2017-2018 NHL Thread

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/dstaples/status/959127536281075712
https://twitter.com/dstaples/status/959127869124362240

Montoya's stopped 43 of 45 shots through 3 games for the Oilers since they traded for him and the Edmonton media is currently questioning his mental toughness and character for not talking to them on game-days.

 

[Kin]

Do players have mandated media time in their contracts?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Another follow-up from Mr. Staples:

https://twitter.com/dstaples/status/959129024424427520

Al Montoya is killing journalism.

 

[herman]

Ryan Rishaug is a Bell Media employee alluding to a player's perceived mental fragility a day after the #BellLetsTalk campaign to stop the stigma of mental health issues.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Do players have mandated media time in their contracts?

I seem to remember a discussion about this when Kessel was with the Leafs. I don't think there's anything concrete about it. Just like a reasonable understanding that players have to be available to the media. So as long as they speak from time to time they should be good. Montoya has 2 post-game interviews up on Edmonton's video page, so it's not like he's shunning the media entirely.

 

[Kin]

Do players have mandated media time in their contracts?

I seem to remember a discussion about this when Kessel was with the Leafs. I don't think there's anything concrete about it. Just like a reasonable understanding that players have to be available to the media. So as long as they speak from time to time they should be good. Montoya has 2 post-game interviews up on Edmonton's video page, so it's not like he's shunning the media entirely.

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's certainly not as specific as the NFL's is. I think it's a matter of professional courtesy more than anything else. I sort of see both sides here. On the one hand, these reporters should be able to do their job without the trite cliched nonsense they're likely to get in those interviews. On the other the whole "I cannot possibly talk to the media because of my super serious and intense preparation" stuff some athletes indulge in is laughably overwrought.

 

[herman]

This is getting intense.

https://twitter.com/TSNRyanRishaug/status/959140141171273729

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This is getting intense.

https://twitter.com/TSNRyanRishaug/status/959140141171273729

This is actually my favourite part of Edmonton's media: when something like this happens they just keep digging up.

 

[Zee]

This is getting intense.

https://twitter.com/TSNRyanRishaug/status/959140141171273729

This is actually my favourite part of Edmonton's media: when something like this happens they just keep digging up.

It seems like nobody likes Patrick O'Sullivan.  They basically booted him from Leafs lunch after many fans constantly complained about him. 

 

[Andy007]

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/james-neal-nearly-decapitates-connor-hellebuyck-goal-counts-anyway-031100557.html


Neal swings and connects with Hellebuyck's neck, Haula then puts the loose puck in the net. So if this isn't goalie interference (I guess the argument would be that the contact didn't affect the loose puck in the crease??) wouldn't it at least be a regular penalty for almost taking the goalie's head off with your stick? How can that goal possibly count?

 

[bustaheims]

Neal swings and connects with Hellebuyck's neck, Haula then puts the loose puck in the net. So if this isn't goalie interference (I guess the argument would be that the contact didn't affect the loose puck in the crease??) wouldn't it at least be a regular penalty for almost taking the goalie's head off with your stick? How can that goal possibly count?

Based on precedent? It shouldn't. Based on the rule as is? Neal was making an attempt at the puck, and didn't impact Hellybuck's ability to make the save on the play that put the puck in the net.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/thisisziad/status/959289527725510656

It's genuinely difficult for me to like Edmonton players, so well done Montoya I tip my hat to you.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I swear, if this season goes up in smoke because some rat runs Andersen and gets away with it, I am going to lose it.

It's basic common sense, if there is a marginal play, let it ride, if someone takes out a goalie completely like we've seen the past two nights, call it off.

Worst officiated pro sport and by a LONG way.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/thisisziad/status/959289527725510656

It's genuinely difficult for me to like Edmonton players, so well done Montoya I tip my hat to you.

Well, he didn't choose to be an Oiler. But he did choose to be a Hab.

"My name is Al Montoya.
You besmirched my professionalism.
Prepare to be ignored."

 

[Andy007]

Neal swings and connects with Hellebuyck's neck, Haula then puts the loose puck in the net. So if this isn't goalie interference (I guess the argument would be that the contact didn't affect the loose puck in the crease??) wouldn't it at least be a regular penalty for almost taking the goalie's head off with your stick? How can that goal possibly count?

Based on precedent? It shouldn't. Based on the rule as is? Neal was making an attempt at the puck, and didn't impact Hellybuck's ability to make the save on the play that put the puck in the net.

I guess I just don't understand why that play is simply limited to goaltender interference. It seems to me that a hardcore slash to the neck/face would undoubtedly be a penalty and thus no goal anyway. How does that slash go uncalled?

On a related note, I've always wondered why a goaltender interference penalty simply negates a goal. Shouldn't it also be a two-minute minor? Or is that a specific stipulation in the rule book?

 

[herman]

I guess I just don't understand why that play is simply limited to goaltender interference. It seems to me that a hardcore slash to the neck/face would undoubtedly be a penalty and thus no goal anyway. How does that slash go uncalled?

On a related note, I've always wondered why a goaltender interference penalty simply negates a goal. Shouldn't it also be a two-minute minor? Or is that a specific stipulation in the rule book?

High sticks don't get called on shot follow throughs, so maybe this is what it would count as, as crazy as that sounds.

There are two types of goalie interference that occur: incidentally impeding the goaltender's ability to make the save (a la Matthews' called back goal, haha), and deliberate interference as would normally be called against skaters-on-skater (e.g. crashing the net without the puck). It's up to the referee's discretion what qualifies as interference worthy of penalization.

 

[Andy007]

There are two types of goalie interference that occur: incidentally impeding the goaltender's ability to make the save (a la Matthews' called back goal, haha), and deliberate interference as would normally be called against skaters-on-skater (e.g. crashing the net without the puck). It's up to the referee's discretion what qualifies as interference worthy of penalization.


Ah I see, thanks for the clarification.

It's a pretty slippery slope these refs are scaling though. All of these calls (and non-calls) are getting silly to the point that it's getting harder and harder to watch the sport.

 

[herman]

It's a pretty slippery slope these refs are scaling though. All of these calls (and non-calls) are getting silly to the point that it's getting harder and harder to watch the sport.

The refs have a rule book, and they have their individual interpretations. As a group they will try to be as consistent as possible, but it's one of the fastest games being played. Even with video replay, are they allowed to use it for penalty calls, or just for offsides (war room), goal calls (war room), goalie interference affecting goals (refs)?

I think it is what it is at the moment, and when they sit down to try to make it better, inevitably something else will be less than ideal, and so on. I believe the refs are doing the best that they can.

In Neal's case, he was going for the puck, and got his stick lifted mid-swing, which hit the goalie (happens every game, all the time, usually in the pads). Maybe they need to adjust the interpretation to account for head contact. Maybe some goalies (Quick) will throw his head into the fray to get a goal waved off. *shrugs*

 

[bustaheims]

I guess I just don't understand why that play is simply limited to goaltender interference. It seems to me that a hardcore slash to the neck/face would undoubtedly be a penalty and thus no goal anyway. How does that slash go uncalled?

Because, technically, it was a shot attempt, not a slash - as he does make contact with the puck. It likely would have not been a penalty regardless of who was on the receiving end because it's a shot and not a slash.

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/960549160662388736

Silly season... might be on hold thanks to Tavares though.