Blackhawks Confidential

Blackhawks Stumble in the 3rd, Fall to Predators

ward-joel-101013.jpg

Nothing better than a loss to the Predators to leave you pulling your hair out.  3-2 was your final tonight with Joel Ward burying the game winner with under 30 seconds left to play.  It was a fitting end to a 3rd period dominated by the Predators.  I had almost forgotten the playoffs last year and how disheartening it is to lose to Nashville.  There's something about the way they beat you that leaves you as hopeless as Patrick Kane trying to play defense.  The whole team seemed a little slow tonight, getting outworked along the boards and standing still while Nashville moved the puck in our zone.  As much as I want to chalk it up as an off night, optimism is not where the Blackhawks Confidential bus is heading right now.  Even though it has been refilled before, my Blackhawks beer mug in definitely half empty right now.
It's unfortunate that the Hawks laid such an egg in the final frame because I had a decent amount of good things I wanted to say.  Boynton was looking solid on D, Brouwer was having his best game of the season, and Johnny on the spot was making his presence felt on the stat sheet.  But instead of fueling my argument for a repeat the Hawks left me wondering whether or not they could finish 4th in the Central this year.

Patrick Kane continued to frustrate me.  He stood flat footed in the slot numerous times while the Predators peppered Crawford with shots.  He also simultaneously fanned on a deke and two pass attempts to give Nashville a great scoring chance late in the third (thank God for the cross bar).  The thing I've always drooled about over Kane is his playmaking ability. His ability to hold the puck while finding the perfect pass was defintiely not there tonight.  He constantly hit the tape of Predators sticks or left the puck for no one while attempting to generate offense.  

Kopecky also continued to bug me on the top line.  Don't get me wrong, his involvement in Toews' goal was a thing of beauty.  However, I can't help but believe if there was a Pred anywhere in the area a turnover would have been the end result.  He constantly tries to force the play when in the offensive zone.  The top line generates a good cycle, Kopecky is left with the puck and he tries to make highlight reel passes through traffic that leads to a breakout for the opposition.  If he could clean up that aspect of his game he would have a first class ticket out of my doghouse.

At least John Scott found something he could do with a decent success rate.  Every time he touched the puck he hammered it off of the boards and hoped a friendly sweater was there to attempt a real breakout...

I'm sure there are many more pressing issues to discuss outside of my personal grudges with a few players. But typing into the early morning will just make tomorrow seem even longer as we wait for Columbus.  As bitter as the taste is in mouth my right now I'm not going to throw in the towel.  We all just have to sit back and remind ourselves that despite being run by the same guy, it is not the Chicago Cubs we are talking about.  Despite the fact that my vision of offseason changes instantly clicking has officially been blurred, my expectations remain high for this Blackhawks squad.  Given time to work out the flaws and get back injured or suspended bodies I still see the Hawks battling through the postseason in defense of their Cup.  I just want a few victories so that we can lighten up and enjoy the ride.     

Recommended

[?]

Recent Posts

Subscribe

Leave a comment

59 Comments

VegasHawksFan said:

user-pic

Well, one nice thing about living in Vegas is it's still only 9:45 here as I type. After all my non stop bitching last year, have seen the cup get won by the Hawks has mellowed me considerably. Yeah, Leddy screwed the pooch on Ward's goal and the Hawks weren't winning a lot of board battles. But unlike last year's Hawks who continued to try and dangle through a Preds trap, the kids dumped, chased and got some great opportunities. This is the first REAL choking defense this current incarnation of the team has seen and all in all, I thought they did okay. Hammer without Campbell is not the best puck mover and I don't think he would have been the difference tonight. Two games in a row now where Crawford has been hung out to dry on one goal and gotten an unfortunate deflection off a teammate for another. Last year the Hawks started a season with basically the same group who really came together the year before and even they stumbled. So far, even without a 3-2 or 2-1-1 record this team is showing some positives despite having lost a bunch of players. This team still has a lot to learn but it also has a lot of upside.

iplagitr said:

user-pic

Love your work so far Paul, even as bitter as this season has been to this point...

Besides the points you mentioned, the most annoying thing for me is the game's climax falling victim to one of the dumbest rules in all of sports: the automatic delay of game when the puck goes into the stands from the D-zone. Yes, I know why they created the rule, and there's merit for that reasoning. However, how many games / efforts have we seen ruined because a player from either side gets 2 minutes for accidentally lifting the puck too high only to have it completely inadvertently sail over the boards. Drives me nuts even when the rule works in the Hawks favor.

Among Hawk positives from my point of view has been Crawford's performance these past two games. I have never been impressed with CC's game in previous seasons/appearances, but to me he's a different goalie now. I know he hasn't been really tested by a top-notch opponent yet, but he looks very sharp, alert, and keen on being in perfect position at all times. Those are three things we could never use in the same sentence along with Huet last season.

Another positive is obviously Hossa's play. Even tonight when he was dragging the team behind him, he was noticeably quicker and more effective than most other Hawks at all times - in both directions.

Hammer and Soup are badly missed!

HawksRule said:

user-pic

The delay of game penalty should not be automatic. Refs should have the power to judge intent on this play just like every other play in the game. It's obvious when someone misplays a rolling/bouncing puck or accidentally lifts it too high and it flies over the boards by mistake. There is no wrong intent here and shouldn't be penalized. Stuff like this is bad for the game. It's even worse when it happens on a PP and the other team gets a 5-on-3 as a result.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Pretty hard to decipher between the two. I mean, when a guy (any player) is purposely shooting it at the high glass...who's to say they aren’t intentionally adding a lil extra oomph? Way too tough to decide and call. It should be an automatic call. The way these guys can control the puck? Com'on. Without it (or with "discretion") guys would just throw it up there carefree instead of having to worry too much about where they place it.

When you think about it..no one is "intentionally" doing it because it’s a penalty. What do you think would happen if the rule was relaxed? My bet, we would see a lot more "accidents" and more stoppages of play- not to mention, likely killing a scoring opportunity for that opposing team.

I've never heard anyone complain about that rule before.

QStache said:

user-pic

You trying to say you think players can't control their sticks when they hook someone, or crosscheck someone? Or they can't control themselves when they board someone? Those penalties are all judgment calls by the refs, not automatic.

Pucks bounce, and ice quality varies. When a guy has no reason to clear in desperation and the puck rolls on his pass and flutters into the crowd, it should never be a penalty.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

No. I didn’t say that at all. Of course players have control over their sticks and skates. That’s my whole point! Players will commit penalties while trying to gain or regain their advantage. That’s why we have rules. For example, you mention hooking. Ok, well the reason one might hook is generally when their opponent is beating them with or to a puck. The hook is used to slow that opponent or interrupt their progress toward getting the puck. They are using the hook to gain an ADVANTAGE and catch up with the opposing player. The reason players hook even while knowing it’s a penalty is BECAUSE they can often get away with it and possibly disrupt a scoring chance. How many missed hooking calls have you seen in your life. A lot. Like a delay, it is an advantage for the team that is under attack. My point has been that if there was discretion in calling it, ALL players would look to toss a puck (A LOT MORE) if they needed to and thought they could get away with it. A team that was under duress could “make it look good” and throw it over the boards. And what? No consequence? Yay! No scoring chance and the game stops every time a team gets in trouble! It would be like the new icing! Weee! Fun!

Your example only makes my case that delay calls should remain automatic. Unlike the hooking you compared above, there is no possible way of missing it when the puck leaves the ice. Just like hooking, it’s to gain an advantage. If the other team is attacking and you’ve got tired players out there, throwing the puck away stops play and allows the team to change personnel. Taking your chances 5 on 4 is always a better option than just giving up an easy goal! (I’m sure we can agree there)

But you think it can happen on accident--So how exactly does it happen on accident? You suggest that the quality of ice and bouncy pucks as reasons it could happen. Perhaps if they were playing on the moon! I have never seen a player with, as you put it “no reason to clear in desperation" just skating along and then all of a sudden the puck bounces off his stick and fly out of the rink! Doesn’t happen. A player has to throw it up the boards and AT the high glass if it’s gonna even be close to a possibility. Ok, so maybe you mean the bouncy pucks and choppy ice can affect their pass when it leaves their stick on a pass and THEN it flies into the stands. Ok well, if you have no pressure, (as you suggest) then you would have an easy pass to make, right? Well up the high glass (along those partitions) in your own zone isn’t commonly one of those zero pressure passes a player would ever need to make. Without some pressure, there is no reasonable scenario for it. Feathering a pass to a teammate doesn’t require them to throw it 8 or 10 feet in the air if there is no one there trying to disrupt the pass. With no pressure, what would be the purpose? The ONLY reason it would happen is if there was some opposing player attacking in their defensive zone. Period. Given your scenario, if a player is dumb enough to make a pressure free pass up along the high glass for no reason and it ended up out of the rink, then they are stupid. THEN I would agree with you…. they shouldn’t get called for delay; they should be called for being the dumbest player in the NHL!


Your reasoning just isn’t based in the reality of what happens in the game. Even if you could point out ONE occasion that this fluke of physics has happened in the past, certainly we would find that it happens so rarely that it’s hardly a problem or worth changing the rule over as you prefer. Seriously, how often do you think this fluke happens to even form an opinion like this??? We have all seen when a team “accidently” causes the puck to go over the glass and they roll their heads back in disgust for the call, yes…it is because they “didn’t mean to”. But that’s not the same thing you are saying. Because in this case, what they meant to do is throw it to the highest point of the glass (likely) so that the attacking team can’t field it and they can clear their zone. If it goes over in the process, oh well…they f*cked up and IN FACT delayed the game. If the rule was changed and it was a discretionary call, it would, without ANY doubt in my mind, happen ALL of the time. The last thing hockey needs is to slow down the action and find better ways to eliminate scoring chances.
If you really wanted to make a reasonable case about your problems with this rule, maybe you should argue that the glass should be higher or extend its higher points further out of the zones. Otherwise, I think you are misinterpreting one call from the other night and making a really uniformed opinion about it. I’m guess you are one of those new Hawk fans? Let me just spare us the next disagreement right now……no, they should not get rid of the blue lines.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Wow- I need to write FAR less words. Sorry all-

Paul, can I get a ruling on the issue? Delay calls automatic or no?

QStache said:

user-pic

You have issues, and obviously never actually played ice hockey with any degree of competence. Here's the simple version: the delay call should be like virtually every other ruling in hockey where intent is decided by a referee.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Right defense. State Championship runners up 1992. (Although I still contend their game winner never went in) They also had the advantage of having a future UofM and NHL star Mike Knuble on their team. So yes, I have some experience on the ice which is why I find not credible arguement that you can make to change the rule...your scenario NEVER HAPPENS! Guys just dont throw it over the boards without some reason or pressure. Certainly not with any regularity for you to feel that they should change the rules.

As for virtually every other ruling, the delay call is a "puck progression" issue and not a player to player infraction. Puck progression rules are those that apply to icing, offsides, hand passing, delays, etc... There is NO DESCRETION WITH THESE RULES. A referee is going to not call offsides because he feels a player "didnt mean to" skate in early. Seriously, YOU are calling ME out on hockey experience??? Ok bouncy puck! Its not a raquet ball or filled with helium!! Haha!!

QStache said:

user-pic

You never spent a minute on the ice in competitive hockey. Yes, it's that obvious.

HawksRule said:

user-pic

"Puck progression issue" my ass. Other delay-of-game scenarios are decided by the ref and not automatic. For example, the ref decides intent when the net is dislodged intentionally or unintentionally when a team is under pressure. Go ahead and read the rulebook and you'll see there are plenty of other examples.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Q- I’m sure my experience doesn’t match up to your NHL career stats but it is safe to say that I’m not a hockey fanatic because of the NHL’s history of excellence in marketing their product! I'd show you some picks of the mullet I rocked back in the day. We used to think that the longer hair the guy had, the better he was (or at least so it seemed) so we all wanted to grow it out. Mine was quite a site! But we were of that era when almost every player had one. All of our hockey heroes did too! Stevie Y, Mario, Jager, Probie and I even think Gretz had one for a while! I didn’t even realize it was called a mullet until college and didn’t cut it off till I turned 21. I literally got laid that day and found out that perhaps the mullet wasn’t such a great look! Haha! But I digress..

Since you both seem SO adamant about the delay rule and how it is ruining the game as we know it....Let’s do this: why don’t you aficionado’s reply to this string every time it happens in a Hawks game(or whatever game you are watching) I’m sure THEN we will see who is talking out of school--

Remember, the delay call must happen under the circumstances YOU described above: Under no duress or pressure to do so and completely accidental while on a PP or otherwise in the course of play or just out of nowhere for no reason. A delay call in itself is not the question. It has to be you described.

Shouldn’t be too difficult as you both seem to think it happens all the time and so often that it can be described as "bad for the game" and a rule that MUST BE CHANGED!

How many should I see by the end of the week? Month? 10? 20? 40?

I have the NHL package. I will even take the challenge myself and look for it in all games I watch- I’m an honest person so if I do find one Ill post it here and stand corrected.

Look forward to the onslaught of examples!

Good luck!

QStache said:

user-pic

Ok I just glanced over some of your past posts. That explains it. You're just a nut case.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Thats right Q! I am a nut! A Wingnut!! But that shouldnt stop you from sending along all of those examples to support your arguement. Until that time, I will be right until you can prove me wrong. Should be easy to do though...with all of the times you think it happens..you know, so often it ruins the game of hockey. Yeah, those examples. Cant wait to review one of them!

QStache said:

user-pic

Resorting to 4th grade taunt rhetoric now. I saw that in the previous posts as well.

HawksRule said:

user-pic

I notice you didn't respond to my point about the discretionary delay call of the net being dislodged....

One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

iplagitr said:

user-pic

Thanks for the input, everyone. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up! I can see some have the same disgust for that rule as I do.

OneTeam, I do see your point. These guys are pros and in general they shouldn't have a problem keeping a puck in play. However, one detail that might be getting overlooked is that the fundamental rule of defense is to use the boards. Clear the puck towards the boards, and never up the middle of the ice. If you played right defense, then you know that protocol well. So here's where the pros have a disadvantage over us college has-beens because they can hit the puck so hard. When you have a NHL player skating hard and quickly clearing a puck directly towards the side boards (as they should) with the enormous force they can exert on a shot, it really is very easy for a puck to accidentally go out of play if it's on edge, or fluttering a bit as they hit it. Keep in mind these guys unintentionally hit the damn thing out of play all the time in other areas of the rink and miss shots wide and high practically more than they're actually on target. Hockey is a fast game, and they're not perfect, especially when the puck is not lying flat.

One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

4th grade taunt??? I’m taunting you by asking you to back it up your position and simply provide any number of the (according to you) MANY examples you should be able to so easily find to prove me wrong? If it is a prevalent as you say it is, it should be no problem for you at all and should relish the ease in which you can make your case. So what’s the big deal? Not sure how that’s a taunt. Man up for God's sake, it’s just a blog and a simple disagreement. Now you feel taunted!?!? Haha! Wow! I didn’t realize that you would get so sensitive all of a sudden. Just relax; I don’t have anything personal against you. I don’t even know you. I’m sure you are an intelligent person and probably like or play hockey all the time. Whatever, it doesn’t matter. I just completely disagree with your take in this particular subject and wanna challenge you to prove your point on the position you seem so certain of. I’m sure if I suggested that the goalies water bottle on top of the net interferes with pucks from entering the net, you feel the same way I do and would likely ask for me to prove it with an example. ESPECIALLY if I suggested that it happens so often that it is ruining the game! To me, your assertion is just as ludicrous.

But now it seems that instead of proving your point, you would prefer to change the subject now that you’ve been asked to “put your money where your mouth is”. Your last two responses had nothing to do with anything. Instead you call me nuts and accuse me of childish taunting. As if calling me nuts and therefore dismissing me somehow lets you off the hook for something YOU said? And I’m the one that’s nuts??? I’m not the one that has a man’s pursed mouth as a profile pic and going through your archived comments for some strange, irrelevant to the issue at hand, reasons! I would say that those two items alone place you somewhere between weirdoville and crazytown but I won’t let that change the fact that you are pretty certain that Im wrong in my stance and that if so, there should be ample evidence to the contrary. So instead of insulting each other and calling each other names, why don’t we just stick to the subject and just let your examples do the talking and settle this based on fact and not opinion? Like I’ve been saying, it will be very easy for you to prove if your argument holds any water. I imagine with the regularity you seem to think it happens (a player under no pressure commits a delay of game penalty) then you should have something soon, right?

I look forward to your findings!

QStache said:

user-pic

You have very serious issues. I suggest you seek professional help.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Yep. Once again nothing to add. I guess you wont be able to back up your point. Not surprising at all...

One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

My apologies, I was dealing with QStache for a moment but it seems that we will not be getting anywhere.

I’m really not trying to be difficult here (well, maybe a little) I just strongly disagree with the first point. I know what Q is trying to say but I’m not gonna say it for him.

As for dislodge...what would like me to respond to? That it is one of the many delay calls that is discretionary? OK, well the reason there is discretion in this particular call is because an attacking player can be pushed into the net causing it to dislodge. If a player is deemed not to have been pushed into it and he does so intentionally (skates up and shoves it off) then it is a minor 2 minute penalty. Same as shooting it into the stands. Now, if there is any discretion in the "out of play" delay call it is solely based on whether or not they opposing player ALSO touches the puck prior to it leaving the rink. This happens all the time. There is NO discretion when a player fires it out of the rink without touching the attacking teams stick, body or otherwise. I agree with that.

If I said that there was no discretion in any of the delay calls, I was only meaning particular to this action. I am not suggesting that referee's have no descretion in other calls made on the ice. If I didn’t make that clear, or if it appeared that I said otherwise, then I apologize for not making myself more clear or going into more detail. It was not my intention to make that claim and I should have been more specific in my remarks.

I’m not sure (other than it is another delay call) how this matters with the delay call that is in dispute. I didn’t say that a guy covering the puck in the corner isn’t called by the descretion of the ref either. I am simply saying that a player that sends the puck out of play in their defensive zone should be called with zero discretion. There are a lot of actors in the game these days and faining injury, taking dives and all the rest of that crap is proof of that. I have said that allowing this particular call to have discretion would just lead to more pucks going over the wall, stoppages of play and interruptions scoring chances. Absolutely guys would try to get away with this more (as they try with diving, faining injury, etc..) if they think they have a chance to pull it off or if it can gain their team an advantage.

I’m really baffled at why that seems like such an unrealistic position to understand. I mean, there is a rule in place right now that supports this theory.... How crazy can I be if I agree with something the NHL saw fit to enforce in the first place? I didn’t just make it up you know.

I respect the fact that you might not like it and I don’t think you are crazy for feeling that way. I’m looking at the larger picture and saying that the rule is intended to prevent players for using this as a method to prevent scoring chances and create other advantages.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Ahhhh... I see where your going: I wrote "There is NO DESCRETION WITH THESE RULES." I should not have written it that way. I was meaning that an offsides is absolute (no decretion) a hand pass (no descretion) and a puck out of play by a defender in his own zone (no descretion) Certainly there are circumstances with delay calls that allow for descretion (as discussed above) But that isnt even the issue at hand...

Whether or not this particular action should be called automatically is the question. I make my case for it above.

It is impossible to guess what is in a players mind when he purposely and willfully turns toward the boards, fires the puck up along the glass and/or directly out of play. How does a ref determine the intended strength behind the players pass? Would it would depend on the circumstances of the games score? How much pressure the players team was under? How does the ref decide that it was accidental when the player most certainly throws it up the boards intentionally? (and no QStache, not if it just all of a sudden bounced in the air and floated away like a bubble)

And as for the result of the call. A 2minute minor seems perfectly acceptable for the reasons above. PLayers would be allowed to, in effect "ice the puck" by throwing it over the boards. This prevents any chance the opposing team could have to continue a scoring chance. It should be penalized as severaly as a trip, hook, hold or interference as those are other penalties usually caused when trying to prevent a scoring chance.

Paul said:

user-pic

Wow OneTeam, I see that the average start by the Red Wings has you with a lot of spare time on your hands. But trash talking aside, I don't think the NHL should change the delay of game rule. I completely agree with the argument against it but I don't believe it can be changed. The amount of games that would suffer from allowing players to throw the puck out of play would greatly outnumber the amount that suffer now under the current rules.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Wow Paul! A man that chooses common sense over political suicide has my respect! Such a breath of fresh air!

Average start for the Wings you say? It would appear so! 5 wins and only one loss in regulation is about par for the Wings. I suppose hovering around .500 is an average start for your Hawks? Since you mentioned it, we do have the same point total as Chicago and in three less games! Howard is 4-0-1 with a lower save% and GAA than Marty Choke-o. So yep, everything seemes about average indeed. Thanks for pointing that out!


One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

To your comment below on the delay call string (we were running out of room! Haha!)

Ipla- Thank you for adding some insight BUT- the item that you feel that is overlooked has nothing to do with their issue with the delay rule. They aren’t saying that they are upset when it occurs out of the circumstances you describe; they are saying that it happens even when there is no pressure or reason to need to clear the puck or make a pass around the opposing team by using the boards. They are saying that it happens all the time even without pressure in the defensive zone.
Yes of course D men, forwards and goalies use the boards as a means to move the puck, pass and clear the zone...I totally understand and agree with you that using the boards when a team or player is clearing the puck or making a pass up ice is effective and often used to prevent, end or start an attack in a zone. Certainly a delay can come from this.
BUT that’s NOT what I was disagreeing with. THEY said that this happens often "without pressure" or free of duress or in no immediate need to clear the zone. Why would you need the boards or high glass to "clear the zone" or make a pass if you didn’t have any pressure or were not under any duress to do so? Why would you just throw it aimlessly down the ice or up the boards if you had NO REASON to do so? Logic suggests that you (I, as a defender) would skate it out or make a simple cross ice pass. And yes, as a defender I know that sending it up the middle can run some risks. But I would also add another specific in that you never want to send it up the middle or pass out in front when you are behind or in front of your own net. As you pointed out, clearing attempts should NEVER be up the middle if it can be helped. Again though... they aren’t saying that... they are saying that you would have no reason to be clearing the puck up the middle in the first place. That it just all of a sudden occurs to the professional level player to blindly, recklessly and for no reason what so ever, just fling it up the boards and out of play.

It ridiculous.

On your other point. I agree again. Certainly the puck leaves the ice on deflected slap shots, two sticks battling to swipe at the same loose puck and into the bench when trying to advance it up the boards. BUT THOSE THINGS ARE NOT PENALTIES!! It’s only a penalty if the puck is thrown out of the defensive zone by the defensive player and untouched (deflected) by the opposing team.

Since you seem reasonable, let me ask you “How do you suppose this could happen if there were no opposing players in that defensive zone or any cause given to the defensive player to launch one into the crowd?” My point exactly...doesn’t really happen. Any cases you could find, I’m certain that the number in which this occurrence happens would be so minute, that what then would be the necessity to change the entire rule? WHICH incidentally, if changed, WOULD ruin the game. I find it hilarious that the thing they want to change would actually CAUSE the very issues they are hallucinating about happening now under the rule as it is. Ironic don’t-cha think? If changed, players would throw it out more often when pressured in their zone, scoring chances would be affected and play would stop more often. How would that help the game I ask?

That’s why I told them…a better argument for them to make would be to change the height of the low glass in the defensive zones. Or extend the high glass to be the same height all the way around the rink. I wouldn’t be for it, but at least there would be fewer delays and we would ALL be happy!

iplagitr said:

user-pic

OT - I think it's best we just agree to disagree on this one.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Normally I would say no problem ipla, but I would like to see this through. Ill leave you out of any further conversations as it seems that it is what you'd prefer. Fair enough.

I would just like for their examples speak for themselves. If they can show that teams often throw the puck out of play with no reason to do so and get called for it... then I will gladly tip my hat and admit that Im wrong (psst, thats what a grown up does) When they dont make available some or even a single instance going forward from today, I would say that it concludes that I was right all along and that some people just talk out of school.

This will be a fun challenge. I mean, they should already be watching the games anyways right...

Keep your eyes peeled for the mountain of supporting evidence to come rolling through any day now! (And they call ME nuts!?!?)

One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

HawksRule said:

user-pic

You keep talking about pressure, but I think you're missing the bottom line point of "intent." Here's a good article detailing what I think we're all saying on the subject. (Sorry, I speak for all on this one...)

http://hockeyopinions.com/the-delay-of-game-over-the-glass-penalty-is-silly/

QStache said:

user-pic

That's a good link. The third paragraph was especially on target.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Thanks for the article. Interesting. He makes a much better case than QStache does, I will say that. But the article is just some other guy’s opinion. Do you have any articles from the players union about it? Anything from the talking heads of the NHL? I would put more stock in their opinions over "Niko" any day. Shit, how serious can you take a guy that uses the word "silly" in his title!?!? Haha- I’m only joking. OK, this is what I have to I say this about that article and the author suggestions and "what you are all saying":

Niko suggests that a puck over the boards is almost the same thing as icing. Ok, flipping the puck down the ice for an icing is similar in a lot of respects to tossing it out of the rink. Really? The difference I feel is that many times BECAUSE THE PLAYER IS TRYING TO/MUST KEEP IT IN PLAY, those clearing attempts/icing attempts are often times prevented by defensive players which can then continue the scoring chance. We've all seen a D man prevent an icing attempt by pinching the boards, sprawling out across the blue line to stop a puck with his stick before it leaves the zone or even leap to catch it and knock it down. What if a player didn’t have to worry about icing it? If players had the opportunity to just throw it over the glass for the same consequence as an icing, there wouldn’t be much need for players to ice it anymore because the safest play would be to just throw it over the boards where a defender would have no chance at stopping it going by. I think this is the biggest difference we have. In effect, changing the rule makes icing unnecessary. These guys would just pop it over the boards and be done with it. No risk of defensive interruption at all. Get a whistle, stop the scoring chance and take the face off. I don’t see how this would improve anything. Can you see where I’m coming from? If you are on the PK 3 on 5…as soon as you touch the puck just toss it over the glass. This is what you want? Or will you now be differing with Niko on this point?

As far as "intent" I don’t think these guys ever "intend" for it to go over the glass. I agree with that. I’m sure they are hoping it will ride the highest point until safely out of harm’s way. I know they don’t want a penalty but that doesn’t change anything. How many times have you seen a stick get caught up in a guys skates and cause him to trip? I’m sure the guy might not have meant to do it, but the fact is that he did and the guy tripped! It’s still a penalty. Should a ref's discretion allow the play to go uncalled if the player reacts that like he didn’t mean too? Of course not. “Well he looks sorry…I guess we’ll let it slide”. How would that be determined if a player turns straight at the boards, fires it up the glass and out of play. What other conclusion could a ref make? “Well, I know they don’t really want a penalty and he probably didn’t mean hit it quite so hard…no penalty!” Com’on, really???

I don’t think players (in most cases anyways) look at the third row and think, I’ll throw it there.... I do think they are taking the chances to prevent a scoring opportunity with a risky play and sometimes it costs them. The rule forces the players to keep the puck in play at nearly all costs to keep the game moving, allowing scoring opportunities to continue and prevent as much advantage for doing so as possible. Last I checked that was a good thing.


Ps- I didn’t bring up pressure- Q did. He says that "When a guy has no reason to clear in desperation and the puck rolls on his pass and flutters into the crowd, it should never be a penalty" HE is the one making the suggestion about pressure. I’m saying that it is the pressure itself is the driving factor that is creating the play. If not for the opposing team pressuring offensively or creating a possible scoring chance, the defender would have no cause to lift it up the glass, ice the puck or make such a ridiculous unforced error.
That is the point QStache made and it makes no sense at all and I have never seen it in my life. I doubt highly that he could show me an example otherwise.

One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

iplagitr said:

user-pic

BTW Paul - it's time for an "about Paul" link in the header bar!

Paul said:

user-pic

It is indeed. Thank you for all the great comments, I will get that link up as soon as possible.

menofmags said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Let's try to spin this in more of a realistic and positive approach. Chicago's basketball dynasty was the best run ever for any sport team in Chicago. It consisted of having the greatest player to date along with keeping the core together over the (6) championships. The last great championship run I remember in Hockey also had the same make-up as did our Bulls team. It was the Edmonton Oilers with Wayne Gretsky and supporting cast.

Our beloved Hawks have not started as we expected but let's face it, we do not have the greatest of all time and about 40% of the team consist of new faces. In addition let's compare the following years of the past 6 cup winners.

Year Team 10 Games following Year Result

2008 Penguins 9 - 1 Lost C / S-F
2007 Wings 7 - 3 Lost SCF
2006 Ducks 4 - 6 Lost C / Q-F
2005 Hurricanes 4 - 6 Out of Play.
2004 Lighting 5 - 5 Lost C / Q-F
2003 Devils 5 - 3 - 2 Lost C / Q-F

If the 2010 Hawks make it to the conference quarters finals with all the changes made during the off-season, than I would consider it to have been a great season. Only failing to qualify to defend the "CUP" would be failure. All they require is time to get team chemistry back in the fold. Only start to worry if you see coach "Q" in a viking outfit promoting Ziebart. For all who are to young to remember the great bust of a potential sport dynasty need not look to far. Get a ticket to the 25 year anniversary Chicago Bear Chamipion season, and ask the "Da Coach" with all the talent he had why they were only able to win "1" for the gip.

HawksRule said:

user-pic

Good points and a very valid post. We can't expect the new Hawks to blast out to a perfect record, especially considering the championship line-up struggled to get by the Preds in the first round last season, and we have the current liability of John Scott as a primary D-man.

I lost interest in the Bears after '85 and never regained it. And Q might consider donning the horned hat and fur vest behind the bench.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Would you say they defended it pretty well if they went all the way to the Cup Finals and lost? And then lets say next year backed that up with a conference quarter finals loss (like you said above)the following year?

Cup win, Cup appearance and 2nd round loss... would be pretty great run, dont ya think?

pilote3 said:

user-pic

Agree bout Kopecky but who takes his spot.You didnt say a thing bout Hossas game at all WTF he was great in the game how can u leave that out of a all negative story? Which i will add to Hendry better eake up or hes goin down!Terrible game.How bout Scott on the 4th line he cant b worsr there then he is on D! Man hes brutal

Alex1 said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Yeah, Scott treats the puck like it is a hand grenade. He wants to get rid of it as quickly has he can.

QStache said:

user-pic

Either that or he falls on his ass and gives it up.

In 51 games last year with the Wild he had 2 points and was -3.

VegasHawksFan said:

user-pic

I see a logic to having Kopecky on the top line. With workhorses like Hossa and Toews there, a net crasher or interference runner is needed. Brouwer has the size to be that guy, but I think it's a waste of his talents to put him there. As for the kids, they have speed and are playing nicely together. Do we want to pull one of them away to make them a net crasher while pushing Kopecky down to a line where the kids might have more skill then he does? The helmet flying and falling down get's a little annoying, but Kopecky seems motivated to try and make a niche for himself as a crasher and banger and I think that line needs that.

Hostile Hawk said:

user-pic

Kane will never be defensively minded. It stinks, but it is just the way it is. I agree, his performance to date is definitely sub-par, but he still has 2 PP goals which is encouraging.
Hossa is getting talked about as a top 3 player in the NHL which is gossip that should be connected to him at this point. I agree, although the Hawks are loosing some games, I feel the outlook for the season is positive.
I disagree, however on how the Hawks should beat traps like that set by the Preds. The Hossa, to Kopecky, to Toews goal is a perfect example. The way to break a trap is to force the play man to man. Instead of trying to pass and or dump through a trap (which will likely be broken up) each player has to play his zoned player. Hossa overwhelmed his man on that goal, and changed direction, which caused confusion. Another player converged on him as he moved to the point due to his skill, drawing the man who should have been on Toews with him. Now the coverage is broken, and Toews is open for the goal.
Traps are usually used by teams without the player to player skill that others have. So, players like Hossa, Kane, Toews, Sharp have to mix it up a bit and out-play their man. Changing directions is a great way to confuse that system, We should have seen more of it from Kane who is one of the best.

Im not sure that any negative comments towards Leddy is justified at this point. He has surprised me time and time again. He is an extremely smart player for his age and has speed to boot. This kid is good, damn good, and in a couple of years he will be a cap issue.

pilote3 said:

user-pic

Great post Puckpowow u are right on!

pilote3 said:

user-pic

Curious why isnt Q seeing whats obvious to others.Like sitting Skille?Or Stalburg i dont get it.Is it a feel out process? Cause he sure isnt hesitant to use Leddy in any situation.Just askin

offsidez said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

offsidez said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I was doing a web search and came across this thread and had to to comment. I tell you what I don't see any solutions here but one thing thats loud and clear is that psycho Oneteam poster is definitely not a male. Damn, there's not a single guy on the entire face of this earth that would talk that much nonsense or say the same bullsh*# over & over like that. And add in all those little girly insults along the way. That there is a woman guaranteed and a real sad sad excuse for one. So all that F#$*ing crap about playing in college and having a mullet is pure bullsh*#. I have no other reason to post here, and Im not a Black Hawks fan but I just had to say something after seeing that sorry display. No sense in even sharing opinions with a piece of sh*@ like that . IT's all lies, and she probably doesnt care much about the rule anyway, just wants to get a rise out of anyone and everyone. What a loser & a joke. I feel sorry for the true bloggers on this site. Congrats on your winning season Hawks fans. I wont' be back again. see ya.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Wow! How TOTALLY random and unexpected!! I can’t believe this just happened!!

Hey Paul- You’re an Aerospace Engineer-- Can you calculate the probability that some "random" stranger to this blog, just happen to be doing some random "web search" and then decide, out of the blue and with (according to them) no intention of “being back”, to respond so fiercely and within 24hrs of this conversation taking place? Not to mention the fact that they did so with so much of the SAME acrimony that regulars (like Hawkeverynite – Re: To New Beginnings) have for me? I mean the chances of this have to be off the charts!!!! It’s especially interesting where they write about how they are feeling sorry for the “True bloggers” of this site. Wasn’t the issue about a delay of game call? Why would that person then distinguish me as separate from the “true bloggers” on this site?? I mean, I have more entries than the rest of them…wouldn’t that make me a “true blogger”? What a strange conclusion for a random stranger who knows nothing about our history’s here to make. Hmmmm… Oh yeah, and the shout out to the Hawk fans, even though not a fan themselves was a nice touch! I wonder where else we might find someone so adamant about me being psycho and a female? It just seems so familiar to a Hawkeverynite post (read his archive) perhaps it’s not him and maybe just one of his hillbilly relatives!

I like how they write like it’s a post from Larry the Cable Guy! Haha! “That there is a woman guaranteed..” Haha… Maybe it was Jed Clampett! Cause dat dere is one heck-of-a reeeeeeeply! They was jus doin sum random web searchy on that there TV witha typewriter attached and done came upon this mess of cow pie and jus had to reeeeply, dang-gummit! I swear that Oneteam is too dumb to pour pee out of a boot with directions on the heal!!

I’m keeping that there post. What a classic!

For those of us with an education higher than the third grade level and that don’t sleep with their kin, it seems pretty obvious what happened here. I would have taken it as a compliment if there was even a remote chance that it was at all real. Unfortunately though, it doesn’t seem to be the case. Now I guess I’ll just wait for the cavalry to come to the defense of our new and already resigned blogger. Should be pretty telling.
Paul, I told you I would bring liveliness to your comment boards! This is your most comments yet and it even helped bring in a TOTAL STRANGER!!! Do I get a birddog fee?? Haha! Too bad they said they wouldn’t be coming back! I’ll try harder next time!

One Team said:

user-pic

I forgot to add that I'm an epic failure in life and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

QStache said:

user-pic

I hope you watched the Hawks game tonight, One Team. Dave Bolland accidentally hit a bouncing puck into the stands directly from a defensive zone face-off. A fluke like that should never be a penalty in any NHL game, but he headed to the box at a very tight time in the third period. The whole game could have turned on that one useless penalty. To be clear, I agree with you that the delay penalty has good purpose and shouldn't be eliminated altogether. I just think the refs should have discretion on an OBVIOUS accidental play like that. I think they're good enough to be able to make that call.

OneTeam said:

user-pic

Haha! I actually did watch tonight while waiting for the Wings game and I literally laughed out loud when I saw it all play out. Looked for a minute like they werent gonna call it and then...there you go, penalty. Haha! Could not have been a better example of what you were talking about and even though I have never seen anything like that before, I will tip my hat to your point on this call tonight. While I dont think things like that happen enough to warrant a review of the rule, or feel that it happens with such frequency that it is "ruining" the game, I would agree that IN THIS CASE it was completely unintentional, not necessarily a part of defending their zone and could have been a game changer.

Still, it was absolute comedy when I saw it! Literally the only circumstance under which I could agree with you about a no call and I just had to laugh! Haha! (I actually logged on tonight to write you about it! hahahaha)

That all being said-- I still think the rule should remain how it is. Perhaps they could make a change with regards to faceoffs specifically and leave the rest alone. We obviously dont need to rehash the whole thing again so Ill stop there...

HawksRule said:

user-pic

Glad to see you two finally agree on something (at least sort-of). Haha. It is a good rule to keep the game moving... just seems like the penalty often doesn't quite fit the 'crime' in comparison to many other penalties. Although I will agree there is no easy fix or solution.

I do clearly remember another totally ridiculous instance from last season. The Hawks were killing a penalty and Duncan Keith got the puck in the clear near the face-off dot in the D-zone. He had time to crank up a wicked wrist shot to clear the puck all the way down, but in a move that maybe only the Hulk could duplicate, he ended up sailing the puck in the air clear over the boards on the other end of the ice. Holy smokes. He should have gotten an award for being strong enough to do that, but instead he got sent to the box for delay of game and the Hawks were down in a 5-on-3 situation...

QStache said:

user-pic

Matt Cooke just did the same thing a couple nights ago in the Pens/Caps game. No one on him, so he took time to clear, but fired it all the way down and over the glass on the other end. 2 minute penalty for making a strong play. Look for the highlight on nhl.com.

Leave a Comment?

Some HTML is permitted: a, strong, em

What your comment will look like:

said:

what will you say?

Most Active Pages Right Now

ChicagoNow.com on Facebook