It was a nasty hit on Ghost. Should have been 5 and a game.
The Flyers did respond to The hit. In the person of Ghost, himself. He picked his ass up off the ice, pissed off and responded how he does it best. He grabbed the puck, circled back to the D zone, then hit TK with a sweet outlet pass to spring him for a nice cross ice feed to Fil for the GAME WINNING GOAL!!!!
I hope Ghost is OK. He has been great this year.
Flyers need him back there. If he is out, then bring us the giant.
I think the response by the Flyers while on the power play was great. I really prefer a goal to Simmonds in the box for 2-5& a ten . We do need a presence to keep players honest. If Morin lays out a few guys, things will calm down a bit.
I don't want him fighting all the time, just blast people when he gets his chance.

EDIT: BTW, BiggE, I have been out of the reffing game for a long time and haven't read a rule book in years but linemen ALWAYS had the authority to call major penalties. I don't know how all four guys missed that or if the rules have changed.

The Flyers should reunite Ghost with Hagg. They worked well together.

Some observations:

It's been great to see Leier and Weal back out there. Their speed, puck-handling, and patience has contributed a lot to having the Flyers look like that impressive squad that controls game from the beginning of the season.

The Sanheim-Gudas pair looked pretty good last night. That's been the best pair I've seen Sanheim on in this young season. How much of a stud is Provorov?!? The kid "carried" the oft-maligned, but veteran, blueliner in MacDonald for an entire year but it's an entirely different story to be out there with Manning. He even made our 7th-defenseman look good out there last night. At this point I don't think it's ridiculous to consider Provy a future Doughty.

Brian Elliott definitely had his best game as a Flyer last night. Probably due to having 20 friends and family in the stands....
Hexy's now working on bringing his family to every home game he starts

I wonder what situation would have to happen for Martel to get a shot in the NHL? Two injuries in the top 6? I realy dont know, but he is on fire. They waited pretty long to give Weal a shot. Really glad to see Lindblom put it together

It was a nasty hit on Ghost. Should have been 5 and a game.

EDIT: BTW, BiggE, I have been out of the reffing game for a long time and haven't read a rule book in years but linemen ALWAYS had the authority to call major penalties. I don't know how all four guys missed that or if the rules have changed.
- jaws1955

The refs put the whistles away early last night. We benefited off the Voracek goal and were on the wrong side of the whistle with Ghost. Hope it's not a concussion and he's back out there against the Yotes. 10 games into the season and he's the highest scoring D-man in the league! Crazy.

The refs put the whistles away early last night. We benefited off the Voracek goal and were on the wrong side of the whistle with Ghost. Hope it's not a concussion and he's back out there against the Yotes. 10 games into the season and he's the highest scoring D-man in the league! Crazy.
- Boyer83

It's one thing to "put away the whistle" in regards to borderline infractions or even generic minors. Ignoring a blatant boarding major is whole different ballgame and simply inexcusable.

It's one thing to "put away the whistle" in regards to borderline infractions or even generic minors. Ignoring a blatant boarding major is whole different ballgame and simply inexcusable.
- BiggE

I was a ref for 20 years. I usually side with refs if they are working the rule correctly.
That said, the Flyers have been getting (frank)ing hosed this year. Not little stuff, not once in a while.
Weiss got interfered with in Nashville, should have been 4 on 4 at worst. THE PREDS WERE (frank)ING OFFSIDES ON THAT GOAL!!!!
Didn't see the GI call in Ottawa live but saw the reply, come on. I was on the refs side with the second call until I saw the video review rule. THAT WAS A GOAL!
I pretty sure that linemen can still call major penalties. How the (frank) did ALL FOUR GUYS miss that (frank)ing call on Ghost????

I was a ref for 20 years. I usually side with refs if they are working the rule correctly.
That said, the Flyers have been getting (frank)ing hosed this year. Not little stuff, not once in a while.
Weiss got interfered with in Nashville, should have been 4 on 4 at worst. THE PREDS WERE (frank)ING OFFSIDES ON THAT GOAL!!!!
Didn't see the GI call in Ottawa live but saw the reply, come on. I was on the refs side with the second call until I saw the video review rule. THAT WAS A GOAL!
I pretty sure that linemen can still call major penalties. How the (frank) did ALL FOUR GUYS miss that (frank)ing call on Ghost????
- jaws1955

They have almost sunk to the level of the NFL at this point, pathetic.

I was a ref for 20 years. I usually side with refs if they are working the rule correctly.
That said, the Flyers have been getting (frank)ing hosed this year. Not little stuff, not once in a while.
Weiss got interfered with in Nashville, should have been 4 on 4 at worst. THE PREDS WERE (frank)ING OFFSIDES ON THAT GOAL!!!!
Didn't see the GI call in Ottawa live but saw the reply, come on. I was on the refs side with the second call until I saw the video review rule. THAT WAS A GOAL!
I pretty sure that linemen can still call major penalties. How the (frank) did ALL FOUR GUYS miss that (frank)ing call on Ghost????
- jaws1955

It sure seems like there's a bias against the Flyers. But why would that be? Flyers are one of the leagues best performing (popularity, financially) teams. Why would the NHL/refs want to hold them down? What would they benefit from that?

They have almost sunk to the level of the NFL at this point, pathetic.
- BiggE

For the most part I think they do a good job, it's a really fast game and don't have the benefit of replays to make most of the calls.
The replays get called wrong too often. I see this in games I watch where I have no vested interest, so I'm not being a homer.
Then I see the hit on Ghost. That was text book boarding! I didn't see the Gudas hit but he gets tossed way too often on clean hits. We know this because his game miscoducts keep getting waived with no suspensions.
I want them to do a better job.

It sure seems like there's a bias against the Flyers. But why would that be? Flyers are one of the leagues best performing (popularity, financially) teams. Why would the NHL/refs want to hold them down? What would they benefit from that?
- Dkos

I watch too many games and see crazy poop too often to buy that. I don't like all the calls but the Flyers get a lot if power plays too.
I just think the refs are not up to " regular season speed".

Didn't see the GI call in Ottawa live but saw the reply, come on. I was on the refs side with the second call until I saw the video review rule. THAT WAS A GOAL!

- jaws1955

Just out of curiosity, what video review rule changed your mind?

I'm going to recognize some unsung heroes from last night game cause they don't get a lot of it.

Manning hagg was a really solid pairing now for the 2nd game in a row.

When the flyers couldn't get puck possession to save their life lehtera used his size to take the puck and protect it and go up ice. He's nothing special but he did little things well.

Elliot. Where has this Elliot been all year ? That's a legit 1a goalie.

Read had another quietly good game.

Filpula. Man where did that laser shot come from ? And he had some really good defensive shifts. To close the 2nd period they sent out filp simmer Laughton for a defensive zone draw and it worked.

For the most part I think they do a good job, it's a really fast game and don't have the benefit of replays to make most of the calls.
The replays get called wrong too often. I see this in games I watch where I have no vested interest, so I'm not being a homer.
Then I see the hit on Ghost. That was text book boarding! I didn't see the Gudas hit but he gets tossed way too often on clean hits. We know this because his game miscoducts keep getting waived with no suspensions.
I want them to do a better job.
- jaws1955

Rule interpretations and video reviews all have gray areas that can sometimes go your way and sometimes not. However the two checking issues that we've seen recently in my view don't. Those are calls that the referees should get right. The Gudas hit was simply a two minute penalty for charging. Calling that a major is a bad call. Not only not assessing a major for Komorov's hit on Gostisbehere but completely missing it and not calling anything is egregious.

Just out of curiosity, what video review rule changed your mind?
- MJL

I'm sure you are.

That is exactly what I was thinking. even the announcers were surprised.
- MBFlyerfan

It seems even at times the refs aren't sure what to call anymore

I'm sure you are.
- jaws1955

Okay, I'll speculate then that you're referring to the rule that Bill Meltzer posted. That rule does not apply in that situation because it was not a continuous play. The puck wound up in the net on a rebound shot of the original shot. The intent to whistle the play dead came on the original shot play. The application of that rule and why it doesn't apply in that situation was explained by Bill Daly.


“The ‘continuous play’ exception is for pucks entering the net on the same shot — not when the puck subsequently enters the net before a stoppage may be appropriate,”

Rule interpretations and video reviews all have gray areas that can sometimes go your way and sometimes not. However the two checking issues that we've seen recently in my view don't. Those are calls that the referees should get right. The Gudas hit was simply a two minute penalty for charging. Calling that a major is a bad call. Not only not assessing a major for Komorov's hit on Gostisbehere but completely missing it and not calling anything is egregious.
- MJL

I understand the gray areas on review, I even understand that the ref has the final say on the goal review as he didn't call for the review. He is within his rights to stand pat with his call.
He also had an opportunity to correct the call based on the review, which he watched, to see that the puck was in the net, prior to the whistle and was in continuous motion. Since he didn't see the puck go in the net, did he INTEND to blow the whistle before or after the puck entered the GOAL? We can't see or hear his intentions, but we can see the puck in the net and we can hear the whistle.

I understand the gray areas on review, I even understand that the ref has the final say on the goal review as he didn't call for the review. He is within his rights to stand pat with his call.
He also had an opportunity to correct the call based on the review, which he watched, to see that the puck was in the net, prior to the whistle and was in continuous motion. Since he didn't see the puck go in the net, did he INTEND to blow the whistle before or after the puck entered the GOAL? We can't see or hear his intentions, but we can see the puck in the net and we can hear the whistle.
- jaws1955

That's a misconception. The ref did not have an opportunity to correct the call based on the review. By rule the play was not review able. Even if it was the puck in continuous motion is irrelevant.

Okay, I'll speculate then that you're referring to the rule that Bill Meltzer posted. That rule does not apply in that situation because it was not a continuous play. The puck wound up in the net on a rebound shot of the original shot. The intent to whistle the play dead came on the original shot play. The application of that rule and why it doesn't apply in that situation was explained by Bill Daly.


“The ‘continuous play’ exception is for pucks entering the net on the same shot — not when the puck subsequently enters the net before a stoppage may be appropriate,”
- MJL

Intent to blow is such a stupid rule that is unmeasurable on any replay. This poop will keep getting screwed up until they get rid of any intent.

Intent to blow is such a stupid rule that is unmeasurable on any replay. This poop will keep getting screwed up until they get rid of any intent.
- feelingkettle

I see both sides of it and agree that if possible they need to find a way to somehow make it better. I think both goals in the spirit of the game should've counted. I don't know how you can remove the human element.

I'm far more bothered by the Manning disallowed goal than that play.

I see both sides of it and agree that if possible they need to find a way to somehow make it better. I think both goals in the spirit of the game should've counted. I don't know how you can remove the human element.
- MJL

You can't remove the human element, but you should be able to measure it on a replay. Give them a (frank)ing button on their whistle that they can hit when they intend to blow it. Otherwise, just go from when the actual whistle sounds. Whatever it is should be measurable and not when the ref felt like he should've blown but didn't yet.

edit: both calls were bad

Okay, I'll speculate then that you're referring to the rule that Bill Meltzer posted. That rule does not apply in that situation because it was not a continuous play. The puck wound up in the net on a rebound shot of the original shot. The intent to whistle the play dead came on the original shot play. The application of that rule and why it doesn't apply in that situation

“The ‘continuous play’ exception is for pucks entering the net on the same shot — not when the puck subsequently enters the net before a stoppage may be appropriate,”
- MJL

Yeah, I get it, it was a rebound. It is a very gray area, the puck was never covered and was in motion. Again, since he didn't see the puck go in, we don't know when he intended to blow the whistle. If after Coots poked it that would apply.
At this point it is all just spin. It could have gone either way and we didn't get the result we wanted. This is the stuff I want replays to fix.
I understand the lost site of the puck rule. I never had replays to back up or over turn my calls.
You work hard to be in position to make the correct call. You don't want guys digging away at a covered puck. Lose site a blow the whistle. Play is over when you decide to blow.

Yeah, I get it, it was a rebound. It is a very gray area, the puck was never covered and was in motion. Again, since he didn't see the puck go in, we don't know when he intended to blow the whistle. If after Coots poked it that would apply.
At this point it is all just spin. It could have gone either way and we didn't get the result we wanted. This is the stuff I want replays to fix.
I understand the lost site of the puck rule. I never had replays to back up or over turn my calls.
You work hard to be in position to make the correct call. You don't want guys digging away at a covered puck. Lose site a blow the whistle. Play is over when you decide to blow.
- jaws1955

In my opinion based on the current rules, the right call was made on that play in terms of not being able to reverse the call. One could argue that the ref needs to do a better job, but in my opinion based on the circumstances of bodies, stick, pads in goal mouth scramble, expecting a ref to always be right on when to blow the play dead is an unfair expectation.

You can't remove the human element, but you should be able to measure it on a replay. Give them a (frank)ing button on their whistle that they can hit when they intend to blow it. Otherwise, just go from when the actual whistle sounds. Whatever it is should be measurable and not when the ref felt like he should've blown but didn't yet.

edit: both calls were bad
- feelingkettle

There would still be a a delay from the conscious moment of deciding to blow the play dead until a button was hit.