Blaze vs Devils - 6 Oct 19 - CC

Slartibartfast

Well-Known Member
#21
I really feel for the Devils. We now have four players out but they competed but lost due to a ridiculous penalty imbalance and 3 disallowed goals.
 
#25
Just facts.
One of the worst games I have watched for a while. Yea we have injuries but that happens in any sport.
Thats the point though it's not just facts, its mostly juvenile negative drivel with no informative content or rational opinions. If as you said in a previous thread youve been watching the devil's for so long your grasp on the game is embarrassing.
 

Kevlar68

Well-Known Member
#27
I'm not bothered one bit, pointless competition which leads to nothing so would prefer to be out if it.
 
Last edited:
#36
I am trying to keep things in perspective.
We are 2nd in the league and top of our cup group and still in with a slim chance to progress in the CHL
 

Earnie

Well-Known Member
#37
When a goal Is reviewed because net is 'off its moorings' then the review should surely include 'why ' it is off its moorings? If it has been deliberately kicked off its peg by the goalkeeper having a panic attack (or an opposing player) then the goal should be allowed. Thoughts?
 

Imp

Active Member
#38
#67 according to webcast guys he picked up an injury during warm up
Must have been pre-pre-game. Sointu was never on the ice, even during the warm-up.

... did it feel like we treated it with low priority with Frolunda to come and it being a challenge cup fixture?
Yes ... and they’d be stupid not to.

Joey Martin is probably still glad to take what he can get in terms of match fitness, Murdy played really well (ticking three boxes: time on ice, further evidence he’s a solid reserve, and a night off for Bownsy), and the players off-ice could be “injured“ anywhere from career threatening to a few split ends or a dodgy horoscope for all the difference it makes to progress in this season’s Challenge Cup competition.

I find it impossible to believe that players are ever sent out with team orders (to lose) or that players could/would realistically follow them if they were but, at the same time, there was a feeling - with two minutes left - that coughing up a goal was a ”better option” than going to OT... and it wasn’t a surprise when Blaze found a winner. Would have been nice to see Murdy in a Shootout, but being back on the coach 30-40 minutes earlier is probably worth more come Tuesday.

Mostly it felt like Blaze came out in the 3rd Period knowing that there was a finite amount that the Devils would commit to winning this game, that players were bound to have Tuesday in the backs of their minds and that the points were increasingly there for the taking the longer the scores remained tied. Maybe that becomes the Devils tactic: play like your behind, take risks, push forward... if it leaves us open, so what. Still think we had our pockets picked though.

I assume that there’s a technical reason for the goal mounts not being improved across the league, but the situation at Coventry Is hardly unique. The final disallowed goal seemed pretty harsh (and the earlier one - at the far end - was likely much the same), but more a failure of the equipment than the officials.

Also agree with the comment (in the Storm game thread?) that Marjamäki seems to be on the officials radar.
 
Last edited:

Imp

Active Member
#39
When a goal Is reviewed because net is 'off its moorings' then the review should surely include 'why ' it is off its moorings? If it has been deliberately kicked off its peg by the goalkeeper having a panic attack (or an opposing player) then the goal should be allowed. Thoughts?
I think the main problem becomes ’when the whistle is blown’.

The final “goal” (in front of the Devils fans):
  • Was the goal off off the mooring, yes.
  • Did the ref blow before the shot, clearly.
  • Was it the goalie who knocked the net loose, yes.
  • Did any of that make any difference in terms of the puck being in the net, no.
But after the whistle, the defence can claim that they stopped playing... resulting in the ”goal”. Right or wrong, the outcome of the review wasn’t a surprise. Points for consistency at least. :confused:

Without knowing precisely what the instructions are to officials, it certainly felt like the ref had been a bit too quick, reacting solely to the net (rather than the sequence of play).

As for action at the other end, there are about six hardcore Blaze fans and a dodgy go-pro with a view of that action, so... :rolleyes:
 

Ocko

Well-Known Member
#40
When a goal Is reviewed because net is 'off its moorings' then the review should surely include 'why ' it is off its moorings? If it has been deliberately kicked off its peg by the goalkeeper having a panic attack (or an opposing player) then the goal should be allowed. Thoughts?
Because of the pegs that are used it’s very difficult to call any penalty on a NM. A lot of teams don’t use the right type; there is no league rule so that can’t be punished either. We now use the right type, hence we never really see the nets off in IAW (we used the crap one the Blaze have in the BBT that’s why we saw it all the time there).

The crap pegs used by a lot of teams can be pushed off with little to no force, and you have to bare in mind a lot of keepers are taught to push off the post too. Impossible situation for NMs, I feel for them.
 
Top