better hit mcdavid hard. they are getting tarasenko good.

Upshall has been looking really good. He is being wasted on the fourth line.

Parayko's reach is amazing.

Impressed with Perron's small game.

I see a number of times now get a tired team Tarasenko gets the puck near the blue line fires a shot and it gets blocked and goes out of play. He needs to move the puck there and keep that team skating and look for a near perfect play. because likely they take a penalty or you score.
- BluemanGuruu

This kills me with him. When I think about the playoffs last year, that play stood out to me so much, cross the blue line, blocked shot, line change, defend. You need your best shooter taking confident shots though.

This kills me with him. When I think about the playoffs last year, that play stood out to me so much, cross the blue line, blocked shot, line change, defend. You need your best shooter taking confident shots though.
- Blue Clam

That was the third change they had on that line and he wastes it with a low percentage play. The haarder you skate them the heavier their legs at the end, more likely they take a penalty or you score. It is like a delayed called but better.

That was the third change they had on that line and he wastes it with a low percentage play. The haarder you skate them the heavier their legs at the end, more likely they take a penalty or you score. It is like a delayed called but better.
- BluemanGuruu

Agreed. It was most definitely not the right play. At the same time when his instincts are saying shoot, I want him to shoot, I don't want him to start over thinking it and ending up a second slower to release the right shots.

This reffing is terrible. Lucic how he never got called for anything especially towards the end with the empty net tripping Petro once and then cross checking him down, then back in his zone hooking him.

Christ aedmonton is being favored a lot of hooking and holding not being called. Larsson should have been called for a few at the end.

Yakupov was a half inch from burning his former team.

Talbot was good for once. Did not get enough rebounds. Again they keep passing or thinking in the high danger aones too often instead of shooting. Schwartz why pass with two guys driving to the net and you have an open lane, just stole the puck????

They just did not play hard enough. Allen was really good. Petro blew his coverage on the second goal. McDavid's speed and playing with the puck at that speed is just insane. His first few steps gets him into and through gaps in ways I have never seen no matter how fast the player was. The really strange thing is he does not look like he is chugging. That always weirded me out about power skating was how little it felt like you putting into powerful strides, versus the choppy strides of old.

Agreed. It was most definitely not the right play. At the same time when his instincts are saying shoot, I want him to shoot, I don't want him to start over thinking it and ending up a second slower to release the right shots.
- Blue Clam

True because too often he passes in killer areas. That is what drives me nuts about some of these guys sometimes is they have not figured out a few things.

Perron seems to be getting it but no production from some really good plays. He has had some great shots. Want to have all these players because most in the top nine have great shots, to shoot more. Get the ice to open.

Blue Clam the other thing was you could work the cycle and Edmonton would give you an opening in the danger areas.

Why is this team not scoring?

Also when Lucic shoved Schwartz from behind into the boards...how is that not called?

I think that first goal should be interference because of the speed in the periphial there and not attempt to slow down or miss the goaltender. even if the puck goes in before that is going to cause the netminder to react. which, if there isn't bang bang contact I get counting. In this case I think you want that out of the game or you are going to be missing good goalies to concussions.

The Edmonton scorer was drunk. He said the Blues only had 16 scoring chances and Edmonton had 12 lol. Really dude?

I think that first goal should be interference because of the speed in the periphial there and not attempt to slow down or miss the goaltender. even if the puck goes in before that is going to cause the netminder to react. which, if there isn't bang bang contact I get counting. In this case I think you want that out of the game or you are going to be missing good goalies to concussions.

The Edmonton scorer was drunk. He said the Blues only had 16 scoring chances and Edmonton had 12 lol. Really dude?
- BluemanGuruu

His not in the blue paint, Pitlick has the right to go where he did. Good goal, god your a homer. Blues outshoot the oilers, but gave up alot of high chances and if it was not for Allen this game could of been 5-1.

Blueman, your hockey knowledge is sub par. Complaining of penalties, no no. The refs were good tonight. Pitlicks goal was good, he tipped the puck in before he hit the goalie, and the goalie was out of the crease on top of that. I guess you know the rules better than the refree headquarters who called the play under review, it was black and white.

Blueman, your hockey knowledge is sub par. Complaining of penalties, no no. The refs were good tonight. Pitlicks goal was good, he tipped the puck in before he hit the goalie, and the goalie was out of the crease on top of that. I guess you know the rules better than the refree headquarters who called the play under review, it was black and white.
- JAM99

Amen

Oilers are getting there with the moves they are making

Wouldn't surprise me if they make the playoffs

Paajarvi still blows

Blueman, your hockey knowledge is sub par. Complaining of penalties, no no. The refs were good tonight. Pitlicks goal was good, he tipped the puck in before he hit the goalie, and the goalie was out of the crease on top of that. I guess you know the rules better than the refree headquarters who called the play under review, it was black and white.
- JAM99

Right. At least my reading comprehension is high enough to spot a caveat. A caveat being a qualifying remark.

To wit, or to the witless..., I suggested it SHOULD be. Do you understand the proposition that the word SHOULD entails? I argued why that SHOULD be a call and in the spirit of the rule. A rule that is so well written that recently Paul Stewart has railed against it.

The blue paint does not matter. You cannot make contact with a goaltender, unless you are shoved into them, or you clearly lost you balance and were making an effort to get out of the way. Even then I have seen it called and gasp....when the goaltender is not in the crease or as you put it, in the blue paint.

I am not sure why I am bothering explaining how to read to you. Clearly your lack of intelliegence will make it impossble for you to understand.

As for my hockey knowledge lol. Okay guy call it what you want I really do not care.

Yes Lucic, nearly every shift he plays could be called for a penalty. If you believe otherwise you are being a homer. I see the same things when he played for the Bruins and played other teams than the Blues.

Of course I am a bit of a homer. What the hell? You think I can remain perfectly objective when I am emotionally invested in a team I have been watching for 34 years? I can get fairly objective, but I would be lying to myself to think I could strip myself of all bias.

But hey you told me and I am sure that makes you feel better about yourself. Good for you.

Amen
- Yikes726

Yeah the guy who was saying after the first game to Hawks fans not to panic that your team was still good because of its core. That the Blues wanted to pick Nick Schmaltz before Fabbri. Yeah okay.

His not in the blue paint, Pitlick has the right to go where he did. Good goal, god your a homer. Blues outshoot the oilers, but gave up alot of high chances and if it was not for Allen this game could of been 5-1.
- FiretheGM

Really? That is super logic. Your deduction skills are unparalleled. Read closely. SHOULD NOT count, The rule SHOULD be because of the spirit the rule. Obviously my opinion does not change a goal or the stupid off side rule that should be about body positioning and not if a skate is lifted in the air. To understand what I meant, imagine a guy about to punch you in the face straight on and you are focusing n him wishing not to get hit in the face. Just as he swings something swiftly moves towards your side and registers in your peripheral vision(that means how your eyes see to each side and not straight forward, I fear you still will nt understand). What will happen to you in that moment?

Now, you have to understand the concept of rules. Some rules are in place to limit dangerous plays that could hurt someone seriously, like high sticks because they can cut eyes, end careers(Al MacInnis), and render someone blind in at least one eye which is not a good thing to have happen to you. Kicking at a player, at a puck near the goal, because the blades are sharp think Malarchuk and the one guy who got cut bad this year already. Because in a goal mouth scramble what happens? Players are falling being cross checked down, trying to block the puck, the goalie is likely down and you know the toes of skates are pretty hard, you might not like to be kicked in the head or face by one, because concussions and all. Sharp blades and necks and all. So they say no kicking motions for goals in order to disuade players from that action.

So what are the reasons for the rule about goaltender interference and running a goalie?

I will leave to figure out.

I would like to note I used a lot of blue ink in right this. The tone of my voice would be like I was speaking to a slow child but with heavy doses of sarcasm because you are not a child.

Buh bye

Right. At least my reading comprehension is high enough to spot a caveat. A caveat being a qualifying remark.

To wit, or to the witless..., I suggested it SHOULD be. Do you understand the proposition that the word SHOULD entails? I argued why that SHOULD be a call and in the spirit of the rule. A rule that is so well written that recently Paul Stewart has railed against it.

The blue paint does not matter. You cannot make contact with a goaltender, unless you are shoved into them, or you clearly lost you balance and were making an effort to get out of the way. Even then I have seen it called and gasp....when the goaltender is not in the crease or as you put it, in the blue paint.

I am not sure why I am bothering explaining how to read to you. Clearly your lack of intelliegence will make it impossble for you to understand.

As for my hockey knowledge lol. Okay guy call it what you want I really do not care.

Yes Lucic, nearly every shift he plays could be called for a penalty. If you believe otherwise you are being a homer. I see the same things when he played for the Bruins and played other teams than the Blues.

Of course I am a bit of a homer. What the hell? You think I can remain perfectly objective when I am emotionally invested in a team I have been watching for 34 years? I can get fairly objective, but I would be lying to myself to think I could strip myself of all bias.

But hey you told me and I am sure that makes you feel better about yourself. Good for you.
- BluemanGuruu

Really? You're going to go with that as a rebuttal to a specific word you used? Knowledge of the sport is not based on "should". That play makes zero sense why it should be called a penalty.

The player was on a clear path not within the paint of the goalies "house". He tipped the puck prior to any initial contact with the goalie and the goalie came out to challenge the player and shot. His real estate is that box alone. Now if the player hit the goalie on purpose that's one thing but his focus was on the puck and reached for it deflecting it that was also behind him which again was outside the box by quite a bit of margin. I think you've been playing to much NHL16 that any hit on a goalie is called outside the crease.

Really? You're going to go with that as a rebuttal to a specific word you used? Knowledge of the sport is not based on "should". That play makes zero sense why it should be called a penalty.

The player was on a clear path not within the paint of the goalies "house". He tipped the puck prior to any initial contact with the goalie and the goalie came out to challenge the player and shot. His real estate is that box alone. Now if the player hit the goalie on purpose that's one thing but his focus was on the puck and reached for it deflecting it that was also behind him which again was outside the box by quite a bit of margin. I think you've been playing to much NHL16 that any hit on a goalie is called outside the crease.
- iAvery

The goalie did not come out to challenge Pitlick. He came out to challenge the shot. He did not see Pitlick until the last second. I have never played NHL16. I do not play video games.

The rule the wya it is is a good goal, but should still be a penalty. The kid made a great play, but it is a dangerous play. I think in the spirit of the rule that such goals should not count. If you have played sports or done anything that happens at a high rate of speed you would understand what I am saying.

Look a cross check is illegal in the rule book yes? But everyone knows when you go the net to screen the goalie you are going to get cross checked. Unless the first one is crazy over the top you can get in a few here and there. But that would technically be contrary to the rule. Why? It has to do with the spirit of the game. An aside, I loved those battles in fromt of the net. I felt like I had a great game when the tape and pads came off and had bruises on my calves. I know it was going good when the goalie got into it.

So yes. You are saying that I think the goal was a blown call. I am not saying that. I am saying it SHOULD be an illegal play. Because of the safety of the goalie. Allen must have altered his play because he is going to register a player is about to hit him from the side. That would mean he is interfered with from making a save. He did get hit by the player so it is not a speculative thought.

So as it stands the goal was good, right call, no penalty on the play wrong decision. Do you think Pitlick did not how the okay was unfolding? Hell yes he did. That is what you are failing to see.

Should, is the qualifying remark taht I made concerning the play. I did not say it was a no goal. Hell I applaud the play the kid made, just not the contact with the goalie there. He put everything into the play at the possible expense of a player's career. Yes, Allen could have fell wrong or got hit wrong had a concussion that made him never be the same.

That is my issue and the way the rule is. It goes back to the high stick analology: a player knocks your stick up trying to get the puck and your stick cracks him in the face. You are still responsible for your stick. You are responsible for your body, stick and skates. Some years back it would have been called. You never know exactly theynwill call interference. I have seen a similar play by the Blues in the previous years called no goal.

But whatever. It does not matter. I have not played NHL hockey video games since play station1, I bet they are unreal by now.

Check this article out. Unless they have edited it check out the score of the game at the bottom of the oage.
http://www.calgarysun.com...-his-third-loss-of-season

Check this article out. Unless they have edited it check out the score of the game at the bottom of the oage.
http://www.calgarysun.com...-his-third-loss-of-season
- BluemanGuruu

Great Journalism there

This thread is amazing