|
Post by Bagheera on Mar 9, 2014 19:31:13 GMT
Tonight (and last night) is a perfect example of whats wrong with the league now. Henley gets thrown out last night for sticking up for a team mate & star player. Tonight somebody starts laying into Kalus whilst on the ice and Henley has to stand back and do nothing.
The team seemed to be really giving it their all tonight, hopefully gearing up for the run in.
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Mar 9, 2014 19:41:29 GMT
Kalus could probably have been kicked out. A stupid thing for him to do when the game was won. Very lucky he only got 2 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Scott on Mar 9, 2014 19:43:18 GMT
Kalus could probably have been kicked out. A stupid thing for him to do when the game was won. Very lucky he only got 2 minutes. Normally never disagree with you Shorty but it was right in front of me and a total accident. He didn't even know he had made contact with Horne which is why he played on. Francis and Clarke did very well stickin up for him.
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Mar 9, 2014 19:47:14 GMT
Fair play then, I thought he boarded their player after the whistle.
It wasnt the high stick he got jumped for, it was the check after the whistle.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Scott on Mar 9, 2014 19:55:17 GMT
Oh right. He was genuinely just playing on at that point. Think the hot looked worse than it was as the Flyer had half stopped. Horne really went for him when he came over....
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,424
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 9, 2014 20:05:30 GMT
A good last 20 minutes and some decent goals.
Well done to Dave for getting 600 points.
|
|
BigLad
David Clarke
TWITTER: @AntMJ11
Posts: 3,585
|
Post by BigLad on Mar 9, 2014 20:16:54 GMT
Tonight (and last night) is a perfect example of whats wrong with the league now. Henley gets thrown out last night for sticking up for a team mate & star player. Tonight somebody starts laying into Kalus whilst on the ice and Henley has to stand back and do nothing. The team seemed to be really giving it their all tonight, hopefully gearing up for the run in. Actually Henley got thrown out for cheapshotting an opponent then carrying on while the opponent was down.
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Mar 9, 2014 20:25:07 GMT
Sounds like Stevie Lee has picked up a serious injury.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Scott on Mar 9, 2014 20:27:04 GMT
F
|
|
|
Post by Rob Scott on Mar 9, 2014 20:27:18 GMT
F
|
|
|
Post by Rob Scott on Mar 9, 2014 20:27:37 GMT
S
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,424
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 9, 2014 20:30:28 GMT
Tonight (and last night) is a perfect example of whats wrong with the league now. Henley gets thrown out last night for sticking up for a team mate & star player. Tonight somebody starts laying into Kalus whilst on the ice and Henley has to stand back and do nothing. The team seemed to be really giving it their all tonight, hopefully gearing up for the run in. Actually Henley got thrown out for cheapshotting an opponent then carrying on while the opponent was down. This. And Petr Kalus is not our star player. Other end of the ice.
|
|
|
Post by Bagheera on Mar 9, 2014 20:48:33 GMT
Agreed, Kwall is our most important player. Should have said star forawrd (by this i mean best pedigree/most skilfull). I am by no means a fan of gooning it up for the sake of it or staged fights. I also believe at times Henley has been stupid with his actions but in a situation like tonight he shudn't be scared to skate in and protect a team mate.
|
|
|
Post by carolle on Mar 9, 2014 20:56:44 GMT
Sounds like Stevie Lee has picked up a serious injury. He was standing behind the goal in the 3rd period
|
|
|
Post by PantherG on Mar 9, 2014 21:28:12 GMT
What's wrong with him?
|
|
|
Post by panthertom93 on Mar 9, 2014 21:54:23 GMT
As much as it's annoying Henley couldn't police tonight, I think it showed he can play well when not being drawn into something. That last period is what the panthers CAN do. Lets put that into the CC and PO's!
|
|
|
Post by bruinspanthers on Mar 10, 2014 7:08:00 GMT
Fair play then, I thought he boarded their player after the whistle. It wasnt the high stick he got jumped for, it was the check after the whistle. I thought it looked like he didn't hear the whistle, hence the hit after the whistle, not sure it was intentional
|
|
|
Post by harlan on Mar 10, 2014 8:41:57 GMT
Fairly decent game of hockey overall.
It didn't look like a Panthers team in the first period, the amount of times that passes went amiss and coughing up the puck because of Flyers pressure, I haven't seen a Panthers team like that in Nottingham for a long long time
I thought Flyers deserved our one goal lead going into third but we seemed to come out unprepared for the Panthers in the third and once we got ourselves two goals down it looked like we were tired and had run out of energy to get ourselves back into the game.
Impossible for me to say whether the Panthers first goal should have been washed out or not, its at the other end of the ice from where we were sitting so no evidence of whether it was in the crease or not. The goal that Flyers had washed out should have stood though, yes Roehl kicked the puck towards the net but it then hit Kowalskis pad and Haines forced it under him and into the net with his stick.
I thought Kalus was fortunate to not get thrown out the game at the incident with Horne as he had an attempt at putting the blade of his stick into Roehls stomach as he was being escorted to the penalty box.
Genuine question here. What is the rule for being in the creae when there is no netminder? Is it still the same? because Lachowicz certainly had both feet in the crease for the 5th goal, not that it makes a difference or anything. Genuinely interested.
Overall the better team won but Flyers certainly contributed and although 5-2 maybe a little harsh on us I have no complaints about the result or our performance.
Always a joy to come to Nottingham and chat with Panthers fans
|
|
|
Post by Carnell on Mar 10, 2014 8:58:05 GMT
The goal that Flyers had washed out should have stood though, yes Roehl kicked the puck towards the net but it then hit Kowalskis pad and Haines forced it under him and into the net with his stick. Genuine question here. What is the rule for being in the creae when there is no netminder? Is it still the same? because Farmer certainly had both feet in the crease for the 5th goal, not that it makes a difference or anything. Genuinely interested. Just had a quick look at the IIHF Rules, and below suggests Hicks was right to wash out Flyers goal: 471 - DISALLOWING A GOAL a) No goal shall be allowed: 1. If an attacking player deliberately kicks, throws, bats with the hands or otherwise directs the puck by any means other than his stick into the goal net even if the puck has been further deflected by any player, goalkeeper or official, So even though it took a couple of deflections, seems that call was right! For your second part regarding player in the crease, again, the IIHF rule book states: 470 - DEFINITION OF A GOAL A goal shall be allowed: 7. If an attacking player being in the goal crease at the moment the puck crosses the goal line and in no way affects the goalkeeper's ability to make a save, unless the cases described in Rule 471
|
|
|
Post by sparkymark75 on Mar 10, 2014 10:25:47 GMT
It never took a "deflection". Kowalski saved it with his pad directly from Roehl's skate, Haines then poked it in with his stick.
|
|
|
Post by panthersdave on Mar 10, 2014 10:48:01 GMT
It never took a "deflection". Kowalski saved it with his pad directly from Roehl's skate, Haines then poked it in with his stick. The puck hitting kwalls pad was the deflection. Hicks called it correct from the wording above (although I thought he was wrong at the time) If the rule posted above wasnt there then what would stop players from throwing it at the goalie and hoping for a rebound?
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Mar 10, 2014 10:59:45 GMT
It never took a "deflection". Kowalski saved it with his pad directly from Roehl's skate, Haines then poked it in with his stick. The puck hitting kwalls pad was the deflection. Hicks called it correct from the wording above (although I thought he was wrong at the time) If the rule posted above wasnt there then what would stop players from throwing it at the goalie and hoping for a rebound? Way to logical in terms of an explanation. We were playing the 'Panthers Rules' apparently:- What set of rules will the officials be calling tonight? The Panthers ones?
|
|
|
Post by panthersdave on Mar 10, 2014 11:15:03 GMT
For all the stick we give the refs they do tend to get the lesser known rules correct, same with Darnell the other week when we pulled the goalie but did it incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by sparkymark75 on Mar 10, 2014 12:43:10 GMT
It never took a "deflection". Kowalski saved it with his pad directly from Roehl's skate, Haines then poked it in with his stick. The puck hitting kwalls pad was the deflection. Hicks called it correct from the wording above (although I thought he was wrong at the time) If the rule posted above wasnt there then what would stop players from throwing it at the goalie and hoping for a rebound? So at what point does the kick become irrelevant? If the puck had come back out further off Kowalski's pads (say into the slot) and a player puts it in, is that chalked off too because of a "deflection" from a kick?
|
|
|
Post by panthersdave on Mar 10, 2014 12:50:13 GMT
The puck hitting kwalls pad was the deflection. Hicks called it correct from the wording above (although I thought he was wrong at the time) If the rule posted above wasnt there then what would stop players from throwing it at the goalie and hoping for a rebound? So at what point does the kick become irrelevant? If the puck had come back out further off Kowalski's pads (say into the slot) and a player puts it in, is that chalked off too because of a "deflection" from a kick? I suppose so if the ref deems that the deliberate kick on goal contributed to a goal. The ref would have to excercise common sense to determine when the kick becomes irrelevant. In this case the kick at goal did clearly contribute to the puck ending up in the net.
|
|