sure about everyone in the hockey world being on the Flyers side?

Fraser: The correct assessment of the Lightning-Flyers situation

Flyers-Lightning game comes to standstill during trap play

(Don't just look at the articles but the comments as well)

And again, the Flyers were obviously breaking the spirit/intent of the rule which is why the play was blown dead. The refs didn't decide to take it too far by giving them a delay of game penalty though which I also think was the right call.

A former referee saying the refs were right? Who'd a thought? the fact is, I've posted the rule, as written in the official NHL rulebook, and there is absolutely nothing that states the onus is on the puck handler. the fact is, the Flyers were the only team playing the puck. Tampa refused to play the puck. How are the Flyers and not Tampa guilty of rule 72 again?

 

[juliansteed]

A former referee saying the refs were right? Who'd a thought? the fact is, I've posted the rule, as written in the official NHL rulebook, and there is absolutely nothing that states the onus is on the puck handler. the fact is, the Flyers were the only team playing the puck. Tampa refused to play the puck. How are the Flyers and not Tampa guilty of rule 72 again?

I was referring mostly to the comments below the article. He said everyone in the hockey world is on the Flyers side but the comments below each of those articles seems to suggest otherwise. It's pretty much divided but from what I read more are against Philly.

And again, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter who was or wasn't guilty of playing the puck. When the ref decided to blow the play dead because someone is refusing to play the puck the ensuing faceoff goes to the nearest faceoff dot.

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

After reading both of your articles, I see nothing that either side blamed the Flyers for this play. The second one flat out said the defense (Tampa) was a disgrace.

The first was Kerry Fraser who basically said he would warn the team and assess a penalty if it was illegal. No penalties were assessed so it was not illegal.

 

[beantownmaniac]

I think you missed the point though. While I personally think the onus needs to be on the team with possession and you don't, that's a moot point. Tampa was "rewarded" with an offensive zone face-off because that's exactly where the rule states the faceoff should be regardless of who people think were or were not trying to play the puck.

You're giving opinion, I posted fact, as in the actual rule. Nothing in the rule states the onus is on the player in possession of the puck. And in fact, even if it was, as I stated, the Flyers were the only ones playing the puck. You're saying that the other 9 skaters shouldn't be forced to play the puck. If you look up hockey and how it's played, the rules, etc..., there's a clear definition of forechecking. If a team is going to be forced to skate forward, the other team should be forced to forecheck. Otherwise, you're giving a clear advantage to the team without the puck to employ any strategy they want, but minimizing the strategies the team with the puck can employ.

 

[juliansteed]

i) The first time that a player abstains from advancing the puck you or I would shout at that player to move/advance the puck and if no movement results blow the whistle to conduct a face-off on the spot nearest to where play was stopped! (Rule reference: 72.1 - This would take place after no longer than 10 seconds of inactivity NOT 30 seconds.)

Puck was played. It was rarely inactive. Was never stopped for more than 5 seconds. Refs did not give a warning on the second whistle.



Prior to the linesman conducting the face-off you and I would both go to the offending team's coach at his players' bench. This is what we would say, "Coach whether you hate the other team's defensive system or not they are entitled to defend however they wish so long as their players don't violate any rules while doing it. The team that has puck possession must advance the puck through continuous motion as per rule 72

This kind of reverses the first rule and says puck must be in continuous motion. The first rule said no longer than 10 seconds on inactivity (Fraser's expertise states that). The puck was always in motion...again except for the first whistle which stopped play after about 5 seconds.

But what I'm getting at is that they were clearly in violation of the spirit of the rule just as much as they were the 1st time. Although yes I get it that they were moving the puck. That is why the play was blown dead and but also why no delay of game penalty was called.

 

[beantownmaniac]

I was referring mostly to the comments below the article. He said everyone in the hockey world is on the Flyers side but the comments below each of those articles seems to suggest otherwise. It's pretty much divided but from what I read more are against Philly.

And again, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter who was or wasn't guilty of playing the puck. When the ref decided to blow the play dead because someone is refusing to play the puck the ensuing faceoff goes to the nearest faceoff dot.

And again, YOU'RE missing the point. Philly was in fact playing the puck. It was Tampa who refused to play the puck. Facts are facts, and those are the facts no matter how you want to spin them.

 

[juliansteed]

You're giving opinion, I posted fact, as in the actual rule. Nothing in the rule states the onus is on the player in possession of the puck. And in fact, even if it was, as I stated, the Flyers were the only ones playing the puck. You're saying that the other 9 skaters shouldn't be forced to play the puck. If you look up hockey and how it's played, the rules, etc..., there's a clear definition of forechecking. If a team is going to be forced to skate forward, the other team should be forced to forecheck. Otherwise, you're giving a clear advantage to the team without the puck to employ any strategy they want, but minimizing the strategies the team with the puck can employ.

I am giving fact. I've given it about 7 times now in the thread but it keeps getting ignored. You're focusing too much on the part that I agree is opinion but also moot and ignoring the most important part which is 100% pure fact.

 

[beantownmaniac]

After reading both of your articles, I see nothing that either side blamed the Flyers for this play. The second one flat out said the defense (Tampa) was a disgrace.

The first was Kerry Fraser who basically said he would warn the team and assess a penalty if it was illegal. No penalties were assessed so it was not illegal.

Frasier was just giving his opinion as a former ref. It's no surprise that he backs the refs decision.

 

[juliansteed]

And again, YOU'RE missing the point. Philly was in fact playing the puck. It was Tampa who refused to play the puck. Facts are facts, and those are the facts no matter how you want to spin them.

Beantown I'm not missing anything. Forget about who's to blame and who isn't. Why are you completely ignoring the part that states the faceoff goes to the nearest faceoff dot? That's the point you keep missing and don't even appear to be reading.

 

[beantownmaniac]

I am giving fact. I've given it about 7 times now in the thread but it keeps getting ignored. You're focusing too much on the part that I agree is opinion but also moot and ignoring the most important part which is 100% pure fact.

What fact? Post it again. The fact is, the Flyers were playing the puck and kept it moving. It is also fact that Tampa refused to play the puck by not sending a player to, in fact, go after the player with the puck. I don't see why this is confusing you so much.