I liked the broadcast team of Gord Miller, and Ray Ferraro last night. I hope NBC uses them for the playoffs.
- PLindbergh31

Theyve grown on me thats for sure. As long as we dont get Kenny Albert I am happy

A couple random things I noticed:

1. Thought that was the best Streit moved and played all season, and he's been getting stronger by the game. Don't know what the numbers say, but the eye-test looked good to me last night

2. Michael Raffl was strong, kept his feet moving all game

I think that Detroit played its system really well last night, and while the Flyers were outplayed, the fact that they got a point to begin with and got the bonus in the gimmick, after catching that five-minute major to start, makes me feel so much hope that they are going to the playoffs, I am lightheaded

Because I know this team isn't a finished product and that next year is likely going to be the start of something that could be special

But it freaking sucks that they have been missing the playoffs and I want them to make it NOW
- AllInForFlyers

That give and go between Simmonds and Streit was so gorgeous. Goalies were fun to watch. Lots of high danger chances for both teams, havent seen the numbers but I do not think the Flyers were outplayed as much as it seemed. Flyers had plenty of chances and took over the third period for a while.

I almost pooped myself when Ghost scored...Would've been amazing to steal that point. I did not have a problem with waiving that goal off, but I do not think it should've been a penalty. The way I saw it...if Simmonds jumps straight up he doesnt hit Mrazek. Mrazek set up to make the save to simmonds' right side and Simmonds basically jumped across. Definitely was not purposeful contact and just unfortunate that Mrazek decided to put his head there and simmonds butt checked it. Wouldnt have called it a penalty

Theyve grown on me thats for sure. As long as we dont get Kenny Albert I am happy
- YuenglingJagr

Yeah. Albert is awful. But then again so is Jim Jackson.

Two great efforts both going to the Skills Comp which I still hate.

Mason had a beach ball but played well otherwise Saturday. When Hak put Ghost out for the first shooter that place went bonkers. We all were waiting to see something insane from him but he seemed to keep it simple. G is G in a shootout. Why not use Simmer instead of Jake was our thought which we got to see the answer last night.

Tailgating before that game seemed odd in January but hey I'll take being able to hang out throw some washers and drink some adult beverages.

Last night was just crazy I joined viewing a little late due to watching Playoff football but I saw the replay of White's penalty. He will get a few thanks to his previous history. So Weal should be in Tuesday at least.

I was a little worried about Schenn when we went down. Looked bad.

Neuvirth and Mrazek were insane trading saves. I loved the between periods acknowledging each other. Some will hate it but if you are on as well as those two were last night go for it.

Got to wipe the arena ice with the Laffs on Tuesday.

I think you have to call both plays the same. Simmonds interference with the goaltender certainly was incidental, as was the Red Wings player knocking into Neuvirth's catching glove. The fact that Simmonds received a penalty on top of the goal being disallowed was absurd.
- PLindbergh31

I believe even JR and Jonesy post game said if you disallow the goal the penalty had to be callled against Simmer. But yeah the other should have been disallowed also. Both were contact that affected the save. I thought JR was going to snap about the allowed Detroit goal. I could see veins popping in his face.

I believe even JR and Jonesy post game said if you disallow the goal the penalty had to be callled against Simmer. But yeah the other should have been disallowed also. Both were contact that affected the save. I thought JR was going to snap about the allowed Detroit goal. I could see veins popping in his face.
- dragonoffrost

Pretty sure that is just him trying to think of words

3 rows from the ice. Right of the wings penalty box from the second period on. Oh and Bellemare smacked the glass while I was hitting on a girl and gave me a practice puck during warm ups.

Best night at the Joe ever!!
- SuperSchennBros

I liked the broadcast team of Gord Miller, and Ray Ferraro last night. I hope NBC uses them for the playoffs.
- PLindbergh31

Even Pierre was reigned in a bit. It was a very enjoyable broadcast.

I believe even JR and Jonesy post game said if you disallow the goal the penalty had to be callled against Simmer. But yeah the other should have been disallowed also. Both were contact that affected the save. I thought JR was going to snap about the allowed Detroit goal. I could see veins popping in his face.
- dragonoffrost

They're both wrong, unless they feel the contact was penalty worthy. You can waive off the goal and rule the contact incidental. The rule allows for a goal to get washed out and no penalty to be called.

I don't have an issue with the calls on the goals. Neuvirth wasn't really interfered with, and he admitted himself after the game that it wasn't an issue. Simmonds' ass hitting his head obviously played a role in Mrazek missing the Gostisbehere shot, so I'm fine with it being ruled no goal

But a penalty? No. It was incidental contact and unintentional. Simmonds is allowed to establish position-as is the goalie-and Simmonds' didn't intentionally hit him.

I think you have to call both plays the same. Simmonds interference with the goaltender certainly was incidental, as was the Red Wings player knocking into Neuvirth's catching glove. The fact that Simmonds received a penalty on top of the goal being disallowed was absurd.
- PLindbergh31

Perfectly said.

Now, as a player in that game, I don't know what's what because there's no continuity

One inning it's a ball. The next, it's a strike. What the hell does that tell me as a hitter? Same thing.

Even Pierre was reigned in a bit. It was a very enjoyable broadcast.
- PhillySportsGuy

Pierre is usually fine when it's a smaller spotlight. He does radio hits on XM's hockey channel in the morning and he's usually pretty good and insightful. There's no name dropping, college football coach recruiting stuff about knowing what hospital a player was born at and really none of the annoying "I know everthing because I am Pierre" attitude that you get on TV

I thought he did, with the question of the 10-inch tablets vs. larger screens for the officals, as well as noting that there may not be trained officials helping to review plays

Yes, he was snarky about it, but there are solutions offered in there, and again, he didn't throw Dave Jackson or the actual calls under the bus
- AllInForFlyers

I was referring to the NHL rulebook and how it is written.

I believe even JR and Jonesy post game said if you disallow the goal the penalty had to be callled against Simmer. But yeah the other should have been disallowed also. Both were contact that affected the save. I thought JR was going to snap about the allowed Detroit goal. I could see veins popping in his face.
- dragonoffrost

Exactly... if it is incidental it cannot be ruled a no goal. Only way its not a goal is if it is called an Interference penalty.

Terrible call.

The rule itself is a big problem, and with the new replay rule, the NHL might have a ticking time-bomb on its hands. All goalies have to do is get to the top of their crease (or leave it) draw contact and it is a penalty. Crazy stupid.

The boys are rolling! Great exciting game and win. I hope Jake and G look just as good when they are Zetterberg and Datsyuk's age. Man those guys still play at a high level. Could have sworn Zetterberg was going to snipe one pass Neuvirth. I'm really loving the Hakstol hiring at this point in the season. He has our team as one. We finally are forming an identity and it's exciting hockey to watch. All year we have, myself included, been jokingly expecting a great draft pick but at this point we actually look like a team that is knocking on the playoff door.
- arichardson22

Just wait until the speedier, more skilled players like Proverov and Konecny crack the line-up.

They're both wrong, unless they feel the contact was penalty worthy. You can waive off the goal and rule the contact incidental. The rule allows for a goal to get washed out and no penalty to be called.

I don't have an issue with the calls on the goals. Neuvirth wasn't really interfered with, and he admitted himself after the game that it wasn't an issue. Simmonds' ass hitting his head obviously played a role in Mrazek missing the Gostisbehere shot, so I'm fine with it being ruled no goal

But a penalty? No. It was incidental contact and unintentional. Simmonds is allowed to establish position-as is the goalie-and Simmonds' didn't intentionally hit him.
- Jsaquella

I can't even fathom how Dave Jackson doesn't rule it the way you just described. The rule CLEARLY allows for that.

I hate that penalty call as much as anything I have seen in years. That is is how little discretion I feel Dave Jackson exercised on that play. That penalty pisses me off as much as any call I have ever seen. Not the disallowed goal. The penalty still has me pissed, 12 hours later

They're both wrong, unless they feel the contact was penalty worthy. You can waive off the goal and rule the contact incidental. The rule allows for a goal to get washed out and no penalty to be called.

I don't have an issue with the calls on the goals. Neuvirth wasn't really interfered with, and he admitted himself after the game that it wasn't an issue. Simmonds' ass hitting his head obviously played a role in Mrazek missing the Gostisbehere shot, so I'm fine with it being ruled no goal

But a penalty? No. It was incidental contact and unintentional. Simmonds is allowed to establish position-as is the goalie-and Simmonds' didn't intentionally hit him.
- Jsaquella

The problem I have with the call is the implications it has down the road. If a goalie comes out of the crease... and it can be argued that Mrazek was partially out of his crease... incidental contact SHOULD NOT disallow a goal. He is no longer in his protected area. Venture out at your own risk. Simmonds made a hockey play in his own space and got called for it. Stupid rule.

Even Pierre was reigned in a bit. It was a very enjoyable broadcast.
- PhillySportsGuy

that was probably at least partly due to his tight quarters

that was probably at least partly due to his tight quarters
- BulliesPhan87

He still thinks he fits in size 29 waist?

Exactly... if it is incidental it cannot be ruled a no goal. Only way its not a goal is if it is called an Interference penalty.

Terrible call.

The rule itself is a big problem, and with the new replay rule, the NHL might have a ticking time-bomb on its hands. All goalies have to do is get to the top of their crease (or leave it) draw contact and it is a penalty. Crazy stupid.
- jak521

It wasn't incidental. Incidental means that it didn't affect the play, and the goal being scored. The ruled on the first red Wings goal, that the player brushing Nuevirth's glove, did not effect his ability to make the save. Now that can certainly be argued, but the idea of incidental is not affecting the play.
On the Gostisbehere waived off goal, in my opinion the contact clearly affected Mrazek's ability to make the save. The argument there is whether it was a penalty or not. I don't think the contact was intentional.
I think there is a number of issues in how the rule is written.

A few things...

I thought Hakstol's challenge was really good. It took multiple replays for anyone to even understand why he'd be challenging. Credit to him and the coaching staff for looking at all replays and finding it. Call could have easily gone the Flyers way.

NHL really needs to be more specific when it comes to goaltender interference. A more detailed explanation than "the call on the ice stands" was warranted for last night's game. Both times should have been explained because everyone is left more confused than before. I was ok with both calls, but I didn't think Simmonds warranted a penalty. He gave Mrazek enough space and Mrazek came up behind him on the shot.

Hakstol is beginning to use the Laughton line a lot more than the VDV line, which should help the team moving forward. Putting together a line of Laughton-Weal-Read might actually make them a passable 3rd line. Read has really helped keep Umberger and Laughton afloat defensively. I don't think enough credit is given to him. He drew the short straw and has been forced to the bottom 6 and he's played well.

Flyers were definitely outplayed last night, but Detroit on a back to back with air travel before the game is such a tough matchup. They gave themselves a chance to win and that's all you could hope for.

that was probably at least partly due to his tight quarters
- BulliesPhan87

I think he went into refractory mode once he got done discussing the Flyers D prospects early in the game

The problem I have with the call is the implications it has down the road. If a goalie comes out of the crease... and it can be argued that Mrazek was partially out of his crease... incidental contact SHOULD NOT disallow a goal. He is no longer in his protected area. Venture out at your own risk. Simmonds made a hockey play in his own space and got called for it. Stupid rule.
- jak521

The goalie does have to be in the crease, but that's the gray area. Is one skate in the blue "In the crease"? That's one big area that needs to be fully defined.

But the thing is, goalie interference has always been sort of a gray area thing where the refs had a load of leeway

It wasn't incidental. Incidental means that it didn't affect the play, and the goal being scored. The ruled on the first red Wings goal, that the player brushing Nuevirth's glove, did not effect his ability to make the save. Now that can certainly be argued, but the idea of incidental is not affecting the play.
On the Gostisbehere waived off goal, in my opinion the contact clearly affected Mrazek's ability to make the save. The argument there is whether it was a penalty or not. I don't think the contact was intentional.
I think there is a number of issues in how the rule is written.
- MJL

Interesting definition of incidental there, Webster.

Pierre is usually fine when it's a smaller spotlight. He does radio hits on XM's hockey channel in the morning and he's usually pretty good and insightful. There's no name dropping, college football coach recruiting stuff about knowing what hospital a player was born at and really none of the annoying "I know everthing because I am Pierre" attitude that you get on TV
- Jsaquella

I know. He does reveal some insightful things from time to time, but it's hard to appreciate it when he's acting like an ass.

Last night's broadcast just felt so much more like what a broadcast should sound like. It wasn't over the top ridiculous like the others are. I don't hate Eddie and Doc, but the combination of them and Pierre just doesn't work.

A few things...

I thought Hakstol's challenge was really good. It took multiple replays for anyone to even understand why he'd be challenging. Credit to him and the coaching staff for looking at all replays and finding it. Call could have easily gone the Flyers way.

NHL really needs to be more specific when it comes to goaltender interference. A more detailed explanation than "the call on the ice stands" was warranted for last night's game. Both times should have been explained because everyone is left more confused than before. I was ok with both calls, but I didn't think Simmonds warranted a penalty. He gave Mrazek enough space and Mrazek came up behind him on the shot.

Hakstol is beginning to use the Laughton line a lot more than the VDV line, which should help the team moving forward. Putting together a line of Laughton-Weal-Read might actually make them a passable 3rd line. Read has really helped keep Umberger and Laughton afloat defensively. I don't think enough credit is given to him. He drew the short straw and has been forced to the bottom 6 and he's played well.

Flyers were definitely outplayed last night, but Detroit on a back to back with air travel before the game is such a tough matchup. They gave themselves a chance to win and that's all you could hope for.
- PhillySportsGuy

Yeah I thought when they adopted the challenge that it would be just like the NFL where the ref gives a brief reasoning behind the call.