Sports & Recreation

2017 NHL Playoffs Thread

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 14th, 2017 6:21 am
Member
User avatar
Oct 14, 2009
452 posts
117 upvotes
Windsor, Ont.
rsang39 wrote:
May 18th, 2017 1:30 am
Lol did you even watch the play dude? Sorry but you're completely wrong, it wasn't a dirty hit at all. I say this without any negative intent but if you've never played competitive hockey you wouldn't understand the intent of Hoffman's check. Watch the play again. Schultz is a safe distance away from the boards at the time of impact with Hoffman, in fact he begins the check at the red line. Schultz' body positioning is not vulnerable at the time of impact. Both Schultz and Hoffman were battling for puck positioning along the back of the net as does happen 100x a game.
Image

Contact with Schultz was finished well before he crashed into the boards. You can see that Schultz is already angled away from the board before impact.
Image

When Schultz crashes into the boards the primary point of contact is his shoulder, not his head.
Image

Nothing about this hit was illegal or dirty in any way. The official NHL definition of boarding is defined as


Schultz was not in a defenseless position. He was battling for a loose puck and was well aware of Hoffman's position. Also, Hoffman didn't follow up his hit by continuing contact with him into the boards.
What you're saying is total nonsense. And your evidence outright contradicts what you're saying.

Look at the first image. Take one of your hands and point to where the puck is. Now, take your other other hand and point to where the Schultz is. Now notice how far apart your fingers are. The puck is just off the boards. And contact is made on the other side of the goal line. That means there is almost 11 feet between the player and the puck.

Schultz never had possession of the puck. He was hit before he touched the puck and almost 11 feet away from the puck.

That's not a puck battle. That's interference. That makes it a dirty hit.

Now, look at where the contact is made by Hoffman. Directly on the numbers. That's a hit from behind.

He didn't have the puck, he was far away from the puck, and he was hit from behind. It's hard to be more vulnerable than that.

Your second and third images are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if his head hit the boards. He was still hit from behind when he didn't have the puck. And it doesn't matter if Hoffman followed his contact up into the boards. That's an extremely dangerous play. Plays like that are the reason they changed the icing rule. If Schultz twists the other way, he breaks his neck.
Member
User avatar
Oct 14, 2009
452 posts
117 upvotes
Windsor, Ont.
sharpshooter88 wrote:
May 18th, 2017 2:46 pm
What are you talking about? What about Methot's goal, where the Pen's defensemen pretty much knocked the puck into Fleury's pad and then in the net? And Turris' goal was on Murray. The only real bad goal was the Smith's wrap around goal where Fleury over committed.

I love how fans are so fickle. Fleury plays amazing the first two rounds, and was a huge reason Pens got pass the Caps in the second round. Did we forget that he shut out the Caps in a game 7 on the road? But oh look, Fleury has one bad game, he's not clutch at all and let's put all the blame on the guy.

The entire team starts out flat and spots the other team that plays a trap system a 4 goal lead. CLEARLY that's Fleury's fault.
Yeah, it was a bad bounce off Cole but it was just sitting there in the crease. Fleury kicked it in. That's the type of goals Fleury lets in. He's spastic in net. Overplays pucks, gets himself out of position and gets himself into trouble. Before that goal, he over committed on the wrap around attempt, which was the exact same thing he did on the 4th goal.

Murray didn't look that sharp on the 4th goal, but that was more on Cole. He misplayed it in the neutral zone. And then let Turris by him for the goal.

I don't like the talk about 'he's earned it'. That's just stupid hockey analyst talk. It's a mistake to make decisions based on a misguided sense of loyalty.

Fleury has played really well these play-offs. He stole the Washington series, there's no doubt about that. I'd say he's only had 2 bad games - this past one, and game 4 against Columbus (incidentally where he let in an identical wraparound goal). Game 6 against Washington was a rough outing, but his team did hang him out to dry on that one.

The reason I would start Murray is stability. I think Murray gives the best chance to win. The team is more settled in front of Murray. If Ottawa was getting lots of cross-ice chances and chances off the rush, then I'd want Fleury for his acrobatic saves. Against Ottawa, those saves aren't needed. They need a level head, and Fleury doesn't have that.

It's not about being fickle. Fleury has a long, long play-off history of collapsing. He lets in weak goals. He lets in early goals. Despite him playing well, that's still happened a lot in these play-offs. The way the Senators have shut down the offense and frustrated the team, the margin for error is thin. And, owing to Fleury's play-off history, I don't think you can rely on the guy.

Keep in mind, when the Pens won the Cup in 09, they were expected to be a dynasty team. But they only made it to the Conference finals twice. Both times Fleury didn't play. Vokoun did it the first time (after Fleury had to be benched for his poor play) and the second time Murray did. This year Fleury managed to do it, and is probably the biggest reason they did it. But he has to have a short leash. If he plays and shits the crease again, the Pens are down 3-1 and it's too late to make a change.

This series reminds me a lot of the Montreal series Pittsburgh lost after they won the Cup. They're playing a defensive team that blocks shots and collapses in front of their goalie, a team that hooks and interferes a lot, and a team that has a hot goalie. The biggest reason Pittsburgh lost that series is because Fleury constantly let in early goals in that series and forced the Pens to play from behind. You can't get behind early to teams like that.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 3, 2011
1088 posts
152 upvotes
I love how it's Fleury's fault for kicking the puck in, after the defenseman puts the puck behind Fleury's leg as he's backing up. Nice.

Bottom line, I'm starting with Fleury in game 4. I don't care who's in net. If your team scores an average of one goal a game, you're not winning unless your goalie is perfect. You can have Roy or Brodeur in net and even they won't be able to do that. The reason the Pens are down in this series is because they can't score, not because the goalie let them down.
Baaaaaaaaa!
Deal Addict
Feb 24, 2014
1000 posts
242 upvotes
ugly wrote:
May 18th, 2017 7:45 pm
What you're saying is total nonsense. And your evidence outright contradicts what you're saying.

Look at the first image. Take one of your hands and point to where the puck is. Now, take your other other hand and point to where the Schultz is. Now notice how far apart your fingers are. The puck is just off the boards. And contact is made on the other side of the goal line. That means there is almost 11 feet between the player and the puck.

Schultz never had possession of the puck. He was hit before he touched the puck and almost 11 feet away from the puck.

That's not a puck battle. That's interference. That makes it a dirty hit.

Now, look at where the contact is made by Hoffman. Directly on the numbers. That's a hit from behind.

He didn't have the puck, he was far away from the puck, and he was hit from behind. It's hard to be more vulnerable than that.

Your second and third images are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if his head hit the boards. He was still hit from behind when he didn't have the puck. And it doesn't matter if Hoffman followed his contact up into the boards. That's an extremely dangerous play. Plays like that are the reason they changed the icing rule. If Schultz twists the other way, he breaks his neck.
Wait....what? You think interference penalties are dirty hits? :facepalm: Face With Tears Of JoyFace With Tears Of Joy LOL ok bud. You've just proved your hockey knowledge is little to none, so there's no need to continue my discussion with you. But what you think is a dirty play happens 100x a game, the only reason you think it's a dirty play is because it's by a Senator against a Penguin, and the player was injured on the play. If Shultz was not injured, nobody would be talking. The referee would have called a boarding penalty if he thought it was a blatant infraction, but no such call was made. This qualifies more as an interference penalty than it does an boarding penalty, BUT referees have discretion, and you're not going to see every single interference play called.....Hoffman gives Shultz a light shove from 11ft into the boards and he lands SHOULDER first, not head first, but you consider this a dirty play? Right....
Last edited by rsang39 on May 18th, 2017 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Deal Addict
Feb 24, 2014
1000 posts
242 upvotes
ugly wrote:
May 18th, 2017 8:01 pm
Murray didn't look that sharp on the 4th goal, but that was more on Cole. He misplayed it in the neutral zone. And then let Turris by him for the goal.

I don't like the talk about 'he's earned it'. That's just stupid hockey analyst talk. It's a mistake to make decisions based on a misguided sense of loyalty.

Fleury has played really well these play-offs. He stole the Washington series, there's no doubt about that. I'd say he's only had 2 bad games - this past one, and game 4 against Columbus (incidentally where he let in an identical wraparound goal). Game 6 against Washington was a rough outing, but his team did hang him out to dry on that one.

The reason I would start Murray is stability. I think Murray gives the best chance to win. The team is more settled in front of Murray. If Ottawa was getting lots of cross-ice chances and chances off the rush, then I'd want Fleury for his acrobatic saves. Against Ottawa, those saves aren't needed. They need a level head, and Fleury doesn't have that.
Fleury played a BIG part in getting the Pens to where they are in the playoffs. It's not all on him when the defense in front of him is subpar. Some of the goals were weak, but you can't put all of the blame on your goalie. Murray has less than 1 full game of playoff experience this year. Fleury absolutely deserves to start the game, but on a shorter leash. What if Murray has a bad start and lets in 3 goals in the 1st? You're gonna pull him and put Fleury back in? That would make you look even more stupid and wouldn't sit well in the locker room.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 14, 2008
7481 posts
1103 upvotes
Ontario
ugly wrote:
May 18th, 2017 7:45 pm
What you're saying is total nonsense. And your evidence outright contradicts what you're saying.

Look at the first image. Take one of your hands and point to where the puck is. Now, take your other other hand and point to where the Schultz is. Now notice how far apart your fingers are. The puck is just off the boards. And contact is made on the other side of the goal line. That means there is almost 11 feet between the player and the puck.

Schultz never had possession of the puck. He was hit before he touched the puck and almost 11 feet away from the puck.

That's not a puck battle. That's interference. That makes it a dirty hit.

Now, look at where the contact is made by Hoffman. Directly on the numbers. That's a hit from behind.

He didn't have the puck, he was far away from the puck, and he was hit from behind. It's hard to be more vulnerable than that.

Your second and third images are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if his head hit the boards. He was still hit from behind when he didn't have the puck. And it doesn't matter if Hoffman followed his contact up into the boards. That's an extremely dangerous play. Plays like that are the reason they changed the icing rule. If Schultz twists the other way, he breaks his neck.
If you had your way, every time 2 players muscle for possession in the corner before getting to the puck, it should be a penalty? Seriously, you're looking at stills and trying to make a determination that is far from correct. No where near. No hockey minded person would come to your conclusion. Watch the real time play. Not interference. Not dirty. Only an unfortunate result.

Move on.
Deal Addict
Feb 24, 2014
1000 posts
242 upvotes
onlineharvest wrote:
May 18th, 2017 9:06 pm
If you had your way, every time 2 players muscle for possession in the corner before getting to the puck, it should be a penalty? Seriously, you're looking at stills and trying to make a determination that is far from correct. No where near. No hockey minded person would come to your conclusion. Watch the real time play. Not interference. Not dirty. Only an unfortunate result.

Move on.
Biased hockey fan meets poor hockey knowledge Face With Tears Of Joy
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 14, 2008
7481 posts
1103 upvotes
Ontario
If you just keep your eye on Kelser, he does some of the dirtiest shit. If he knows you're coming up toward him, he raises his elbow toward the opppnents head (note ugly, this is a dirty play). I don't know why the league lets him get away with this kind of play. Stuff like this makes me wish a Scott Stevens was around to lay out a clean but devastating hit on him.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 14, 2008
7481 posts
1103 upvotes
Ontario
Oh look how cute, Anaheim actually complaining about a cross check against their player! Hah!
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
23843 posts
5055 upvotes
GTHA
WTF! Pittsburgh completely demolished Ottawa! :lol:

Matt Murray should be the go-to starting goaltender for Pittsburgh from here on out?

"Mike Sullivan is a genius and no one should ever question his decision making on line pairings or starting goalies." ;)
from http://www.pensburgh.com/2017/5/21/1567 ... eries-lead
Deal Addict
User avatar
Feb 3, 2011
1088 posts
152 upvotes
Murray has played well the past two games, but was not the reason they won. Pens had two strong starts to both games and seems to have solved the Sens system. Sullivan's tweaking of the lines seems to have worked and having Rusty and the new kids running around have given the Sens fits.

Murray has to be the starter now moving forward. The only way I see MAF getting another start is if Murray loses two in a row in the Cup finals.
Baaaaaaaaa!
Member
User avatar
Oct 14, 2009
452 posts
117 upvotes
Windsor, Ont.
rsang39 wrote:
May 18th, 2017 8:16 pm
Wait....what? You think interference penalties are dirty hits? :facepalm: Face With Tears Of JoyFace With Tears Of Joy LOL ok bud. You've just proved your hockey knowledge is little to none, so there's no need to continue my discussion with you.
Of course interference can be dirty. It depends on the context.

A high stick can be a dirty play if you intentionally whack at a guy. But a lot of high sticks are accidents, still penalties, but aren't dirty plays or cheap shots.

Players pull pick plays all the time. That's interference, but not dirty. When you hit a guy on the numbers almost 11 feet away from a puck, that's hitting a guy in a vulnerable position and it's a dirty play.
But what you think is a dirty play happens 100x a game, the only reason you think it's a dirty play is because it's by a Senator against a Penguin, and the player was injured on the play. If Shultz was not injured, nobody would be talking.
It's not a play that happens 100x a game. If it was, then you'd see a lot more guys getting hurt. Players do make contact before they reach the puck all the time. They're using their body to get position on the other guy. They usually edge each out along the boards. No one's going to bust a shoulder or a neck on a play like that. That's fine. But that's a different situation. This wasn't two guys muscling for the puck. This was farther away, and a hit directly on the numbers. It was far enough that it should have been a penalty, injury or not.
The referee would have called a boarding penalty if he thought it was a blatant infraction, but no such call was made. This qualifies more as an interference penalty than it does an boarding penalty, BUT referees have discretion, and you're not going to see every single interference play called.....Hoffman gives Shultz a light shove from 11ft into the boards and he lands SHOULDER first, not head first, but you consider this a dirty play? Right....
Referees are terrible. You can't judge an infraction or a dirty play on whether the ref made the call. I don't even know why you're talking about how he landed. The result of the hit has nothing to do with whether it was an infraction, a dirty hit, a cheap shot, or whatever you want to call it.

Here's one from the Nashville game:


Johanson clearly hits the guy from behind, and the refs didn't call it. It should have been a penalty. The point is, the refs do a shitty job.
rsang39 wrote:
May 18th, 2017 8:23 pm
Fleury played a BIG part in getting the Pens to where they are in the playoffs. It's not all on him when the defense in front of him is subpar. Some of the goals were weak, but you can't put all of the blame on your goalie. Murray has less than 1 full game of playoff experience this year. Fleury absolutely deserves to start the game, but on a shorter leash. What if Murray has a bad start and lets in 3 goals in the 1st? You're gonna pull him and put Fleury back in? That would make you look even more stupid and wouldn't sit well in the locker room.
It's not about who deserves to start, it's about who gives you the best chance to win. There's no real right answer. Fleury could have started and got a shutout. Fleury could have started and let in a bunch of bad goals. It's more of an instinct call. Given the situation, I think Murray is the better option. Turned out he played well, but Fleury might have done just as well.

Pittsburgh has a unique situation since they have two starters that both have Cup rings. But, if you're thinking of trying the goalie change, you kind of have to make the call before you're on the brink. If they left Fleury in, and he played poorly, then Murray has his shot when they're down 3-1 and there's not much hope left. If Murray went in and didn't play well, Fleury would be back again down 3-1, but at least you tried to do everything you could.

To me, the call is totally based on Fleury's history. If it was the exact same situation but, say Anderson was Pittsburgh's goalie, I wouldn't have started Murray over Anderson. Fleury just has too much of a history of early, backbreaking goals.


As for the 7-0 victory. Doesn't really mean anything. Pittsburgh looked like they were done after they lost big in game 6 against Washington. Anaheim looked done after they lost big to Edmonton. The only concern I'd have if I was rooting for Ottawa is that there was minimal pushback, even at the end. And all the injuries they've recently racked up. Karlsson, Brassard and Ceci didn't finish the game.


And the Nashville series got weird quickly. Johanson suddenly needed emergency thigh surgery, and now their top center is gone. Fisher is out too. And then Gibson gets hurt for Anaheim.
Deal Addict
Feb 24, 2014
1000 posts
242 upvotes
ugly wrote:
May 22nd, 2017 1:21 am
Of course interference can be dirty. It depends on the context.

A high stick can be a dirty play if you intentionally whack at a guy. But a lot of high sticks are accidents, still penalties, but aren't dirty plays or cheap shots.

Players pull pick plays all the time. That's interference, but not dirty. When you hit a guy on the numbers almost 11 feet away from a puck, that's hitting a guy in a vulnerable position and it's a dirty play.


It's not a play that happens 100x a game. If it was, then you'd see a lot more guys getting hurt. Players do make contact before they reach the puck all the time. They're using their body to get position on the other guy. They usually edge each out along the boards. No one's going to bust a shoulder or a neck on a play like that. That's fine. But that's a different situation. This wasn't two guys muscling for the puck. This was farther away, and a hit directly on the numbers. It was far enough that it should have been a penalty, injury or not.


Referees are terrible. You can't judge an infraction or a dirty play on whether the ref made the call. I don't even know why you're talking about how he landed. The result of the hit has nothing to do with whether it was an infraction, a dirty hit, a cheap shot, or whatever you want to call it.

Here's one from the Nashville game:


Johanson clearly hits the guy from behind, and the refs didn't call it. It should have been a penalty. The point is, the refs do a shitty job.


It's not about who deserves to start, it's about who gives you the best chance to win. There's no real right answer. Fleury could have started and got a shutout. Fleury could have started and let in a bunch of bad goals. It's more of an instinct call. Given the situation, I think Murray is the better option. Turned out he played well, but Fleury might have done just as well.

Pittsburgh has a unique situation since they have two starters that both have Cup rings. But, if you're thinking of trying the goalie change, you kind of have to make the call before you're on the brink. If they left Fleury in, and he played poorly, then Murray has his shot when they're down 3-1 and there's not much hope left. If Murray went in and didn't play well, Fleury would be back again down 3-1, but at least you tried to do everything you could.

To me, the call is totally based on Fleury's history. If it was the exact same situation but, say Anderson was Pittsburgh's goalie, I wouldn't have started Murray over Anderson. Fleury just has too much of a history of early, backbreaking goals.


As for the 7-0 victory. Doesn't really mean anything. Pittsburgh looked like they were done after they lost big in game 6 against Washington. Anaheim looked done after they lost big to Edmonton. The only concern I'd have if I was rooting for Ottawa is that there was minimal pushback, even at the end. And all the injuries they've recently racked up. Karlsson, Brassard and Ceci didn't finish the game.


And the Nashville series got weird quickly. Johanson suddenly needed emergency thigh surgery, and now their top center is gone. Fisher is out too. And then Gibson gets hurt for Anaheim.
Like I mentioned several times before, if you played competitive hockey you'd understand the nature of the hit and you'd recognize that it was not with malicious intent. It was an attempt by Hoffman to get in a better position to get the puck. Did he hit the player in the the numbers? Sure. But do you know how many cross checks from behind players take in front of the net? Just because a player gets hit in the numbers it doesn't make it a "dirty" hit. Hoffman wasn't head hunting and he has no history of that. You also did say that an interference = a dirty hit which I find absolutely laughable.
Member
User avatar
Oct 14, 2009
452 posts
117 upvotes
Windsor, Ont.
If you've played hockey then you should know where the most dangerous part of the ice to hit someone is. It's that distance from the boards. Because at that distance, if you hit someone from behind they're going to fall forward before they hit the boards. That's the first thing they teach you when you start hitting.

This is the one where the guy got paralyzed. Very similar play. From behind, right on the numbers, two guys chasing the puck, contact before they got to the puck. And at the distance away from the boards where you absolutely do not hammer a guy from.



I don't know why you're getting hung up on the interference thing. I didn't state some law that holds true under every circumstance. Sometimes interference is dirty, sometimes it isn't. Very often it is because when someone doesn't have the puck, they're not expecting to get hit. It's a vulnerable situation. I think most people would agree that it's a cheap shot to hit someone when they're not looking, whether it's in hockey or in any other circumstance.

I just don't understand why people are so eager to jump to the defense of guys that make poor decisions when they hit someone and cause an injury. You hear it every time. "It's just a hockey play with a bad result", "Hockey is so fast"

Look what Hoffman did on the first goal against in the last game. He had an opportunity to clear the puck, and instead threw it blindly across the blueline. A few seconds later Maatta scored. Nobody is defending his decision on that play. There, he was actually making a hockey play, but **** up. He made a bad decision and it burned his team. Nobody jumps to his defense and says "It was a hockey play that went wrong". No, they call him an idiot and complain that he should have made the safe play and chipped it up off the boards. He was under pressure from two Pens, and made the wrong play. He definitely had less time to think about the play than when he hit Schultz. Still, your coach benches you for making a play like that. Because when you're on the ice, you're expected to not do something stupid. So why is it different when a guy shoves someone dangerously into the boards, or a guy makes a dumb decision clearing the zone?



As for tonight's game - Anaheim is done. Good riddance. They did manage to outplay Nashville most of the night. Bernier didn't have a chance on the last one, but the 2nd and 3rd goals weren't pretty. I think he ended the night with 4 goals against on 16 shots.

Top