| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 11/09/2011 : 19:32:33
I'm assuming others saw the TB-PHI game tonight, and noted the bizarre way that PHI attempted to thwart the 1-3-1 defense of TB. Basically, the Flyers get the puck in their own end, and wait for TB to forecheck. Because TB is lining up defensively in their now-familiar 1-3-1 configuration, the forechecker does not come into the PHI zone to try to get the puck. PHI, instead of bringing the puck out and attempting to run the gauntlet, stays in their end awaiting the forecheck. Stalemate ensues.
I've certainly never seen anything like that before, nor had any of the commentators (no video yet, but I'm sure there will be soon). Any thoughts? TB to blame, PHI to blame, both to blame? The refs blew the play down a couple of times, seemingly because they didn't know how to proceed.
It happened more than once, and personally I think both teams looked a little stupid doing it. However, I don't like a team that does not forecheck myself, so I think TB looked a little stupider in the end. But definitely strange. |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest4306 |
Posted - 11/22/2011 : 20:10:32
So how is the 1-3-1 system working for Tampa Bay? After 20 games, they're sitting in 12th place in the East, and they are 27th in the league in goal against. This is definitely not the Jacques Lemaire - New Jersey Devils version of the trap! |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 11/19/2011 : 22:29:59
What I was suggesting was a rule change to remove the 1-3-1 trap from the game.
|
| mandree888 |
Posted - 11/19/2011 : 12:29:57
i dont see anything wrong with it. both teams were playing their style of hockey. its up to the players to make their strategy work. Philly should have baited the forecheck better IMO. standing at the red dot shows exactly what you are going to do wich is pass it to your defence partner, Also beating the trap falls upon the sholders of the Coach. all this prove is Philly coach doesnt have the slightest clue on how to beat the trap.
i am a real leaf fan. i know they wont win a cup i like em anyway! ~true leafs fans |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 11/19/2011 : 05:36:11
Ok, been in Mexico for a week so I missed the heart of this arguement but I still have to add my two cents,
Seriously the arguement about strategy of both teams being at fault is a bit misleading. TB applied a common defensive strategy used by many teams in a tight game or when defending a lead. To say that PHI's "strategy' was just as good is not accurate at all because essentially by having a defencemen just stand there with the puck and 4 guys skating around not an offensive strategy at all. In fact it is NO STRATEGY at all.
Now you can say TB's strategy was just 5 guys standing but its not. The 1-3-1 is good defensive strategy that when the offensive team actually plays offense it moves players into to strategical positions to defend their zone and attack the puck.
It is poor coaching on Laviolettes part to not get creative enough to provide offence against it.
To shorten it up, TB was the team defensive team in the situation and used a defensive strategy, PHI was the offensive team and used NO offensive strategy.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/18/2011 : 10:34:30
Joshua.....not sure what you mean? Are you implying that if it's shot in from center? Or are you saying it's shot in from the defensive end off the boards? I don't quite follow? 
As far as i know, icing is only negated by touching it first (offensive team) after coming from an onside position (or it's be considered a two line pass), or dumping it in once across center ice.
My suggestion, was to fire it down the ice from inside your own blueline, but have forwards entering the zone with speed to track it down before the defense can (usually only 1 guy in a trap system). Of course, the puck must cross the blue line before the forwards to keep it onside / not a two line pass! I guess if a team started doing this, the dman could back off even more, making it more difficult for the forwards to be first to the puck? Having said that, it would likely open things up more as far as the trap goes! |
| JOSHUACANADA |
Posted - 11/18/2011 : 10:27:00
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4243
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4551
ok i like the dump it in the technique its a good idea but what happens when the NHL decides to go ahead with the no touchicing rule?? Then what do you do?
i say have a couple of guys (WINGERS stay at the side and pass behind the 3 defenders at the red line) to the othe centre streaming in and follow him after he carries it agains one guy use the trap against them.
Well you shoot on net. The goalie freezes it and face off in TB zone. Or puck stays in play and you pressure deep in their zone.
I thought the new NHL is about offence and scoring. By allowing TB to continue this defence you set up for low scoring boring games which the league is trying to remove.
Like I said before a simple rule change that force one defensive player to engage the puck or the puck carrier eliminates this c(t)rap.
Right cause with the 1-3-1 defense there is always a clear shot on net. How bout if the puck is banked off the boards in center ice before it enters the oppositions zone, it no longer becomes a 2 line pass or Icing. This will eliminate the sitting back in your defensive zone and create scoring chances. |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/18/2011 : 10:06:11
Great story, Guest 4178, thanks for that. Please sign up!
It is interesting to note these little interactions and stories between the fans and coaches/management . . . great to hear guys like Lowe actually read those letters and memos. Heartwarming stuff.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 11/16/2011 : 12:18:22
*** REVISED***
Posted - 11/16/2011 : 09:26:45
Alex – hang tight. You still might get a response! :)
Years ago, I sent a note to Oilers GM Kevin Lowe about a suggestion I had about what to do when a DEFENSEMAN loses their stick in the defensive zone.
My suggestion was that forwards should keep their sticks, because they're helpless when dealing with the opposing defense. And that defensemen (even without a stick) have other ways of defending, and having a stick is less important to them. (This was before the new rules took place about holding, etc.)
Surprisingly, I received two replies, one from their PR guy (Bill Tuele) who responded that the Oilers appreciated my input as a season ticket holder, and they thought it was an interesting suggestion. And then I received a response from Kevin Lowe, who stated that he discussed the idea with the coaching staff, and expressed that Billy Moores thought it was worth consideration, but Craig MacTavish wasn't sold on the idea, so they would stay "status quo."
In retrospect they were right (of course). I must have watched a couple of games beforehand where goals were scored when forwards were caught trying to pass their sticks back to their defense partners. Hence the idea for forwards to keep their sticks.
One final footnote to this story: A few weeks later I was at a game, and an Oilers defenseman lost his stick. I'm not sure if the forwards were unwilling (not likely) or unable (most likely) to pass a stick back to the "stick-less" defenseman, but the end result was that a goal was scored against the Oilers on this play.
The Oilers lost that game (by a goal if I remember correctly), and they went on to miss the playoffs by two points that season, and I still wonder if the team actually tried my recommended approach that particular game? (Very unlikely I would add.)
One last story as it relates to a fan's input, and this one is not mine. In 2008, an Ottawa optometrist recommended that Marc-Andre Fleury change his yellow goalie pads to a more neutral colour (white), and he did so, and went on to finish the season in spectacular fashion.
So Alex – keep trying with your suggestions! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 22:07:52
Beans, i actually think your odds are better than 25% when firing it the length of the ice! First off, you can try to put it on net, therefore mitigating an icing call. Second, you have all 3 of your forwards moving, with speed into the other end and it's basically 3 vs the 1 dman, unless the goalie plays it, which in turn solves the icing problem!
I can't believe teams don't try this? Even more unbelievable is that Laviolette didn't reply to me!  |
| Guest4243 |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 18:48:35
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4551
ok i like the dump it in the technique its a good idea but what happens when the NHL decides to go ahead with the no touchicing rule?? Then what do you do?
i say have a couple of guys (WINGERS stay at the side and pass behind the 3 defenders at the red line) to the othe centre streaming in and follow him after he carries it agains one guy use the trap against them.
Well you shoot on net. The goalie freezes it and face off in TB zone. Or puck stays in play and you pressure deep in their zone.
I thought the new NHL is about offence and scoring. By allowing TB to continue this defence you set up for low scoring boring games which the league is trying to remove.
Like I said before a simple rule change that force one defensive player to engage the puck or the puck carrier eliminates this c(t)rap. |
| Guest4551 |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 13:09:15
ok i like the dump it in the technique its a good idea but what happens when the NHL decides to go ahead with the no touchicing rule?? Then what do you do? i say have a couple of guys (WINGERS stay at the side and pass behind the 3 defenders at the red line) to the othe centre streaming in and follow him after he carries it agains one guy use the trap against them. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 10:49:40
I love Alex's strategy!! Brilliant. If the offensive team will create the same outcome by icing the puck or not moving it, why not try the dump and chance from the defensive zone?? Especially against the 1-3-1. I would pile 3 offensive guys at the opposite blue line, dump it from the defensive zone, and let the chips fall where they may. Even if you were 25% successful it would be better than sitting in your own end and not moving the puck.
However, fans wouldn't appreciate that many icing calls either. But there is no rule on how often a team can ice the puck. However, I am certain if Philly did this, some would say it was either not a strategy or against the spirit of the game.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/15/2011 : 09:44:52
I just sent Peter Laviolette an email for the next Phi/TB game. Here's what i suggested he try...........
Pete,
Alex116 of PUH.com here. Love what you did strategy wise vs TB the other night, thought it was a great way to counter their "trap". Seeing as the ref's didn't help you out there, THIS is what i suggest you do next time. Have your dman carry the puck to the faceoff dot in your own end. Try to make it Pronger, as he will fit this role perfectly. Tell Chris when he gets to the dot, wind up like he never has before, and rifle the puck down the ice. Have your wingers "in motion" like a CFL reciever, flying into the offensive zone to beat the only dman there (cuz the other 3 guys are in the neutral zone) and gain possession of the puck. If all goes well, you get the puck in the opposing teams zone relatively quickly and painlessly. If all goes better than well, perhaps Pronger's slapper nails the forward who was refusing to enter your zone to put pressure on the dmen.
Hope this helps, i'll be watching to see how it works....
Sincerely,
Alex116 of PUH.com
I'm awaiting an email back  , i'll keep you all posted! |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 21:18:46
My point remains that if a team chooses to just pass around the puck until the ref blows the whistle, this is a losing tactic.
As far as moving the puck back and forth until forecheckers are "lured in," from what I saw in the highlights, TB wasn't biting. So then it becomes a waiting game, and the Flyers can only wait until the referee blows the whistle, or they eventually have to move the puck forward against TB's system.
I understand the third point (about trying to embarrass TB), but does this change anything? Do teams really care? TB doesn't appear to care. Did you read Boucher's comments?
Don't get me wrong. I find the 1-3-1 trap system boring and frustrating to watch. My point is that as the rules now stand, TB wins the tactical battle.
And unless the league changes how they call this "play" (passing the puck back and forth with no forward movement, and opposing forecheckers staying back), you won't see it happen again. Because the Flyers tried it, and it doesn't work!
Which team (and fans) were frustrated after all? That tells you something. I don't have a bias toward either team, and while I don't like TB's tactics, I think they win (at least for now) the tactical battle.
|
| Guest4874 |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 20:14:59
I can not believe the controversy this is causing! It seems to me that too many people have only half of the information.
Firstly, yes the play was whistled down when Philly did not move the puck....as it should be....but once they adjusted by passing the puck and literally skating in circles, the "strategy" was no longer whistled dead.
Secondly, the purpose of D to D passes and D moving backwards with the puck is for the purpose of luring forecheckers in deep so Philly's strategy was not only acceptable but sound.
Thirdly, and I think most importantly i believe the whole purpose of the "stunt" was to embarass the Lightning and their approach to the game. This was not the case of a team adopting a defensive posture to protect a lead, it was a team trying to clog the middle and counter attack. Why would Philly happily engage in that.
Lastly, I applaud Philly for at least sticking to their guns.....although I'm sure they wouldn't have tried this at home!!!
The people that I truly feel sorry for are the highly skilled Tampa forwards htat hd to endure the "stall tactics" of their own coach |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 19:06:24
Coaches are not paid to put fans in the seats - they are paid to win hockey games. (I'm not suggesting that coaches don't care about playing in a full or empty arena, but it's secondary to winning.)
Here's what TB's coach (Boucher) had to say about things. "I don't care what people say. I coach our team and I'm paid to win games and our rink is full. (General Manager) Steve Yzerman is happy. The comments don't bother me and I really don't know the extent of it. We play the same way we played last year and we're going to continue playing that way. In every game, every team has a strategy. We have a strategy against the other team and during the game we adjust and re-adjust and other teams have to do the same against us. It's an ongoing process, whether it's on the ice or off the ice. The only thing that matters is what happens on the ice. We've got our strengths and weaknesses. We play to our strengths."
Unless the league changes things, Boucher's tactics work. The Flyers (or other teams) can pass around the puck in their own end all they want, and right now, the end result is a face-off in your own end of the rink. Not too smart really. I'm not biased to one team's strategy over another, but I have a bias toward common sense, and as it stands right now, the Flyers (or any other team) would be foolish to give up puck possession by showing their displeasure for Tampa Bay's 1-3-1 trap system.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 14:24:20
I don't think it has anything to do with what the fans would do. I believe it is the exact same thing as the trap mentality.
Trapping team - We will not chase the puck. We will let the puck come to us and react to the opposition by being positioned in the neutral zone to intercept passes and pressure the puck carrier to attempt to move the puck to an area of the ice we are positioned in.
Sit and Wait team - We will not try to break down the trap. We will let the forecheck come to use and react to the opposition by being positioned to make passes to relieve the pressure on the puck carrier. We will move the puck to an area of the ice where the opposition is not.
But somehow one of those strategies is wrong and one of those strategies is correct. At least according to some. |
| Sensfan101 |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 14:15:57
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
It is amazing how many posts one has to make before people can appreciate the point they are making. I personally thought Philly and Laviolette were brilliant in this strategy. If you didn't like it, I can appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is these ridiculous narrow views towards only Philly. That is the laughable point. You cannot point the finger and what Philly did without also calling out TB for what they did. They are one and the same and neither is 'in the spirit of the game."
If the actions of one of the teams are wrong then the actions of both teams are wrong. It's pretty simple.
Narrow views towards Philly? Beans, I don't care if it was the Leafs doing it . . . they didn't attack or leave their own zone when they had the puck. They were whistled down for it a couple of times and lost possession for it.
Tampa Bay NEVER did that, please compare apples to apples.
I don't feel that playing defensive hockey in the style Tampa Bay plays is illegal, or wrong, or unjust, or against the spirit of the game. The NHL so far agrees with me, but it's just my opinion.
When a team does what Philly does, and they lose possession of the puck after it's whistled down, and TB gets an offensive zone faceoff . . . how that can be construed as anything other than assinine is beyond me.
But go ahead, defend it to its death. 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
i agree, as i said before Philly did not use any stragety they quit playing,,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
I actually believe it was startegy and here's why. Philedalphia knew that if they just held the puck the Tampa crowd would start to boo and Tampa could either play into Phillys hands and forecheck or embarass themselves in front of their hands and risk fans not coming to their games.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 13:19:35
quote:
Originally posted by Pasty7
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
It is amazing how many posts one has to make before people can appreciate the point they are making. I personally thought Philly and Laviolette were brilliant in this strategy. If you didn't like it, I can appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is these ridiculous narrow views towards only Philly. That is the laughable point. You cannot point the finger and what Philly did without also calling out TB for what they did. They are one and the same and neither is 'in the spirit of the game."
If the actions of one of the teams are wrong then the actions of both teams are wrong. It's pretty simple.
Narrow views towards Philly? Beans, I don't care if it was the Leafs doing it . . . they didn't attack or leave their own zone when they had the puck. They were whistled down for it a couple of times and lost possession for it.
Tampa Bay NEVER did that, please compare apples to apples.
I don't feel that playing defensive hockey in the style Tampa Bay plays is illegal, or wrong, or unjust, or against the spirit of the game. The NHL so far agrees with me, but it's just my opinion.
When a team does what Philly does, and they lose possession of the puck after it's whistled down, and TB gets an offensive zone faceoff . . . how that can be construed as anything other than assinine is beyond me.
But go ahead, defend it to its death.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
i agree, as i said before Philly did not use any stragety they quit playing,,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
To "quit playing" is not a strategy?? It absolutely is a strategy. Is 'quiting a forecheck" a strategy?? It sure is. It's call a trap. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 10:41:58
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I don't feel that playing defensive hockey in the style Tampa Bay plays is illegal, or wrong, or unjust, or against the spirit of the game. The NHL so far agrees with me, but it's just my opinion.
I guess there is "playing defensively" and then there is "not playing at all". With the score 0-0, and the game a minute old, do you not think TB is playing in the spirit of the game by not sending one player in on a forecheck to try an force a turnover in the defensive end, or at least force PHI to play the puck out of their own end?
I'm not arguing that TB or PHI were right or wrong - but I do agree with Beans that PHI is getting pretty unfairly lambasted for "not playing in the spirit of the game" when it is pretty clear that TB is also not playing in the same spirit. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 10:19:48
I still wanna know why the play was whistled dead. Was it because the puck stopped moving, and if so, can the d keep passing it back and forth, yet not moving out of their zone, and not have the play blown dead? If so, it seems a small change would be needed to their strategy so as to ensure no faceoff in their own end. Or is it blown dead regardless of puck movement if they don't leave their end, or at least try to? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 09:36:03
Let me try again. Please comment on this and explain how this is different than what Philly did:
Tampa could be deemed most culpable for the lack of pressure that results from their 1-3-1 defense set up between the blue lines. The relative stationary posture each Lightning player assumed could better describe a lack of continuous action. All 'word-smithing' aside, Tampa clearly gains an advantage if the rule continues to be applied as it was last night. A forced end zone face-off gives them at least a 50 percent chance of gaining puck possession from a key location face-off win in their attacking zone.
So the difference is the puck??? Is that it? A team is allowed to not engage the other team if they don't have the puck but if they do have the puck they have to engage the other team?? Philly is wrong for not engaging but TB is right for not engaging?? So TB having 5 players on the ice, literally not moving, is not against the spirit of the game???
That makes sense, doesn't it???
|
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 06:26:48
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
It is amazing how many posts one has to make before people can appreciate the point they are making. I personally thought Philly and Laviolette were brilliant in this strategy. If you didn't like it, I can appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is these ridiculous narrow views towards only Philly. That is the laughable point. You cannot point the finger and what Philly did without also calling out TB for what they did. They are one and the same and neither is 'in the spirit of the game."
If the actions of one of the teams are wrong then the actions of both teams are wrong. It's pretty simple.
Narrow views towards Philly? Beans, I don't care if it was the Leafs doing it . . . they didn't attack or leave their own zone when they had the puck. They were whistled down for it a couple of times and lost possession for it.
Tampa Bay NEVER did that, please compare apples to apples.
I don't feel that playing defensive hockey in the style Tampa Bay plays is illegal, or wrong, or unjust, or against the spirit of the game. The NHL so far agrees with me, but it's just my opinion.
When a team does what Philly does, and they lose possession of the puck after it's whistled down, and TB gets an offensive zone faceoff . . . how that can be construed as anything other than assinine is beyond me.
But go ahead, defend it to its death.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
i agree, as i said before Philly did not use any stragety they quit playing,,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| n/a |
Posted - 11/14/2011 : 05:55:56
quote:
It is amazing how many posts one has to make before people can appreciate the point they are making. I personally thought Philly and Laviolette were brilliant in this strategy. If you didn't like it, I can appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is these ridiculous narrow views towards only Philly. That is the laughable point. You cannot point the finger and what Philly did without also calling out TB for what they did. They are one and the same and neither is 'in the spirit of the game."
If the actions of one of the teams are wrong then the actions of both teams are wrong. It's pretty simple.
Narrow views towards Philly? Beans, I don't care if it was the Leafs doing it . . . they didn't attack or leave their own zone when they had the puck. They were whistled down for it a couple of times and lost possession for it.
Tampa Bay NEVER did that, please compare apples to apples.
I don't feel that playing defensive hockey in the style Tampa Bay plays is illegal, or wrong, or unjust, or against the spirit of the game. The NHL so far agrees with me, but it's just my opinion.
When a team does what Philly does, and they lose possession of the puck after it's whistled down, and TB gets an offensive zone faceoff . . . how that can be construed as anything other than assinine is beyond me.
But go ahead, defend it to its death.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 16:23:11
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
quote:
As I have said in the past, one team is no more at fault than the other. Puck or no puck. The "spirit of the game" comment is also laughable. How is TB not also not upholding the spirit of the game by not trying to take the puck from the opposition?? Is the point of the game to score more goals than the other team?? I am not saying either team is better or worse than the other as they both did the same thing. This whole puck possesion thing is irrelevant.
You can laugh at the spirit of the game, fine . . . but the spirit or intent of the whole endeavour is to try and win a game. If a team has a lead in the game . . . or is waiting for an attack from the other team . . . it is in their best interests to play defence first. TB is most certainly playing a fair game, where their best interest is to protect a lead or set up a very good defence when the other team attacks.
You didn't see the Lightning sit back on THEIR attack, when they had the puck, did you?
And yes yes, technically the rules were followed, the play was whistled dead a couple of times, all done correctly. And I agree with the guest, probably right to just keep it as it is, whistle the play dead when they refuse to leave the zone and they lose possession for their idiotic play.
The point is to score more goals than the other team, also to keep a lead, also to prevent the other team from scoring goals. All things that TB satisfied in the game, but Philly did not.
I think the Philly coach is an idiot for doing it.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
You are right. I did not see Tampa Bay sit back on their attack. That is because Philly did not pile all 5 of their skaters into the neutral zone.
It is amazing how many posts one has to make before people can appreciate the point they are making. I personally thought Philly and Laviolette were brilliant in this strategy. If you didn't like it, I can appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is these ridiculous narrow views towards only Philly. That is the laughable point. You cannot point the finger and what Philly did without also calling out TB for what they did. They are one and the same and neither is 'in the spirit of the game."
If the actions of one of the teams are wrong then the actions of both teams are wrong. It's pretty simple.
|
| Guest4243 |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 10:23:20
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
And yes yes, technically the rules were followed, the play was whistled dead a couple of times, all done correctly. And I agree with the guest, probably right to just keep it as it is, whistle the play dead when they refuse to leave the zone and they lose possession for their idiotic play.
The point is to score more goals than the other team, also to keep a lead, also to prevent the other team from scoring goals. All things that TB satisfied in the game, but Philly did not.
I don't understand where does it say that you must attack when you have the puck? I think it is brilliant that Philly did it in Tampa. I think every team that plays in Tampa and the Lightning pulls out the 1-3-1 should do exactly this. Make the game as boring as possible.
Why? Well, it hits Tampa's pockets in fan revenue. No fan wants to sit through a entire game let alone 5 minutes of this. Of course, I would never pull this out in my own rink.
Otherwise a very simple rule modification. In even strength situations, both teams must have at least one player actively persuing, possessing or attempt to possess the puck. Simple. Tampa can't sit back anymore. |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/13/2011 : 06:51:37
quote:
As I have said in the past, one team is no more at fault than the other. Puck or no puck. The "spirit of the game" comment is also laughable. How is TB not also not upholding the spirit of the game by not trying to take the puck from the opposition?? Is the point of the game to score more goals than the other team?? I am not saying either team is better or worse than the other as they both did the same thing. This whole puck possesion thing is irrelevant.
You can laugh at the spirit of the game, fine . . . but the spirit or intent of the whole endeavour is to try and win a game. If a team has a lead in the game . . . or is waiting for an attack from the other team . . . it is in their best interests to play defence first. TB is most certainly playing a fair game, where their best interest is to protect a lead or set up a very good defence when the other team attacks.
You didn't see the Lightning sit back on THEIR attack, when they had the puck, did you?
And yes yes, technically the rules were followed, the play was whistled dead a couple of times, all done correctly. And I agree with the guest, probably right to just keep it as it is, whistle the play dead when they refuse to leave the zone and they lose possession for their idiotic play.
The point is to score more goals than the other team, also to keep a lead, also to prevent the other team from scoring goals. All things that TB satisfied in the game, but Philly did not.
I think the Philly coach is an idiot for doing it.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 11/12/2011 : 18:36:25
Wow - what a huge overreaction from the GUEST WITH THE CAPS!
First of all, we're talking about a very very small percentage of hockey play here. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm not cancelling my season tickets yet.
Second of all, people are talking about what took place, and that's hype, which creates interest in the game, not disinterest.
Let's keep things in perspective here. This is a relatively minor and insignificant event which took place on the ice this past week. In a few weeks time, this will pass, and and in a few months time, most hockey fans will have forgotten about this altogether. |
| Guest6700 |
Posted - 11/12/2011 : 18:05:05
HOCKEY ISN'T GONNA SELL WITH THIS TYPE OF GARBAGE FROM BOTH TEAMS
|
| Guest8149 |
Posted - 11/12/2011 : 15:53:38
Very interesting comments by former NHL referee Kerry Fraser, but essentially, he thinks it's a grey-area call.
Gary Bettman probably has more say than an esteemed former official (unless or until he hears more from the GMs), and here's what he said about the call the referee made on the ice: "The officials whistled down play when there was no puck movement and it was appropriate."
I would be interested to see if the officials would do the same again (blow the play dead), but they probably would, and if so, teams will know the consequences if they do what the Flyers did against Tampa Bay.
I can't see the league implementing a rule against the trap. How would you enforce it? Imagine describing that a player has to penetrate the opposing team's defensive zone, then imagine describing what constitutes an appropriate forecheck??
|
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 11/12/2011 : 12:44:29
There doesn't need to be a rule added to deal with this happening again, because it's very unlikely to happen again. The "penalty" for not moving the puck was demonstrated when the ref blew the play dead.
Nothing brilliant about the Flyers tactics. They lost possession of the puck as soon as the whistle blew. There doesn't need to be a two-minute penalty added.
I'm still not sure where they dropped the puck afterwards, but if the puck was dropped in the Flyers end, they may as well have iced the puck. That would be a pretty dumb move on their part. Even if the puck was dropped at centre ice, it's still a dumb move by the Flyers, just to make a point to the other team (and maybe the TB fans).
Once again, I would be surprised to see this happen again, and it would be foolish for the league to overreact to what is probably a one-time (or one game) occurrence.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/12/2011 : 12:06:58
Nope, by definition of the rules Slozo, you are completely incorrect. Delay of game says nothing about having to advance the puck. Fortunately for the rest of us, the NHL rules are not determined by Slozo's humble opinions. 
Take the time to read the opinion of one of the most respected NHL refs. The link is below. Here is, to me, the defining statement made:
I would go so far as to say that stopping play when Philadelphia was passing and cycling the puck within their defensive zone, without pressure from Martin St. Louis, gives this application new meaning since 'continuous action' versus continuous motion is not clearly defined. The rule doesn't state that the puck must be advanced but just that continuous action is to be enforced. Passing and moving the puck are both action words, albeit without pressure from within their own defending zone.
Tampa could be deemed most culpable for the lack of pressure that results from their 1-3-1 defense set up between the blue lines. The relative stationary posture each Lightning player assumed could better describe a lack of continuous action. All 'word-smithing' aside, Tampa clearly gains an advantage if the rule continues to be applied as it was last night. A forced end zone face-off gives them at least a 50 percent chance of gaining puck possession from a key location face-off win in their attacking zone.
http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=380108
As I have said in the past, one team is no more at fault than the other. Puck or no puck. The "spirit of the game" comment is also laughable. How is TB not also not upholding the spirit of the game by not trying to take the puck from the opposition?? Is the point of the game to score more goals than the other team?? I am not saying either team is better or worse than the other as they both did the same thing. This whole puck possesion thing is irrelevant.
What would have happened in Philly went to the blue line and left the puck in the middle of ice then retreated?? What if neither team engages at the face off and the puck drops and sits there. Who's fault is it then?? Once you can get past the point that the puck is irrelevant in who is to blame you will see that either both are to blame or neither are to blame. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/12/2011 : 12:06:52
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
Completely disagree with Beans. The big difference is, who has the puck.
It is delay of game if you have the puck and stay in your own zone and wait for . . . something to happen.
It is not delay of game, IMHO, if as a defending team you even have 5 guys skating around just inside the blueline (would be a bit crowded, but you get my point).
You are talking about the difference between a very "defensive" posture when YOU DON'T have the puck, vs, a defensive, non-attack posture when you DO have the puck.
Not attacking or playing the puck forward goes against the very nature and spirit of the game. I say, start whistling it down and giving it penalties for delay of game, and it stops right there, and Philly can shut up with their whinging about a 1-3-1 defence.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Slozo, at what point would you rule it "delay of game"? Fine, if a dman stands there with the puck, maybe you could call it that. BUT, what if the two dmen throw it back and forth? Is that still delay of game? What if 2 dmen throw it back and forth at the point on the pp in the offensive zone? Is that delay of game if they don't shoot? I've seen many arena's fans yelling to shoot as they get frustrated over their team not directing the puck to the net, i can only imagine their frustration if their two point men took their team off the pp with a delay of game penalty! Lol.
Sorry, but a delay of game call would be absurd as far as i'm concerned. |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/12/2011 : 11:17:20
Completely disagree with Beans. The big difference is, who has the puck.
It is delay of game if you have the puck and stay in your own zone and wait for . . . something to happen.
It is not delay of game, IMHO, if as a defending team you even have 5 guys skating around just inside the blueline (would be a bit crowded, but you get my point).
You are talking about the difference between a very "defensive" posture when YOU DON'T have the puck, vs, a defensive, non-attack posture when you DO have the puck.
Not attacking or playing the puck forward goes against the very nature and spirit of the game. I say, start whistling it down and giving it penalties for delay of game, and it stops right there, and Philly can shut up with their whinging about a 1-3-1 defence.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest0244 |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 14:41:02
Completely agree with Beans on this one.
If TB doesn't want to come get the puck than why should PHI walk it over into their trap? TB was at home too, so if they want their fans to see them stand in the neutral zone all day, than they obviously don't care about the quality of hockey they are putting on the ice for their paying customers.
TB could have done the same thing to PHI...but the only different is PHI would have forechecked and attacked the puck rather than be too scared to leave the neutral zone. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 12:17:02
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
If want to argue the strategy And it's effectiveness, fine. It hard to argue as TB won the game. However, my point is that you can not fault Philly for what they did without also faulting TB.
I agree here. I think it's hard to complain about what Philly did if you aren't complaining about TB's move as well!
Either way, i don't think a rule is necessary as i can't see this sort of thing happening often. Also, a 10 sec rule like the rule in basketball about getting it over the centerline would be ridiculous IMO. Hockey is far more difficult to advance the puck when there's a strong forcheck. Also, what would be the penalty if you didn't? A 2 min minor would seem harsh and a face off in your own end would surely just slow the game down to an unbearable pace!!! |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 10:14:24
If want to argue the strategy And it's effectiveness, fine. It hard to argue as TB won the game. However, my point is that you can not fault Philly for what they did without also faulting TB. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 09:36:34
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Philly was absolutely ready for the trap. This was their first game of the year and this happened very early in the first period.
Why is it not ok for Philly to sit in thier own end with the puck but it is ok for TB to sit in the neutral zone? Don't you see it is the exact same thing only with or without the puck? No rule says you have to move the puck up ice, you just have to move the puck. In theory a team could pass the puck around their own end for 3 straight periods and ensure themselves at least 1 point.
If you are pissed at Philly for doing what they dud how can you not be pissed at TB fir doing what they did? It's completely illogical.
If TB would be dumb to trade chances with Philly isn't it also dumb for Philly to try to breakdown TB's trap?
philly is also dumb to do nothing because do you really think that is going to break the trap? because it didn`t
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 05:33:44
This is completely laughable. TB is encouraged to do the exact same thing Philly is getting vilified for. The only difference is who has has the puck.
Laughable. |
| Guest0829 |
Posted - 11/11/2011 : 00:11:46
I agree with sensfan. The fans pay money to see the game played at a professional level and they play this childish street hockey s***, its like they were playing take back and there was a magical safe line you can't pass. |
|
|
