James Tanner: Coyotes Beat Kings, Move into 8th A review of last night's Kings and Coyotes game.

James Tanner: Coyotes Beat Kings, Move into 8th
A review of last night's Kings and Coyotes game.
- James_Tanner

After that, the Kings looked deflated and the Coyotes held on rather easily, though Smith had to make a couple saves to preserve the lead. One crazy thing happened with the game winding down and the goalie out: Phoenix iced the puck with a bank shot off the boards and it went down the ice and hit the post and then icing was called.

I wonder if this was the correct call. While I realize a shot off the post doesn't count as a shot, if a goalie was in net, he certainly would have had to direct the puck into the corner, since he couldn't take the chance of it going in, and icing would have been negated. Either way, that's something I have never seen before.

Most of the time an icing is close to the net the goalie just puts a pad against the post, his stick on the ice, and lets the puck go by. If it hits him, he plays it or covers it. I've seen that hundreds of times. I have no idea why you think this would be any different, or even worth mentioning since it had less than zero impact on the game.

After that, the Kings looked deflated and the Coyotes held on rather easily, though Smith had to make a couple saves to preserve the lead. One crazy thing happened with the game winding down and the goalie out: Phoenix iced the puck with a bank shot off the boards and it went down the ice and hit the post and then icing was called.

I wonder if this was the correct call. While I realize a shot off the post doesn't count as a shot, if a goalie was in net, he certainly would have had to direct the puck into the corner, since he couldn't take the chance of it going in, and icing would have been negated. Either way, that's something I have never seen before.

Most of the time an icing is close to the net the goalie just puts a pad against the post, his stick on the ice, and lets the puck go by. If it hits him, he plays it or covers it. I've seen that hundreds of times. I have no idea why you think this would be any different, or even worth mentioning since it had less than zero impact on the game.
- PancakesPenner

LA got an offensive zone face-off with ten seconds left and nearly tied the game. I would say it was an important call.

LA got an offensive zone face-off with ten seconds left and nearly tied the game. I would say it was an important call.
- James_Tanner

It wasn't even a call to make. It was icing. You can bring up as many what ifs that you want, it doesn't matter. Your team won. There was no controversy in the win. No need to try and make up something.

LA got an offensive zone face-off with ten seconds left and nearly tied the game. I would say it was an important call.
- James_Tanner

You could ask Paul Stewart for clarification, but I would've thought a puck hitting a goal post negates an icing call.

Your comment on OEL is dead on. Here in PHX we've been calling him Lidstrom Lite for a couple of years now. That's what he reminds you of, a young Nick Lidstrom.

You could ask Paul Stewart for clarification, but I would've thought a puck hitting a goal post negates an icing call.

Your comment on OEL is dead on. Here in PHX we've been calling him Lidstrom Lite for a couple of years now. That's what he reminds you of, a young Nick Lidstrom.
- Desert_Dog

The rule doesn't seem to mention a post at all, only the goaltender. In fact:

"The puck striking or deflecting off an official does not automatically nullify a potential icing."

So if not an official, I wouldn't see why a post.

You could ask Paul Stewart for clarification, but I would've thought a puck hitting a goal post negates an icing call.

Your comment on OEL is dead on. Here in PHX we've been calling him Lidstrom Lite for a couple of years now. That's what he reminds you of, a young Nick Lidstrom.
- Desert_Dog

Yeah, I really wanted to include some talk about that kind of more subtle play for a while now, because you don't see that kind of stuff in the highlights and you wouldn't believe the heat I took for suggesting OEL should win the Norris, not just in the comments but on twitter and in my PM box.

The fact is, I don't really know if he is the best defenseman in the NHL - I watch him play more than I see any other defenseman, but probably the reverse is true for the people who say that Weber or Doughty are so much better.

I mean, they might be, but you really have to watch the whole league in a way that is impossible for normal people, especially because highlight plays and scoring stats are only a fraction of what makes a defenseman valuable.

In reality, I think the NHL should have a group of twenty or so former players, scouts, writers, etc. whose job it is to determine the end of season awards. They would travel the league and view each team multiple times - as well as watch highlights, video and sort through stats.

The current way - voted on by writers - is nothing short of a joke. No one I have ever met thinks PK Subban is the best, or even a top ten, defenseman and yet he won last year. You can make the same argument every year about the awards..........

Ignore this lol its going to be a full post next slow news day.....

I think because OEL plays here in PHX, most people are going to overlook him for the Norris trophy. If he played in NY, Chicago, Boston, Toronto, Pitts, he'd be right up there in the discussion, guaranteed.

Personally, I don't think he's a Norris winner yet, but I would say he is probably in the top six. Not bad for 23.

I think because OEL plays here in PHX, most people are going to overlook him for the Norris trophy. If he played in NY, Chicago, Boston, Toronto, Pitts, he'd be right up there in the discussion, guaranteed.

Personally, I don't think he's a Norris winner yet, but I would say he is probably in the top six. Not bad for 23.
- Desert_Dog

Seems like a fair assessment. I don't put too much stock in single season awards that are decided by a vote. Subban the best dman? I'd say Weber and Suter are hands down better, with a handful of others up there as well. Bobrovsky the best goalie? I would take Quick over him any day, like I'd bet you'd take Smith. Not to say Bob and Subban aren't good, but an award definitely isn't a fair measure of talent. Jim Carey won the Vezina. No one has ever, or will ever, make the argument that he was ever the most talented goalie in the league. Right now Doughty is a premier dman in the league and OEL is well on his way. It will probably be too long before they overcome any east coast bias and win, but smart money says they both retire with at least one.

It wasn't even a call to make. It was icing. You can bring up as many what ifs that you want, it doesn't matter. Your team won. There was no controversy in the win. No need to try and make up something.
- PancakesPenner

I do not believe he was trying to make anything up, yet to have a conversation and see other peoples views. I think your anger to the loss has your ability to read blurred. It was a great conversation piece. Specially for those who follow the game and are looking for explanations on how or why something happens...

I do not believe he was trying to make anything up, yet to have a conversation and see other peoples views. I think your anger to the loss has your ability to read blurred. It was a great conversation piece. Specially for those who follow the game and are looking for explanations on how or why something happens...
- wthunder1

I'm not angry. Kings lost. They took their foot off the gas, the Coyotes capitalized. It happens. And maybe my opinion's blurred because I reffed for about 15 years, but questioning an icing call going off the net is just silly in my opinion. The net's part of the playing surface, same as the boards. Is it not icing if the puck hits the boards before going over the goal line? The refs make plenty of questionable calls, they don't need a blogger asking if they made the right one on a play that is as cut and dry as it gets.

I'm not angry. Kings lost. They took their foot off the gas, the Coyotes capitalized. It happens. And maybe my opinion's blurred because I reffed for about 15 years, but questioning an icing call going off the net is just silly in my opinion. The net's part of the playing surface, same as the boards. Is it not icing if the puck hits the boards before going over the goal line? The refs make plenty of questionable calls, they don't need a blogger asking if they made the right one on a play that is as cut and dry as it gets.
- PancakesPenner

I could be mistaken but...

I don't think he was "questioning" the call as much as he was making reference as to how strange it was, as he had never seen it happen before.

I don't believe, based on how he addressed it, that he was trying to say the call was wrong. It seemed as if he was asking if anyone had seen this before, because based on how he thought the play to be, the call may have been wrong.

big difference.

So to call him silly for trying to find clarification, is well.....just plain silly on your part.

I'm not angry. Kings lost. They took their foot off the gas, the Coyotes capitalized. It happens. And maybe my opinion's blurred because I reffed for about 15 years, but questioning an icing call going off the net is just silly in my opinion. The net's part of the playing surface, same as the boards. Is it not icing if the puck hits the boards before going over the goal line? The refs make plenty of questionable calls, they don't need a blogger asking if they made the right one on a play that is as cut and dry as it gets.
- PancakesPenner

Not to question a referee, but is a goal post the same as boards? If it hit the post and didn't cross the red line how can it be called icing unless the post/crossbar is considered a 3D extension of the red line.

Not to question a referee, but is a goal post the same as boards? If it hit the post and didn't cross the red line how can it be called icing unless the post/crossbar is considered a 3D extension of the red line.
- Desert_Dog

he already explained it. It is considered playing surface, just like the boards.

I don't see why this is so confusing.

I think because OEL plays here in PHX, most people are going to overlook him for the Norris trophy. If he played in NY, Chicago, Boston, Toronto, Pitts, he'd be right up there in the discussion, guaranteed.

Personally, I don't think he's a Norris winner yet, but I would say he is probably in the top six. Not bad for 23.
- Desert_Dog

He's a great young player. However Weber is by far having a better year and is overall a better player.

I think OEL will be nominated some day. Probably not this season

I could be mistaken but...

I don't think he was "questioning" the call as much as he was making reference as to how strange it was, as he had never seen it happen before.

I don't believe, based on how he addressed it, that he was trying to say the call was wrong. It seemed as if he was asking if anyone had seen this before, because based on how he thought the play to be, the call may have been wrong.

big difference.

So to call him silly for trying to find clarification, is well.....just plain silly on your part.
- IRON.MAIDEN

You may be right, and he may have been questioning whether it was the right call. My point is that for someone that gets paid to write about hockey, this shouldn't have been a question. If he doesn't know, maybe he's not writing about the right sport. If he does know, why bring it up?

Not to question a referee, but is a goal post the same as boards? If it hit the post and didn't cross the red line how can it be called icing unless the post/crossbar is considered a 3D extension of the red line.
- Desert_Dog

If it doesn't cross the goal line it's not icing. It doesn't matter if it hits the post or the second coming of jesus. Just like a goal, not over the line, no dice. Also, you're right, the posts are an extension of the goal line. For the purposes of the rules, the goal line is the line on the ice extending up the boards and straight up, just like the end zone in football.

You may be right, and he may have been questioning whether it was the right call. My point is that for someone that gets paid to write about hockey, this shouldn't have been a question. If he doesn't know, maybe he's not writing about the right sport. If he does know, why bring it up?
- PancakesPenner

touche

You may be right, and he may have been questioning whether it was the right call. My point is that for someone that gets paid to write about hockey, this shouldn't have been a question. If he doesn't know, maybe he's not writing about the right sport. If he does know, why bring it up?
- PancakesPenner

Well I checked with former NHL referee Paul Stewart and he said he was pretty sure the call was wrong, but would like to check with a linesman to be sure.....
since he was in the NHL and isn't positive, I think its ok for me to not know and still write about hockey. In fact, while I read the NHL rule book cover-to-cover when I was 11, I bet there are tons of little idiosyncratic rules I don't know.

Of course, based on the classy nature of the comment above, I'm not holding out hope for an apology.

I'm not angry. Kings lost. They took their foot off the gas, the Coyotes capitalized. It happens. And maybe my opinion's blurred because I reffed for about 15 years, but questioning an icing call going off the net is just silly in my opinion. The net's part of the playing surface, same as the boards. Is it not icing if the puck hits the boards before going over the goal line? The refs make plenty of questionable calls, they don't need a blogger asking if they made the right one on a play that is as cut and dry as it gets.
- PancakesPenner

Well my point was that maybe he didn't understand and blogged it to get more info for himself personally. not everyone has reffed and knows all the rules like yourself. and truthfully nothing in hockey is cut and dry... refs blow so many calls its not even funny. like the non reviewable after a goal is disallowed? come on, every puck that crosses the line should be reviewable no matter what... we want the game to be fair I see at least 6 goals a year that are good goals but the ref biffs it and waives it off and the goal doesn't get allowed. anyways a blogger can boast whatever he wants, kinda the point of a blog. write something and peeps write back, hell who knows maybe us dumb folk who don't know all the rules may just learn something....

Well I checked with former NHL referee Paul Stewart and he said he was pretty sure the call was wrong, but would like to check with a linesman to be sure.....
since he was in the NHL and isn't positive, I think its ok for me to not know and still write about hockey. In fact, while I read the NHL rule book cover-to-cover when I was 11, I bet there are tons of little idiosyncratic rules I don't know.

Of course, based on the classy nature of the comment above, I'm not holding out hope for an apology.
- James_Tanner

Unless you're 12 right now, reading the rulebook at 11 isn't exactly relevant.

Kidding aside though, I would like to know what Stewart finds out. I've never heard anyone question this call, and it seems about as obvious as it gets, but if an NHL linesman says otherwise then I'm clearly wrong and I'll shut up.

EDIT: Now I get why he said it was a mistake. He's under the impression, at least by what he said in his thread, that the puck didn't cross the goal line after hitting the post, which it did. Of course it wouldn't be icing if it hit the post and didn't cross. Is this the issue? If that's the confusion, if a puck hitting the post but not crossing is icing or not then I take back what I said. If that was your question then I misunderstood.

Unless you're 12 right now, reading the rulebook at 11 isn't exactly relevant.

Kidding aside though, I would like to know what Stewart finds out. I've never heard anyone question this call, and it seems about as obvious as it gets, but if an NHL linesman says otherwise then I'm clearly wrong and I'll shut up.

EDIT: Now I get why he said it was a mistake. He's under the impression, at least by what he said in his thread, that the puck didn't cross the goal line after hitting the post, which it did. Of course it wouldn't be icing if it hit the post and didn't cross. Is this the issue? If that's the confusion, if a puck hitting the post but not crossing is icing or not then I take back what I said. If that was your question then I misunderstood.
- PancakesPenner

Yeah, it's all in the details.