BigJonsson
Member
Wow what a lucky bounce for the admirals. Only a team associated with the leafs could lose that way.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NHL 2011-2012 Offseason thread of Cash Rules Everything Around Me
- Thread starter Dastardly Jerks
- Start date
He's truly shown himself to be a Leafs goalie, he'll be their #1 next season.
SuperSonic1305
Member
2012 Calder Cup Champion Norfolk Admirals*
*Marlies missing their top 3 players, Game 3 decided by flukiest goal in history of hockey
*Marlies missing their top 3 players, Game 3 decided by flukiest goal in history of hockey
Has one of your teams ever lost without you making up an excuse for it?
BigJonsson
Member
Marlies game had fans wearing the following jerseys which made me laugh
Stalberg
Rosehill
Belfour
Roberts
Domi
Tucker
Sundin
Joseph
Mogilny
BEREZIN
Crowd was loud despite the lack of scoring, fun time
Stalberg
Rosehill
Belfour
Roberts
Domi
Tucker
Sundin
Joseph
Mogilny
BEREZIN
Crowd was loud despite the lack of scoring, fun time
BigJonsson
Member
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=397908
Goldwater is going to try and put the Glendale Council vote on ice tomorrow
Goldwater is going to try and put the Glendale Council vote on ice tomorrow
ZeroGravity
Member
oh god that's an awesome OT goal. Happens in the NHL more often than not too, but I haven't seen it happen as an OT goal in such an important game yet lol. Bad on Scrivens for losing sight of the puck though, you just don't look away, especially knowing stuff like that has happened before.
EDIT:
made me spit out coke, thanks. :lol
Stanchion. I know that feel.
BigJonsson
Member
I was wondering why Norfolk didn't have this uniform
Then I realized there are 2 teams called the Admirals in the AHL
Well, that goal should not have counted, fucking refs
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/article/1208007--toronto-marlies-on-brink-after-bizarre-loss-in-game-3?bn=1
Delayed offside cannot result in a goal
Wow, he wasn't even closed to being on-side lol, /AHLrefs!
Then I realized there are 2 teams called the Admirals in the AHL
Well, that goal should not have counted, fucking refs
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/article/1208007--toronto-marlies-on-brink-after-bizarre-loss-in-game-3?bn=1
Delayed offside cannot result in a goal
Wow, he wasn't even closed to being on-side lol, /AHLrefs!
I thought the rule of thumb was that if it's in the glass you stay in net!?
$20 says SuperSonic is punching a picture of a hockey ref with one hand while crying and furiously masturbating to a picture of Brian Burke with the other.
BigJonsson
Member
ZeroGravity
Member
By the letter of the rule, it has to be a shot on goal for it not to count. This wasn't a shot on goal, it was a dump in. It's a legal goal.
But let's go ahead and put an asterisk next to the Admirals, who've only won 42 of their last 45 games.
But let's go ahead and put an asterisk next to the Admirals, who've only won 42 of their last 45 games.
ITS ALL BECAUSE OF THE REFS AND INJURIES TO THE MARLIES
Rule 83.4 of the AHL rule book, reads: If the puck is shot on goal during a delayed off-side, the play shall be allowed to continue under the normal clearing-the-zone rules. Should the puck, as a result of this shot, enter the defending teams goal during a delayed off-side, either directly or off the goalkeeper, a player or an official on the ice, the goal shall be disallowed as the original shot was off-side. The fact that the attacking team may have cleared the zone prior to the puck entering the goal has no bearing on this ruling.
Interesting wrinkle there. Was it meant to include anything that happened to go on goal or would dump-ins be exempt? Technically, it should count as it wasn't "shot on goal". It was dumped wide and deflected on goal.
Interesting wrinkle there. Was it meant to include anything that happened to go on goal or would dump-ins be exempt? Technically, it should count as it wasn't "shot on goal". It was dumped wide and deflected on goal.
Does a dump in that gets deflected off the boards and go on goal but gets blocked by the goalie get counted as a shot on goal or not? That might instantly clarify...
It actually doesn't.
"If the puck is shot on goal (action)"
"If the puck is a shot on goal (statistic)"
Two different things.
Anyway, they lost and I don't see much argument for the Marlies. Pretty ridiculous that Cox was discussing them re-doing the OT.
Kuro Madoushi
Unconfirmed Member
I would cry if that didn't make me laugh. What a terrible way to go and I do think it shouldn't gave counted...why do I get the sinking feeling had it bee. the marlies it would have been called back?
Just end the season.
Yes. It does count on a shot on goal. Its the same if a puck was going wide of the net, and the goalie tries to save it, and it goes in or if I were to shoot it, from 200 feet, and have it bounce off the boards and on net, that's a shot on goal.
The Admirals would have easily won the series as they are a ridiculously good team in the AHL but it's tough since the Marlies are a young team who did far better than young AHL teams usually do, lost their top 3 guys to injuries, and had this what-should-have-been disallowed goal occur.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
God damn, and I was just watching that 197 foot Toskala goal clip tonight where Paul Maurice looks over in confusion.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
I can't say I FULLY agree with this. If the owners bury their heads in the sand and demand a cap decrease then they can go fuck themselves. If the players bury their heads in the sand and demand the cap get abolished they can go fuck themselves. Both sides have said some pretty ridiculous things. Personally I think the players are probably owed a modest cap increase after the concessions they made last time. They shouldn't be held accountable for poor management decisions like keeping a team in Phoenix that depreciate revenues. They gave up a lot last time, but if Fehr is serious in his claims about getting rid of the cap (which I don't think he is, I think it's all leverage gamesmanship for negotiations) then he's just as batshit insane as Bettman.
The next Nikita Filatov.
KernelPanic
Member
What concessions? Players made out like bandits last time. Sure they accepted a salary cap but contracts are still going up and UFA starts at 27.
Cap floor keeps going up I imagine more and more teams will have trouble.
Cap floor keeps going up I imagine more and more teams will have trouble.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Wait.... you seriously believe accepting a salary cap wasn't a major concession? They were the first major league to adopt one if I remember correctly... That's HUGE. Right now I think they get like 57% of revenues. Profits are still rising rapidly. I see no reason they shouldn't be able to extract .5% or something.
AHL statement:
On the play, a dump-in from center ice by a Norfolk player caromed off a stanchion and into the Toronto net. The correct application of AHL Rule 83.4 would have negated the Norfolk goal due to a delayed offside call.
As AHL By-Laws do not allow for any change to the final result of a game based on an incorrect rule interpretation, the result of the game stands.
---
The rules state that an attacking team cannot score on a delayed offside unless the puck touches a defending player before entering the net.
Either way, it was some terrible luck and the series is pretty much over now. Oh well.
Last time, the players were eaten alive. The NHLPA was in disarray. That's why Fehr was brought on board.
Teams want UFAs later. Players want UFA earlier. UFA allows for more money to the player since it's many teams bidding and not just one team owns his rights. And the salary cap. Contracts go up because the cap goes up because the NHL is making money.
Oh, and we're getting a partial lockout. I would be shocked if we didn't.
KernelPanic
Member
Yes it was a concession but can you seriously say that the players have it so bad now ? Look at the contracts being handed out, if you're a top player by age 27 you're getting a lifetime contract til you're 40. How are things WORSE for them ?
NFL had a salary cap long before the NHL and things are great there. Salary cap isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Florida had to overpay guys like Kopecky, Jovanovski etc. just to hit the floor, they could have filled their roster for less if it wasn't for the cap floor.
Forbes says only 11/30 teams are actually making money.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2012/05/30/lack-of-economic-parity-could-kill-nhl/
No idea how accurate that is, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Nah man, he's no lazy russian, that's Grigorenko.
Forbes is fairly accurate. Most teams don't make money.
Things aren't worse when you get paid millions and millions of dollars. And with the loophole, players can get stupid front loaded contracts (see: Ehrhoff and others). But take this for example, Bobby Holik was never an absolute bonafide star. A good 2 way player but never had that absolute scoring touch. In 2002, New York paid a 45 million over 5 year deal. 9 million a year. Players could be getting a ton more money but they don't have the negotiating power when they're limited to only one team until they reach UFA status (which is 27 for 90% of players).
Salary cap is a great thing for the NHL in terms of creating parity, but don't kid yourself. Teams could be paying players far more for their worth. The cap floor is good for the players but the cap ceiling isn't.
KernelPanic
Member
UFA status was 32 (I think) before the lockout, now it is 27. That was a big plus for the players.
Bobby Holik was an awful contract but so is Leino, Bryzgalov, Redden etc. Salary cap won't stop stupid contracts.
Players are getting offered long-term contracts so they don't leave at age 27, no one forces them to accept those, they want to stay. Look at Suter and Parise, both made sure they'd hit UFA at age 27, they could have signed a long-term deal with their current clubs if they wanted to stay.
Most teams lose money but the owners make money off the area, events etc. So the ownership is OK in the end.
Galchenyuk is American, dude.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Running Twitter update on the Glendale vote:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...oenix-coyotes-sale-glendale-vote-storify.html
Apparently the watchdog group's request for a delay in the vote was thrown out of court by a judge.
This thing is actually going to happen. LOL
http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...oenix-coyotes-sale-glendale-vote-storify.html
Apparently the watchdog group's request for a delay in the vote was thrown out of court by a judge.
This thing is actually going to happen. LOL
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
She said she couldn't do it because it would set precedent, but city attorney stated GWI was correct and GWI will continue to pursue the manner.
The owners have every right to ask for a higher percent of revenue. You're forgetting one thing. The NHL is a business. The players are EMPLOYEES. If they're not happy with their wages, then they can go play in Russia for all I care. I fucking hate hearing a bunch of overpaid athletes bitch that they aren't making enough money.
Even a dozen Fehrs couldn't get the salary cap taken out.
Revenue sharing will go up to help shoulder the load for some teams.
The salary cap wasn't a major concession. The cap floor guarantees that every team has to spend a certain amount which leads to players getting more money than they probably should. Due to the cap hits averaging out over the term of a contract and teams being able to front load deals, players are able to make more money and have more options on where they want to play.
Already posted this in the playoffs thread.
Goldwater said they'd go right back to court if it passes. The judge gave them the ammo to do that:
Judge Cooper said:
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Owners don't have a right to whatever amount of revenue they want. They have a right to negotiate with their employees for what they should be paying them.
Whiny owners are just as bad as whiny players. I don't think either side really is "entitled" to anything other than the right to negotiate.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Already posted this in the playoffs thread.
Sorry--I thought that I'd put general news in the, you know, general offseason thread
I honestly have no idea what is happening with this fiasco.
I still seriously wonder if Jamison can get the money together that he needs.
Where did I say the owners should get whatever percent they want? I said they have every right to ask for a higher percent. Why should the players get more of the revenue when they're shouldering zero percent of the risk in owning a team? Whiny owners have every right to bitch when they're not even getting half of the revenue from the league.
It's still the playoffs though.Sorry--I thought that I'd put general news in the, you know, general offseason thread
I honestly have no idea what is happening with this fiasco.
I still seriously wonder if Jamison can get the money together that he needs.
(This thread is pointless right now)This should help you out:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...ll-trying-to-raise-money-to-purchase-coyotes/
brucewaynegretzky
Member
So you're assuming that the labor is only entitled to half of revenue? You're assigning a profit margin based on pretty much entitlement. Owners don't get to decide profit margin. It's determined by cost. The players are entitled to negotiate over the cost of their labor. These are the basic principles of labor law.
Similar threads
- Locked