shinobi
Randall Weber
Forum Dictator
Posts: 4,742
|
Post by shinobi on Apr 3, 2017 17:10:27 GMT
First goal, possibly not all the way over, but it's extremely close to being. View AttachmentBy the time his hand's on it, is that all the way over? Maybe. Injury - I'd say he's just trying to skate to the front, something we normally allow the forward to do (see MacMillan on the GWG), but for once Dimmen gets in the way and the rest follows. Just bad luck for me. Dowd probably did get a check to the head, but if anyone deserves one... I personally don't think that is fully over the line, therefore, I don't think it's a goal & if there's any doubt, then it shouldn't be given either...
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Apr 3, 2017 17:20:24 GMT
First goal, possibly not all the way over, but it's extremely close to being. View AttachmentBy the time his hand's on it, is that all the way over? Maybe. Injury - I'd say he's just trying to skate to the front, something we normally allow the forward to do (see MacMillan on the GWG), but for once Dimmen gets in the way and the rest follows. Just bad luck for me. Dowd probably did get a check to the head, but if anyone deserves one... I personally don't think that is fully over the line, therefore, I don't think it's a goal & if there's any doubt, then it shouldn't be given either... Exactly. A precedent was set a couple of weeks ago by the decision in our league match, against (oddly enough) Sheffield. Too much doubt, wash it out. Quite how one team can get a massive benefit of the doubt on both decisions beggars belief.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Apr 3, 2017 17:22:35 GMT
I wasn't going to do the playoffs, but I will now. #45 was -3 in Sheffield. Panthers had 6 forwards on for the ENG. Sadly, despite Steelers getting their video highlights up almost instantly, the Panthers have yet to do theirs, from a game 24 hours prior. But as there were no minuses for Saturday's game for Panthers (both Steelers' goals were on the PP) it won't be lower than that overall. Stevie Lee was a plus player in the league this season, trust me. 3 import D men had worse stats than that. what was MacMillans +/- stats? They were d partners and two we conceded I felt we're on MacMillans shoulders, this will show poorly for Lee obviously As you've asked... Lee was +2 Saturday, -3 Sunday. MacMillan was +1 and -2. They were together for the first goal on Saturday and Steelers' 3rd and 5th on Sunday. Quite how Lacho and Waugh got assists on the 5th goal on Saturday is beyond me. Larry stripped the Steeler of the puck, skated in, shot, got his own rebound and buried it. 100% unassisted goal. At least the league have sorted out the 2 assists an McGratton's goal Saturday.
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,423
|
Post by Yotes on Apr 3, 2017 18:02:19 GMT
Quite how Lacho and Waugh got assists on the 5th goal on Saturday is beyond me. Got to the ref first and asked nicely?
|
|
|
Post by mansfieldpanther91 on Apr 3, 2017 18:05:30 GMT
I think it unfair to blame Dan Green for the loss he came on cold and hes a third choice netminder. The problem is we should never of been put in the situation we was in. Pacl should of dressed just in case as the programme should of been protect the lead on away ice. It would of been the right decision only if we were losing. Also we need to look at how many non import netminders would be willing to sit on a bench and get so little ice time, for this we should be grateful we have Dan who is aware of his limitations and happy to bring what he can when he can. I'm sorry but he's employed by the Panthers to do a job, to back up. by backing up he should be capable of coming on when needed and making stops, the only things he stops are the ones that hit him, that's clear even watching him in warm up he is useless. it's not all his own fault, it's Coreys for giving him a contract too but he should do the honourable think and either retire or find his level. I feel more mugged off seeing my ticket money paying his wages than I do Carter! p.s if his level of goaltending is acceptable then hit me up Corey £££
|
|
|
Post by mansfieldpanther91 on Apr 3, 2017 18:08:01 GMT
I personally don't think that is fully over the line, therefore, I don't think it's a goal & if there's any doubt, then it shouldn't be given either... Exactly. A precedent was set a couple of weeks ago by the decision in our league match, against (oddly enough) Sheffield. Too much doubt, wash it out. Quite how one team can get a massive benefit of the doubt on both decisions beggars belief. wouldn't be anything to do with Tony Smith would it? I know they don't get a wage just expenses, but we all know how expenses work don't we 😉
|
|
|
Post by captainsat on Apr 4, 2017 10:53:46 GMT
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,423
|
Post by Yotes on Apr 4, 2017 11:30:11 GMT
Having never been up close and personal with the goal posts, are they the same width as the line? I've always assumed that they are.
It's still very difficult to tell for sure whether that's in or not, the clarity isn't good enough and the line itself is obviously below however much ice, so other than looking directly down it's going to be slightly distorted.
I suspect it did ultimately go in, and I'm not all that bothered about it, but the point others are making is that certainty from that isn't possible, so whoever gave it should've probably erred on the side of caution and ruled it out.
|
|
Discoray
Robert Lachowicz
Simply Clantastic!
Posts: 417
|
Post by Discoray on Apr 4, 2017 14:58:32 GMT
Having never been up close and personal with the goal posts, are they the same width as the line? I've always assumed that they are. It's still very difficult to tell for sure whether that's in or not, the clarity isn't good enough and the line itself is obviously below however much ice, so other than looking directly down it's going to be slightly distorted. I suspect it did ultimately go in, and I'm not all that bothered about it, but the point others are making is that certainty from that isn't possible, so whoever gave it should've probably erred on the side of caution and ruled it out. If it's not in, then it's by a millimeter if that, and I do actually think for the longest time the tiniest bit of the puck is not over the line. When Wiikman puts his glove over it, I'd say it just barely went fully over. So by that reckoning, I don't see how anyone could reasonably call it a "biased" or "disgraceful" call being almost nothing in it. I can't really blame the ref ruling on it either way, especially with no GLT to help out. With Armstrong, very little in that, nowhere for him to go even if he wanted to due to being stapled by the Panthers player. For folk saying he didn't "try" not to run into the goalie, what would you like him to decide doing in the half second or so he had? It's almost like a high-speed car collision, the thinking time needs accounted for as well as the reacting time. Thinking time alone would still see him run into Wiikman, it would just have taken a different form, and it could have ended up better/worse for either/both of them. Completely right to wash out the goal, but wrong to issue the penalty, and again we see something is done based on the end result. We're long overdue clarity just what exactly both refs & DOPS are suppose to make calls on. Since we still don't have that clarity now, I doubt we'll ever get it so the decisions will continue to flip-flop on an as & when basis.
|
|
|
Post by Suttonian on Apr 4, 2017 16:51:34 GMT
The ref was behind the goal so his view of the puck would be blocked by Wiikman's glove. If he can't see the if the puck is over the line then he should not give the goal
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,440
|
Post by iginla on Apr 4, 2017 17:21:43 GMT
The ref was behind the goal so his view of the puck would be blocked by Wiikman's glove. If he can't see the if the puck is over the line then he should not give the goal Exactly. The ref was guessing,there is no way in real time he could be 100% sure on that goal,so it shouldn't have been given. My bet is he gave it to keep the tie alive. If it had been a Panthers goal I bet he would have disallowed it for the same reason. Panthers score first in that game and the tie was over !
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Apr 4, 2017 18:39:59 GMT
My bet is he gave it to keep the tie alive. That's the most ridiculous post I've ever seen. And that's saying quite a lot.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,440
|
Post by iginla on Apr 4, 2017 19:32:42 GMT
My bet is he gave it to keep the tie alive. That's the most ridiculous post I've ever seen. And that's saying quite a lot. Don't be daft. There's about 10,000 posts from Pidge for a start. 😂 I wouldn't put anything past this league either !
|
|
titch
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 157
|
Post by titch on Apr 5, 2017 4:58:51 GMT
As I work with video editing / photoshop at work, I've ran the original video through various different video editing suites with the best quality possible at the last frame of the footage. The conclusion I get is that the puck crossed the line by 80% but nothing more than that. There are several images making their way round social media + this forum that show different things and that's purely down to the person who created the image, not every image will show the same thing due to a numerous amount of factors.
Regardless, the lamp was NOT lit and it was also impossible for the ref to make such a decision, in this case, it should benefit the defending team. It's quite funny that the league game before these playoff games had a similar incident in which the lamp WAS lit but because the referee couldn't possibly make a decision, he gave the benefit to the defending team, which just happened to be Sheffield. Crazy stuff really. I'd hate to suggest that the referee's careers would be on the line if they made the wrong decision and it affected Tony Smith's pockets.
As for the Dan Green hate - the primary blame must go on Corey Neilson and not Green. To head to Sheffield with THIS team, knowing full well that we're not going to be scoring many is silly. I'd say it's a learning curve for Corey but he should know this by now.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, especially since the game SHOULD have been entering p2 at a 0 - 0 scoreline. Panthers fans sat around me were nervous but very confident that we would breeze through to the POFW, until that horrible incident.
Shame really...
|
|
|
Post by fishman on Apr 5, 2017 8:39:27 GMT
With Armstrong, very little in that, nowhere for him to go even if he wanted to due to being stapled by the Panthers player. For folk saying he didn't "try" not to run into the goalie, what would you like him to decide doing in the half second or so he had? It's almost like a high-speed car collision, the thinking time needs accounted for as well as the reacting time. Thinking time alone would still see him run into Wiikman, it would just have taken a different form, and it could have ended up better/worse for either/both of them. Completely right to wash out the goal, but wrong to issue the penalty, and again we see something is done based on the end result. We're long overdue clarity just what exactly both refs & DOPS are suppose to make calls on. Since we still don't have that clarity now, I doubt we'll ever get it so the decisions will continue to flip-flop on an as & when basis. If a player goes skating into the keepers crease at break neck speed something as to give, you have to be in control at all times the call was correct, otherwise we wouldn't have a keeper left in the league
|
|
Discoray
Robert Lachowicz
Simply Clantastic!
Posts: 417
|
Post by Discoray on Apr 5, 2017 15:41:33 GMT
With Armstrong, very little in that, nowhere for him to go even if he wanted to due to being stapled by the Panthers player. For folk saying he didn't "try" not to run into the goalie, what would you like him to decide doing in the half second or so he had? It's almost like a high-speed car collision, the thinking time needs accounted for as well as the reacting time. Thinking time alone would still see him run into Wiikman, it would just have taken a different form, and it could have ended up better/worse for either/both of them. Completely right to wash out the goal, but wrong to issue the penalty, and again we see something is done based on the end result. We're long overdue clarity just what exactly both refs & DOPS are suppose to make calls on. Since we still don't have that clarity now, I doubt we'll ever get it so the decisions will continue to flip-flop on an as & when basis. If a player goes skating into the keepers crease at break neck speed something as to give, you have to be in control at all times the call was correct, otherwise we wouldn't have a keeper left in the league You're absolutely right, but that is a very black and white situation you cited, and isn't what happened here. A Panthers player was holding him in place while making a drive towards the net, severely limiting his ability to change the course of his direction. You're also not accounting for the thinking/reacting time I mentioned as well, these guys are skating up to speeds between 20-30mph. Even if we dismiss the time to react factor for the sake of argument, due to being held he may not have been able to break free, or if he did there's no way to know where he'd end up upon doing so. Like I said, it could have still ended up the same, or perhaps worse.
|
|
|
Post by ted logan on Apr 5, 2017 16:24:45 GMT
If a player goes skating into the keepers crease at break neck speed something as to give, you have to be in control at all times the call was correct, otherwise we wouldn't have a keeper left in the league You're absolutely right, but that is a very black and white situation you cited, and isn't what happened here. A Panthers player was holding him in place while making a drive towards the net, severely limiting his ability to change the course of his direction. You're also not accounting for the thinking/reacting time I mentioned as well, these guys are skating up to speeds between 20-30mph. Even if we dismiss the time to react factor for the sake of argument, due to being held he may not have been able to break free, or if he did there's no way to know where he'd end up upon doing so. Like I said, it could have still ended up the same, or perhaps worse. Armstrong had a couple of practice attempts on Saturday, Tommo coached teams have previous when it comes to running key netminders such as Bowns and Stewart this season and Kowalski in previous seasons. This was by no means a one off that can be dismissed as a freak accident.
|
|
DJP
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 82
|
Post by DJP on Apr 5, 2017 20:18:29 GMT
A few thoughts on the GK situation: - Ironically, Pacl would have dressed for the PO if our virtually season-long injury situation had lasted a bit longer. - But if we had had a full roster more often, Pacl wouldn't have iced as much as he did and then what would have been the point in having him? - Sunday was a very tough ask for Green, who has only iced three times this year in meaningful competitions and never for a full game. In the three previous seasons, he iced more regularly as a more permanent back-up and averaged over 85% in each season. It is reasonable to assume having three GKs has limited his practice time, which has compounded the problem of his lack of game time. - We were always going to be playing around 70 games or more this year and, if it was felt that Wiikman was not realistically going to be able to play the vast majority of these (and I believe the number of games he played this year is a career-high for him), we should either have signed an import GK of identical quality (e.g. Madolora; 91.2% last year) - so that we had two GKs sharing the workload equally, each equally capable of winning, each being at the top of his game whenever he played and one always available in the event of an injury - or spent some money and got the best domestic back-up we could (e.g. Day, Russell, Murdy, who all look capable of playing and winning a reasonable number of games given a decent defence). - Pacl is a very promising young GK but drew the short straw in quite a lot of games when we were at our weakest; he won very few games despite having a decent overall save percentage. Conclusion: Neither the two-GK nor the three-GK strategy worked satisfactorily with the personnel involved. And the job of all the GKs was made much harder by having a defence that was usually short on size, balance, sheer numbers and, in some cases, quality. The fact that, for virtually three-quarters of the season, we played three men short took its toll in all areas of the ice, including on the players who remained fit but ended up being overworked. The deficiencies in recruitment, replacement and GK strategy, involving both import and British players, all came home to roost except in the Continental Cup, where we usually had the luxury of a full squad.
|
|