I wonder of they'll be amnesty buyouts after the next inevitable lockout
- jimbo83

They are going to have to. No way the players association are going to stand for that much Dead cap space that could be going towards real salary. And the big market owners will push for them as well.

Nice to have a franchise that basically serves as a toxic waste dump.
- Pete V

Not many franchises can say they had Chris Pronger, Pavel Datsyuk, Suter, Parise, Weber...

Not many franchises can say they had Chris Pronger, Pavel Datsyuk, Suter, Parise, Weber...
- smellmyfinger

That's a stud defense right there.

Not many franchises can say they had Chris Pronger, Pavel Datsyuk, Suter, Parise, Weber...
- smellmyfinger

https://www.nhl.com/news/...spect-feature/c-296934662

You guys were just talking about him and NHL.com put up an article on him.

Tuned into the 3rd period last nite after the Leaf game. Wow! Haven't seen the Rangers play that fast in a while. Kreider looked to be in beast mode. Was using that great speed and the Pens had no answer. Rangers will be a better team now that Nash is gone. Time for others to step up and make their mark on the team.

Tuned into the 3rd period last nite after the Leaf game. Wow! Haven't seen the Rangers play that fast in a while. Kreider looked to be in beast mode. Was using that great speed and the Pens had no answer. Rangers will be a better team now that Nash is gone. Time for others to step up and make their mark on the team.
- Leafsmart

Agreed, except don't think Nash was the problem even though he did underachieve big time on the goals department. Locker room seemed to be stale. Defense is still a mess and AV has to go. Give it a few years and they can be a force again if they draft properly.

https://www.nhl.com/news/serron-noel-2018-nhl-draft-prospect-feature/c-296934662

You guys were just talking about him and NHL.com put up an article on him.
- smellmyfinger

I saw that before

yeah but, it would be the 2019 draft picks that would be the compensation for signing an RFA, not this year's

even with Trouba, no less Dumba, they could be worst overall next year, it's possible, can't risk blowing their first ever first overall pick on an offer sheet
- jimbo83

Thanks, I thought this years picks were in jeopardy for an offer sheet, not 2019, that does make a HUGE difference!

Thanks, I thought this years picks were in jeopardy for an offer sheet, not 2019, that does make a HUGE difference!
- TommyGTrain

yeah, if they signed anyone to an offer sheet it would happen July 1st, after the draft has already taken place

Jan, you are correct in regards to that penalty shot being awarded, in that RULE # 63.5 states that if there is sufficient regulation time or overtime left to be played, the call should have been only a minor 2:00 penalty on Georgiev for "DELIBERATELY" knocking the net off its moorings. That is clearly stated better (in short here), however, under RULE #63.2 for when the "attacking player has not yet taken the shot, or is in the act of taking the shot at the open net (see Rule #63.6)". However, Rule #63.5 needs to be modified in description, because it does not relate to ALL possible related situations, as had occurred in last night's game.

Now here is where I misunderstood in part, the rule as it is clearly written under RULE #'s 63.2, 63.5, and 63.6 as the only possible links I had found.

1) You already listed, Jan, RULE # 63.5's key details in part. But that rule clearly states it to be a penalty shot awarded if occurring "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY" only. That full rule on page 90 of the 2017-2018 NHL RULE BOOK strictly states ONLY if it had occurred ON A BREAKAWAY.

2) Now here is where I had a mix up of the 2 RULES off the top of my head immediately once the event occurred last night, (& at the same time of the game I had posted that "IT WAS THE CORRECT CALL"), between a PENALTY SHOT BEING AWARDED, or A GOAL BEING AWARDED under this case.

Rule #63.6 - "AWARDED GOAL" (in full):
"In the event that the goal post is displaced, EITHER DELIBERATELY OR ACCIDENTALLY, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goal posts, the Referee MAY AWARD A GOAL."
"In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, THE PUCK MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT, (OR THE PLAYER MUST BE IN THE ACT OF SHOOTING) AT THE GOAL PRIOR TO THE GOAL POST BEING DISPLACED, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts."

There was no goal awarded because Malkin was not in the act of, and did not release his shot until at least 1 second after the net was dislodged by Georgiev, which I also believe was more so on a deliberate nature than not, as the ruling was for the penalty shot to be called.
But there lies the issue with the rules as written. The infraction occurred with only 10 seconds remaining in the 3rd. Overtime was then necessary to decide the outcome.
So I agree with you, Jan, in that a 2:00 minor penalty should have only been assessed instead. Furthermore, there is no mention in the RULE BOOK of a penalty shot to be awarded under that section called "OTHER FOULS", which includes the 3 RULE numbers I first mentioned as being the closest related rules for that infraction.
So RULE #63.5 is the closest in relation, but it must be modified to cover all situations, by removing the words, "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY", and clearly add that a penalty shot will be awarded if a goal post is displaced with under 2:00 remaining in regulation time or the 5:00 OT during a REGULAR SEASON GAME.

Jan, you are correct in regards to that penalty shot being awarded, in that RULE # 63.5 states that if there is sufficient regulation time or overtime left to be played, the call should have been only a minor 2:00 penalty on Georgiev for "DELIBERATELY" knocking the net off its moorings. That is clearly stated (in short here) under RULE #63.2 for when the "attacking player has not yet taken the shot, or is in the act of taking the shot at the open net (see Rule #63.6)". However, Rule #63.5 needs to be modified in description, because it does not relate to ALL possible related situations, as had occurred in last night's game.

Now here is where I misunderstood in part, the rule as it is clearly written under RULE #'s 63.2, 63.5, and 63.6 as the only possible links I had found.

1) You already listed, Jan, RULE # 63.5's key details in part. But that rule clearly states it to be a penalty shot awarded if occurring "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY" only. That full rule on page 90 of the 2017-2018 NHL RULE BOOK strictly states ONLY if it had occurred ON A BREAKAWAY.

2) Now here is where I had a mix up of the 2 RULES off the top of my head immediately once the event occurred last night, (& at the same time of the game I had posted that "IT WAS THE CORRECT CALL"), between a PENALTY SHOT BEING AWARDED, or A GOAL BEING AWARDED under this case.

Rule #63.6 - "AWARDED GOAL" (in full):
"In the event that the goal post is displaced, EITHER DELIBERATELY OR ACCIDENTALLY, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goal posts, the Referee MAY AWARD A GOAL."
"In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, THE PUCK MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT, (OR THE PLAYER MUST BE IN THE ACT OF SHOOTING) AT THE GOAL PRIOR TO THE GOAL POST BEING DISPLACED, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts."

There was no goal awarded because Malkin was not in the act of, and did not release his shot until at least 1 second after the net was dislodged by Georgiev, which I also believe was more so on a deliberate nature than not, as the ruling was for the penalty shot to be called.
But there lies the issue with the rules as written. The infraction occurred with only 10 seconds remaining in the 3rd. Overtime was then necessary to decide the outcome.
So I agree with you, Jan, in that a 2:00 minor penalty should have only been assessed instead. Furthermore, there is no mention in the RULE BOOK of a penalty shot to be awarded under that section called "OTHER FOULS", which includes the 3 RULE numbers I first mentioned as being the closest related rules for that infraction.
So RULE #63.5 is the closest in relation, but it must be modified to cover all situations, by removing the words, "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY", and clearly add that a penalty shot will be awarded if a goal post is displaced with under 2:00 remaining in regulation time or the 5:00 OT during a REGULAR SEASON GAME.
- RangerSaver

- smellmyfinger

Thanks, "smelly". I guess you liked reading that, in having to remove your sunglasses.

Pionk appears to have the offensive skills and abilities of a younger Shatty during his blossoming years, but also with much better defensive skills. He will be a 2nd line pairing d'man next season at the least.

Jan, you are correct in regards to that penalty shot being awarded, in that RULE # 63.5 states that if there is sufficient regulation time or overtime left to be played, the call should have been only a minor 2:00 penalty on Georgiev for "DELIBERATELY" knocking the net off its moorings. That is clearly stated better (in short here), however, under RULE #63.2 for when the "attacking player has not yet taken the shot, or is in the act of taking the shot at the open net (see Rule #63.6)". However, Rule #63.5 needs to be modified in description, because it does not relate to ALL possible related situations, as had occurred in last night's game.

Now here is where I misunderstood in part, the rule as it is clearly written under RULE #'s 63.2, 63.5, and 63.6 as the only possible links I had found.

1) You already listed, Jan, RULE # 63.5's key details in part. But that rule clearly states it to be a penalty shot awarded if occurring "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY" only. That full rule on page 90 of the 2017-2018 NHL RULE BOOK strictly states ONLY if it had occurred ON A BREAKAWAY.

2) Now here is where I had a mix up of the 2 RULES off the top of my head immediately once the event occurred last night, (& at the same time of the game I had posted that "IT WAS THE CORRECT CALL"), between a PENALTY SHOT BEING AWARDED, or A GOAL BEING AWARDED under this case.

Rule #63.6 - "AWARDED GOAL" (in full):
"In the event that the goal post is displaced, EITHER DELIBERATELY OR ACCIDENTALLY, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goal posts, the Referee MAY AWARD A GOAL."
"In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, THE PUCK MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT, (OR THE PLAYER MUST BE IN THE ACT OF SHOOTING) AT THE GOAL PRIOR TO THE GOAL POST BEING DISPLACED, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts."

There was no goal awarded because Malkin was not in the act of, and did not release his shot until at least 1 second after the net was dislodged by Georgiev, which I also believe was more so on a deliberate nature than not, as the ruling was for the penalty shot to be called.
But there lies the issue with the rules as written. The infraction occurred with only 10 seconds remaining in the 3rd. Overtime was then necessary to decide the outcome.
So I agree with you, Jan, in that a 2:00 minor penalty should have only been assessed instead. Furthermore, there is no mention in the RULE BOOK of a penalty shot to be awarded under that section called "OTHER FOULS", which includes the 3 RULE numbers I first mentioned as being the closest related rules for that infraction.
So RULE #63.5 is the closest in relation, but it must be modified to cover all situations, by removing the words, "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY", and clearly add that a penalty shot will be awarded if a goal post is displaced with under 2:00 remaining in regulation time or the 5:00 OT during a REGULAR SEASON GAME.
- RangerSaver

Is this a joke?

- smellmyfinger

Is this a joke?
- Tonybere

I enjoyed it. A somewhat weak start, but an intriguing ending!

Jan, you are correct in regards to that penalty shot being awarded, in that RULE # 63.5 states that if there is sufficient regulation time or overtime left to be played, the call should have been only a minor 2:00 penalty on Georgiev for "DELIBERATELY" knocking the net off its moorings. That is clearly stated better (in short here), however, under RULE #63.2 for when the "attacking player has not yet taken the shot, or is in the act of taking the shot at the open net (see Rule #63.6)". However, Rule #63.5 needs to be modified in description, because it does not relate to ALL possible related situations, as had occurred in last night's game.

Now here is where I misunderstood in part, the rule as it is clearly written under RULE #'s 63.2, 63.5, and 63.6 as the only possible links I had found.

1) You already listed, Jan, RULE # 63.5's key details in part. But that rule clearly states it to be a penalty shot awarded if occurring "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY" only. That full rule on page 90 of the 2017-2018 NHL RULE BOOK strictly states ONLY if it had occurred ON A BREAKAWAY.

2) Now here is where I had a mix up of the 2 RULES off the top of my head immediately once the event occurred last night, (& at the same time of the game I had posted that "IT WAS THE CORRECT CALL"), between a PENALTY SHOT BEING AWARDED, or A GOAL BEING AWARDED under this case.

Rule #63.6 - "AWARDED GOAL" (in full):
"In the event that the goal post is displaced, EITHER DELIBERATELY OR ACCIDENTALLY, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goal posts, the Referee MAY AWARD A GOAL."
"In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, THE PUCK MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT, (OR THE PLAYER MUST BE IN THE ACT OF SHOOTING) AT THE GOAL PRIOR TO THE GOAL POST BEING DISPLACED, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts."

There was no goal awarded because Malkin was not in the act of, and did not release his shot until at least 1 second after the net was dislodged by Georgiev, which I also believe was more so on a deliberate nature than not, as the ruling was for the penalty shot to be called.
But there lies the issue with the rules as written. The infraction occurred with only 10 seconds remaining in the 3rd. Overtime was then necessary to decide the outcome.
So I agree with you, Jan, in that a 2:00 minor penalty should have only been assessed instead. Furthermore, there is no mention in the RULE BOOK of a penalty shot to be awarded under that section called "OTHER FOULS", which includes the 3 RULE numbers I first mentioned as being the closest related rules for that infraction.
So RULE #63.5 is the closest in relation, but it must be modified to cover all situations, by removing the words, "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY", and clearly add that a penalty shot will be awarded if a goal post is displaced with under 2:00 remaining in regulation time or the 5:00 OT during a REGULAR SEASON GAME.
- RangerSaver

Are we allowed to say who (frank)ing cares, or will you be mad?

Jan, you are correct in regards to that penalty shot being awarded, in that RULE # 63.5 states that if there is sufficient regulation time or overtime left to be played, the call should have been only a minor 2:00 penalty on Georgiev for "DELIBERATELY" knocking the net off its moorings. That is clearly stated better (in short here), however, under RULE #63.2 for when the "attacking player has not yet taken the shot, or is in the act of taking the shot at the open net (see Rule #63.6)". However, Rule #63.5 needs to be modified in description, because it does not relate to ALL possible related situations, as had occurred in last night's game.

Now here is where I misunderstood in part, the rule as it is clearly written under RULE #'s 63.2, 63.5, and 63.6 as the only possible links I had found.

1) You already listed, Jan, RULE # 63.5's key details in part. But that rule clearly states it to be a penalty shot awarded if occurring "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY" only. That full rule on page 90 of the 2017-2018 NHL RULE BOOK strictly states ONLY if it had occurred ON A BREAKAWAY.

2) Now here is where I had a mix up of the 2 RULES off the top of my head immediately once the event occurred last night, (& at the same time of the game I had posted that "IT WAS THE CORRECT CALL"), between a PENALTY SHOT BEING AWARDED, or A GOAL BEING AWARDED under this case.

Rule #63.6 - "AWARDED GOAL" (in full):
"In the event that the goal post is displaced, EITHER DELIBERATELY OR ACCIDENTALLY, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goal posts, the Referee MAY AWARD A GOAL."
"In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, THE PUCK MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT, (OR THE PLAYER MUST BE IN THE ACT OF SHOOTING) AT THE GOAL PRIOR TO THE GOAL POST BEING DISPLACED, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts."

There was no goal awarded because Malkin was not in the act of, and did not release his shot until at least 1 second after the net was dislodged by Georgiev, which I also believe was more so on a deliberate nature than not, as the ruling was for the penalty shot to be called.
But there lies the issue with the rules as written. The infraction occurred with only 10 seconds remaining in the 3rd. Overtime was then necessary to decide the outcome.
So I agree with you, Jan, in that a 2:00 minor penalty should have only been assessed instead. Furthermore, there is no mention in the RULE BOOK of a penalty shot to be awarded under that section called "OTHER FOULS", which includes the 3 RULE numbers I first mentioned as being the closest related rules for that infraction.
So RULE #63.5 is the closest in relation, but it must be modified to cover all situations, by removing the words, "DURING THE COURSE OF A BREAKAWAY", and clearly add that a penalty shot will be awarded if a goal post is displaced with under 2:00 remaining in regulation time or the 5:00 OT during a REGULAR SEASON GAME.
- RangerSaver

[url]


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat???

I just bashed my head in w/ the potato masher

- 21peter

wow!!


I feel old now!

wow!!


I feel old now!
- rrentz

I just said the same exact thing!

Pionk appears to have the offensive skills and abilities of a younger Shatty during his blossoming years, but also with much better defensive skills. He will be a 2nd line pairing d'man next season at the least.
- RangerSaver

Yup, kid looks good. Get a top pair guy and trade Shatty.

I dunno about that, I would probably make that trade. I mean not a top-10 first, but I would absolutely trade anything north of pick #10 (or around there) plus a 2nd and 3rd for him. He turned the corner big-time this year.
- eichiefs9

U know who wanted to get him 2 years ago before he would've cost a 1st 2nd and 3rd?

Are we allowed to say who (frank)ing cares, or will you be mad?
- Slimtj100