| Author |
 Topic  |
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
 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.
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 11/09/2011 : 20:11:59
|
Very bizarre. I've never seen this before in a hockey game.
The Flyers were trying to embarrass the Lightning by refusing to come out of their own end, when TB stayed back with no forecheck. And the Flyers did so in TB's building. Not sure if they would do the same in the Spectrum?
I can't say that I blame the Flyers for showing their frustration, and while I don't like TB's defensive strategy, it's not against the rules.
If I'm a Flyers player, I would be tempted to turn the puck over to my goalie, to see if this would draw in a TB player. (To demonstrate and punctuate TB's tactics.) But the temptation would not be worth the risk.
I'm interested to see if this is a one-off occurence, or will we see it again? |
 |
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2011 : 20:17:58
|
I am curious as well if we'll see more of it.
Some video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lpMxc4fZNU
AFAIK, nothing done tonight was against the rules, or at least a penalty. As long as the puck is in motion, there is nothing in the rules specifying that a team must bring the puck forward. Nor is there a rule saying a team must forecheck.
I guess for me, it goes to the spirit of the game. Question is, which spirit do you appreciate more?
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2011 : 21:26:28
|
That's frickin' hilarious! I honestly don't even know what to say about it, but it sure as hell looked funny!
I can't see how it was breaking any rules, but i wonder what would happen if both teams needed a tie to make the playoffs? Would we see 60 mins of this? If both teams needed 1 pt, it'd make for a pretty darn good OT as everyone would be well rested! Lol  |
|
|
|
BucketHead
Top Prospect
Canada
78 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2011 : 22:04:58
|
| I find it funny that Crawford didn't like it and said they should outlaw it, but the other 2 said don't outlaw it. It is very funny none the less. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2011 : 22:43:42
|
i know the trap is suppose to be unbeatable yadda yadda yadda , i find the lighting looked like their could be more than one way to beat them in the 1 -3-1 i mean basicly they are over loading the red line i don`t see how it is so unbeatable and honestly the only ones who looked stupid were the Flyers,, it`s like the kid on the playground who doesn`t want to play anyomore because ` they aren`t playing fair` if anyone is to blame it`s the flyers,,,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Sensfan101
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
500 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 03:50:11
|
I think this is a great idea if you are the road team but if you are the home team good luck getting anyone to go to your games.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 04:22:46
|
| I agree with Pasty, the Flyers looked like the kids who didn't want to play anymore. Sort of like I am going to take my ball and go now. Laviolette is a better coach then that. Shame on him for not coaching his players to play against the trap. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 07:53:45
|
I didn't see the game, but I saw the highlights and commentary.
Can someone tell me where they dropped the puck after they blew the play dead? I'm assuming it was at centre ice, but if the faceoff took place in the Flyers zone, their tactics backfired.
Regardless, and even if the faceoff took place at centre ice, the Flyers gave up the puck possession to make a point. Not a good tactic on their part.
For this reason, I don't see this happening too much in the future. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 08:51:55
|
I thought the strategy by the Flyers was brilliant. I have no issue with what they did at all and I have no issue with what TB does either. I am a strategy guy. I enjoy watching sports like football, soccer, and volleyball because the strategy is often as important as the athletes. Sports like basketball and track and field are less exciting to me because the better athlete almost always wins. I love watching the inferior athlete beat the superior athlete with a superior strategy.
That being said, I would fully expect the NHL to remedy this potential issue with some kind of rule. Either the defensive team must engage on player into the offensive zone or the defensive team has x number of seconds to exit their zone if not being engaged. Whatever, it does't matter. Something will be done.
I just think for anyone who disagrees with Philly's strategy should also have issue with TB's strategy. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 11:21:48
|
I doubt that Laviolette would instruct his players to do this all the time, and i'm assuming it's more of a way of expressing his displeasure with the trapping system? I find it odd that he did this at this point though. I don't believe they've faced one another already this season? Nor did they meet in last years playoffs? It looks like the Flyers were trying to make a point, but it doesn't explain why really? Keep in mind, this clip starts 30 seconds into the game. It's not as though the Lightning had been trapping for 2 periods and the Flyers said "enough's enough", it was clearly Philly's plan coming into the game!
Still find it hilarious to watch! Also, if you're a gambler, you might wanna consider betting the "under" the next time these two meet! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 11:38:17
|
This happened in the a junior league last year as well. Two teams in the QMJHL square off and the team that won the face off dumped it into their own end. They proceeded to pass the puck to each other in their own end 16 times (apparently to prove the point that the opposition would not engage them) before trying a puck off the boards that was intercepted by the trapping team.
Here is a link to the story.
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/juniorhockey/blog/buzzing_the_net/post/QMJHL-Oc-anic-mock-Montreal-for-playing-the-tra?urn=juniorhockey-335548
If I was a coach in the NHL I would tell my team to do this every single time. If the opposition did not forecheck, I would sit in my end with the puck until they did. It's not about, "kids that looked like they didn't want to play anymore." It's about strategy. If my strategy is to build by breakout as a counter to the opposition's forecheck than that's my strategy. I should not have to change my strategy because people don't like it.
If the defensive team can position their players in the neutral zone and not come into the offensive zone without the puck I(as a coach) can position my team in the defensive zone and not come out if I want to. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 13:00:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I just think for anyone who disagrees with Philly's strategy should also have issue with TB's strategy.
Yeah, I agree - opinions on this seem to have been quite polarized, people either liked PHI tactic or hated it, but the reality is both of them had a strategy, and both played it.
There was one moment during the game where PHI waited in their end when they had the lead - it took TB a few seconds to realize that the strategy of outwaiting your opponent when you're losing is ridiculous, so they went in.
I too think there will be a rule enacted around this, the NHL does not want to continue seeing this. I personally would like to see the rule enacted so that it forces the defending team to forecheck, but I don't know how easy that would be to enforce. Easier would be something similar to basketball's 10 second rule, where the team in possession would have to move it out of their own zone within x seconds. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 13:33:02
|
I believe there is a rule about moving the puck, and this is why the referee (linesman?) blew the whistle.
I have no problem with teams using whatever tactics they want (and which are in the rules), but as stated earlier, I don't think Philadelphia's "tactics" are that smart.
Hockey is a puck possession game, so you're better off trying to move the puck out of your own end (even against the trap) as opposed to having a 50% chance of winning a face-off.
|
|
|
|
Guest2739
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 15:00:45
|
| Why don't all the other coaches just call up Claude Julian. Seems to me alot was made of Boston defeating the trap last year in the playoffs. I think the only game that was low scoring was game 7 last year. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 16:00:47
|
I'm tired of hearing all this change the rules or add this add that, this is not a new idea, the 1-3-1 is not new the trap has existed for more than decades and you know what it's not like a trap team wins the cup every year, it's not like the trap it so unbeatable the next 7 stanley cups will be won by the Tampa Bay Lightning,
and yes Philly are babies and and they should be 100% embarresed by what they did on the ice,
They acted like the lightning were breaking some sort of rule, their bench was standing and yelling at the Tampa bay bench calling them every name in the book for cowards, have these guys had their head in the sand for the last 30 odd years of hockey? Pronger called it a disgrace to the game,, sounds liek sour grapes to me, Philly wasn't playing a stragegy against the Lightning they were crying about it and thats a fact you could see them on the bench yelling like kids having a temper tantrum about something rdiculous..
The lightning were playing a very old and well known defensive system against the best offensive team in the east, It was genious on the Lightning's part, A) the flyer are great offensivly, espcially off the rush and at creating breakaways and odd man rush's (so what better way to shut them down) B) The Lightning have been a terrible defensive team this season.
the Lightning would be stupid to trade chances with the Flyers
The Flyers were not playing any sort of stragety they were complaining about the Lightnings game plan which was a winning game plan the Flyers were not prepared for,
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 17:15:05
|
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? |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/10/2011 17:25:10 |
|
|
|
Guest9269
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 20:51:05
|
| I guess that would depend on whether your goal was to win the game or play for a tie. |
|
|
|
Guest8149
( )
|
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 21:48:32
|
With 47 goals against in 15 games, the Lightning are not the epitome of a team with a strong defensive system. Currently, there are only five teams in the whole league with a worse team GAA. (By the way, you can't trust nhl.com for accuracy with stats. In the NHL standings, TB is listed with 47 GA, but on their stats page, TB shows up with 45 Ga?)
Getting back to what the Flyers did (or didn't do would be more accurate), was it the coach's idea, or did the player(s) on the ice decide to not move the puck forward on their own? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2011 : 22:10:14
|
| I don't see a lot of TB games - have they been playing the 1-3-1 defense consistently this season? Or did they just pull it out vs PHI to counteract an otherwise potent offense? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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!!! |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - Beans15 on 11/12/2011 17:51:05 |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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??
|
|
|
|
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 : 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. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
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 |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
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
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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???
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
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? |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
PHI avoids the 1-3-1 defense vs TB 
