SOS Edition of The Morning After

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

SOS Edition of The Morning After

Postby Mad City Mike on Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:36 am

SOS, Same Old Sh*t.

…No more trips to the Caribbean for Marc-André Fleury. He has been horrible since the break, to the tune of an .828 save percentage.. Is the sunburn on his neck from the beach or the goal light?

…Sid finally returned from the break in the third period last night. A beautiful goal and an even more beautiful assist. Man, they have to find somebody to finish for him. I don’t mind Colby on that line, but Recchi???

…Why LeClair didn’t shoot that puck is beyond me.

…Welcome back to the NHL, Ryan Whitney. I can live with the ill-advised decisions. He will learn from them. But he has to be aggressive and just PLAY, like he did last night. He also needs to be on the top PP unit. Take Recchi off there. Again, this is about learning.

…Memo to FSP: find announcers who know the rules. First, Bibbsy Eyeore says the play on Oullette should have been a high stick. Wrong, it was on a follow-through. Not a penalty. Then, they claim that the Lightning player in the box couldn’t participate in the shootout. Wrong again, you morons. These two guys get harder and harder to listen to every night. Oh, not to mention the goal they missed while they were babbling incoherently about something or other.

…I was convinced they wouldn’t score on Grahame. They never do. Four goals? Amazing.

…Tampa Bay is in huge trouble unless they upgrade between the pipes.

…I consider it a moral victory that the PK only allowed one goal.

…Was this truly the last home game for any Penguins? Anybody know how many scouts were there?

…Would you be totally surprised to hear the Pens picked up a goalie at the deadline? Behind Fleury, they basically have nothing. It’s more likely in the offseason, but I wouldn’t rule it out even now.
Mad City Mike
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,754
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:14 am
Location: De Forest, WI

Postby Pops16 on Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:03 am

The Oullet play should have been a penalty. You are charged with control of your stick at all times in hockey, regardless of whether or not it was an accident.
Pops16
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,446
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:29 am

Postby Mad City Mike on Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:07 am

Pops16 wrote:The Oullet play should have been a penalty. You are charged with control of your stick at all times in hockey, regardless of whether or not it was an accident.


Rule 61 states, in part: "A player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion."

IMO, it was a normal follow through and should not be a penalty.
Mad City Mike
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,754
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:14 am
Location: De Forest, WI

Postby Pitts on Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:17 am

My son and I looked at each other in disbelief when LeClair was standing there playing with the puck in front of a W I I I I I D E open net in overtime! :x
Pitts
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 18,369
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Working ....

Postby netwolf on Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:45 am

Pitts wrote:My son and I looked at each other in disbelief when LeClair was standing there playing with the puck in front of a W I I I I I D E open net in overtime! :x


It seemed to be bouncing on him a little from where I was. Was that not the case?
netwolf
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,346
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:04 am

Postby Pitts on Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:52 am

netwolf wrote:
Pitts wrote:My son and I looked at each other in disbelief when LeClair was standing there playing with the puck in front of a W I I I I I D E open net in overtime! :x


It seemed to be bouncing on him a little from where I was. Was that not the case?


The camera angle was directly behind him, facing the goal. It looked to us that the puck arrived, he handled it a bit (maybe it was bobbling), then he passed it back. All the while, the net was just yawning at him. It looked like he simply shuffled it back and forth on his stick, then decided to pass it away. Maybe he couldn't get a handle on it.
Pitts
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 18,369
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Working ....

Postby Scott on Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:55 am

Mad City Mike wrote:
Pops16 wrote:The Oullet play should have been a penalty. You are charged with control of your stick at all times in hockey, regardless of whether or not it was an accident.


Rule 61 states, in part: "A player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion."

IMO, it was a normal follow through and should not be a penalty.


That is the rule Mike but dont give Errey a jeer for calling for a penalty there. How many times have we seen incidental stick contact, YES on a wind up or follow through and it get called a penalty. I don't know about you, but I have seen it called a penalty more times than not. According to the actual rule, it was not a penalty. But then again, according to the rule, they could call a penalty every power play in front of the net.

Just don't treat it like they never call a high stick penalty on a follow through or wind up. It's almost always called.
Scott
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,920
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:11 am
Location: The Quick Stop roof playing hockey

Postby Admin on Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:02 pm

Mad City Mike wrote:Rule 61 states, in part: "A player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion."

Is that new for this season? I don't recall that being the rule before.
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10,805
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:04 am

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:05 pm

Admin wrote:
Mad City Mike wrote:Rule 61 states, in part: "A player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion."

Is that new for this season? I don't recall that being the rule before.


It HAS to be new... or atleast went un enforced before. It was called as recently as 2003-2004
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,719
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Postby FallenHero96 on Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:05 pm

speaking of new rules.... what was with them measuring the sticks before shootouts? It makes zero sense to me that you would be allowed to play with an illegal stick all game, but when its shootout time they make sure its legal. :?
FallenHero96
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,631
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby pfim on Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:15 pm

Admin wrote:
Mad City Mike wrote:Rule 61 states, in part: "A player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion."

Is that new for this season? I don't recall that being the rule before.


I don't think it's new.
pfim
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,784
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:35 am
Location: Sitting in front of my computer

Postby Scott on Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:18 pm

FallenHero96 wrote:speaking of new rules.... what was with them measuring the sticks before shootouts? It makes zero sense to me that you would be allowed to play with an illegal stick all game, but when its shootout time they make sure its legal. :?


That is new.

They cant monitor it during the whole game.

Maybe if they employed the same thing as the goalie pad regulations, then they could.
But then again, who knows how well they really monitor the goalie pad rule.
Scott
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,920
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:11 am
Location: The Quick Stop roof playing hockey


Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dukes2004 and 14 guests

e-mail