Flyers vs Tampa GNT

[PhillyPhaithful48]

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

Yea but his argument (the rule) supported the Flyers IMO. His best judgement states 10 seconds of inactivity and the play should get blown dead. We never had the puck completely inactive for 10 seconds.

I think the refs even second guessed themselves after the 2nd call because we didn't hear it again.

 

[juliansteed]

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.

See the post immediately before this one.

 

[PhillyPhaithful48]

Let's see how the Blues handle the situation tonight.


I hope every team does this to them if they want to keep it up.

 

[beantownmaniac]

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.

I'm not disagreeing about where the face-off goes. I am disagreeing that there should have been a face-off at all. The Flyers were playing the puck. The Flyers were moving the puck. Tampa made no attempt at all to play the puck. So explain to us all again why the Flyers were guilty again when the rule, as I've posted, states nothing about the player with the puck being the only one who is guilty? The fact is, if the team without the puck makes no attempt to play the puck, they are the ones who should be penalized. Here's the rule, as it is written in the official NHL rulebook. Please show where the onus is strictly on the player with the puck.

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.

Again, how can the player with the puck be called for refusing to play the puck? Why is the team that refuses to move to the puck not guilty? Frasiers interpretation is just his opinion. The written rule does nothing to back his opinion. That's a fact.

 

[beantownmaniac]

See the post immediately before this one.

I saw that post, but the fact is, there shouldn't have even been a face-off except for the 1st whistle. After that, the Flyers in fact kept the puck moving and were the only team to play the puck. Tampa made no attempt at all to play the puck or initiate playing the puck. As the rule is written, they are the team that was guilty of not playing the puck. That's not my opinion, that is fact.

 

[juliansteed]

I'm not disagreeing about where the face-off goes. I am disagreeing that there should have been a face-off at all. The Flyers were playing the puck. The Flyers were moving the puck. Tampa made no attempt at all to play the puck. So explain to us all again why the Flyers were guilty again when the rule, as I've posted, states nothing about the player with the puck being the only one who is guilty? The fact is, if the team without the puck makes no attempt to play the puck, they are the ones who should be penalized. Here's the rule, as it is written in the official NHL rulebook. Please show where the onus is strictly on the player with the puck.

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.

Again, how can the player with the puck be called for refusing to play the puck? Why is the team that refuses to move to the puck not guilty? Frasiers interpretation is just his opinion. The written rule does nothing to back his opinion. That's a fact.

I've agreed to disagree a long time ago who was at fault as I consider it to be moot as per this rule. I'm simply stating that the faceoff was where it should have been and I guess now I'll also say that there indeed should have been a faceoff. Someone was clearly refusing to play the puck which I don't think anyone disagrees. So blowing the play dead was the right call and as per this rule, having it inside the Flyers zone was also the right call.

 

[beantownmaniac]

I've agreed to disagree a long time ago who was at fault as I consider it to be moot as per this rule. I'm simply stating that the faceoff was where it should have been and I guess now I'll also say that there indeed should have been a faceoff. Someone was clearly refusing to play the puck which I don't think anyone disagrees. So blowing the play dead was the right call and as per this rule, having it inside the Flyers zone was also the right call.

Then the rule should be changed. The Flyers were not guilty of rule 72. If the rule states, or implies the face-off should be at the nearest face-off circle to the guilty party, then it should have been in Tampa's zone, or on there side of center ice. The Flyers were penalized by having the face-off in their zone when in fact they were the only team to make any attempt to play the puck. The refs were wrong for blowing the whistle in the 1st place, and then further mishandled the situation by rewarding Tampa with an offensive zone face-off. Tampa should not be rewarded with an offensive zone face-off when they in fact were in violation of rule 72.

 

[juliansteed]

Then the rule should be changed. The Flyers were not guilty of rule 72. If the rule states, or implies the face-off should be at the nearest face-off circle to the guilty party, then it should have been in Tampa's zone, or on there side of center ice. The Flyers were penalized by having the face-off in their zone when in fact they were the only team to make any attempt to play the puck. The refs were wrong for blowing the whistle in the 1st place, and then further mishandled the situation by rewarding Tampa with an offensive zone face-off. Tampa should not be rewarded with an offensive zone face-off when they in fact were in violation of rule 72.

Maybe the rules should be changed and I think you make a lot of great points. I don't expect you to have read every post in this thread but I guess where this all started with me is simply that I was stating the faceoff was indeed where it should have been given what the rules currently are. That part I believe to be fact unless someone points out to me otherwise. My opinion is that the rule is fine the way it is. At the same time I am not opposed to a rule change depending on how the rule is defined. I think the league would have to be very careful how they make a rule that says what type of defensive strategy teams must use. What if it was late in the game and the trapping team had a 1 or 2 goal lead with the other team's goalie pulled? Should they have to send a forechecker? How hard does the forechecker have to skate? Does the forechecker have to go directly towards the puck or is he allowed to anticipate where the puck is going and skate there?

I meant to make this point to another poster earlier but I don't really consider myself on either team's side here. At least not to any great extent. I said in my first post in this thread that I don't really blame either team and gave them both props for not wanting to blink first. I just happen to think that if the puck never left the zone then that is where the faceoff needs to stay. I don't think the intent of that rule is to punish the team with possession. That just happens to be the result of it. So even if there may be no rule that directly puts the onus on them to move the puck out of the zone, in an indirect way it does, at least if they don't want to have a face-off in their zone.

But going all the way back to my original point in this thread. I think the biggest culprit here is the stupid loser point and 3 point games. Not that there are many people in favor of it but I can't wait until the next time someone makes an argument in favor of it and says that it makes for more exciting OT. Well that isn't even necessarily true anymore with the shootout as some teams might sit back in OT and try to get the bonus point in the shootout. But even if it were true, what about the 60 minutes before OT? This was early in the game and a bit of an extreme example but as long as teams are guaranteed 1 point for being tied after 60 and still have a 50% (ish) chance of getting that bonus point, they are somewhat discouraged of playing aggressively in regulation of a tied hockey game.

 

[beantownmaniac]

Maybe the rules should be changed and I think you make a lot of great points. I don't expect you to have read every post in this thread but I guess where this all started with me is simply that I was stating the faceoff was indeed where it should have been given what the rules currently are. That part I believe to be fact unless someone points out to me otherwise. My opinion is that the rule is fine the way it is. At the same time I am not opposed to a rule change depending on how the rule is defined. I think the league would have to be very careful how they make a rule that says what type of defensive strategy teams must use. What if it was late in the game and the trapping team had a 1 or 2 goal lead with the other team's goalie pulled? Should they have to send a forechecker? How hard does the forechecker have to skate? Does the forechecker have to go directly towards the puck or is he allowed to anticipate where the puck is going and skate there?

I meant to make this point to another poster earlier but I don't really consider myself on either team's side here. At least not to any great extent. I said in my first post in this thread that I don't really blame either team and gave them both props for not wanting to blink first. I just happen to think that if the puck never left the zone then that is where the faceoff needs to stay. I don't think the intent of that rule is to punish the team with possession. That just happens to be the result of it. So even if there may be no rule that directly puts the onus on them to move the puck out of the zone, in an indirect way it does, at least if they don't want to have a face-off in their zone.

But going all the way back to my original point in this thread. I think the biggest culprit here is the stupid loser point and 3 point games. Not that there are many people in favor of it but I can't wait until the next time someone makes an argument in favor of it and says that it makes for more exciting OT. Well that isn't even necessarily true anymore with the shootout as some teams might sit back in OT and try to get the bonus point in the shootout. But even if it were true, what about the 60 minutes before OT? This was early in the game and a bit of an extreme example but as long as teams are guaranteed 1 point for being tied after 60 and still have a 50% (ish) chance of getting that bonus point, they are somewhat discouraged of playing aggressively in regulation of a tied hockey game.

Actually, the rule doesn't state anywhere where the face-off is to go. I believe the refs used there discretion in which case, it shouldn't have been in the Flyers zone, but at the face-off dot just outside the Flyers blue line as not to occur any bias. The exception is the first whistle where the Flyers player (Pronger?) stopped moving. Now we could always look through the official NHL rulebook and find out what the rule is on face-offs for certain situations if it is in there.

Official Rules - Rule 76: Face-offs - NHL.com - Rules

Edit: I should not that when I say the face-off should have been outside the blue line, that is my opinion as I don't think the Flyers were guilty of anything. I also believe that, although I hate that neutral Ice trap shit, by penalizing Tampa your directly affecting a teams defensive strategy which falls into a gray area. I've already voiced my opinion that if anyone was guilty of rule 72 it was Tampa as they made no attempt at all to have any player play the puck.

 

[Vadered]

This is unacceptable. This thread must stay above the Flyers vs. other Florida team thread.