The thing about Suter is that he’s one of the most efficient at the position that you’ve ever seen. Takes great angles, reads the ice so well, that he’s almost always in position. That’s part of why he can play so many minutes. Rare to see him caught in no man’s land like that. I do believe he’s lost a bit of a step though, although he had a nice backcheck on that one play earlier.
Boys came within 4 minutes of getting the "W" but hey, we got 11 points in the last 6 games. Went a bit defensive in that 3rd period and that rarely seems to work....
***THE REAL HORNETS HAS THOUSANDS OF POSTS and joined RC October 4, 2017!***
Old_Kid wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:12 pm
Don't like the three on three overtime rule, but damn that was fun to watch.
You are definitely in the minority. I absolutely love it.
Old fart. Old school. Guilty. How about four on four?
That was fun to watch though.
I was thinking how much I'd rather have 4v4 that entire overtime.
3 on 3 is nothing but track meet hockey. It's like pond hockey every change of possession where you take it back to the blueline. You give up the puck, you just sit back and wait for them to attack. You stop their attack and get the puck, your turn to head down the ice. Rinse & repeat for 5 minutes.
4 on 4 at least has some neutral zone action where teams are pressing a bit more defensively.
bubu dubu. wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:18 pm
that should have been no goal, no?
He didn’t stop so good goal unfortunately
He didn't stop so in that regard it was legal. However, he pitchforked Stalock's pad into the net which helped the puck cross the goal line after the initial save. Plus, he kinda sorta double hit the puck (once that puck leaves his blade it can't touch it again and it did) which would constitute shooting a rebound which are not allowed in shootouts.
bubu dubu. wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:18 pm
that should have been no goal, no?
He didn’t stop so good goal unfortunately
But he pushed the puck and pad in.
I saw the same thing. Grigoriev threw his stick at the puck in a shootout this afternoon (and it worked). They initially ruled no goal, but reviewed it and ruled it a good goal because a goalie can't do that regardless of if you think it actually prevented a goal or not. During a shootout a shooter cannout initiate contact with the goalie on a deke under the same premise. That's what happened and it should have been disallowed even if they "thought" the puck "would" have went in anyways.
bubu dubu. wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:18 pm
that should have been no goal, no?
He didn’t stop so good goal unfortunately
He didn't stop so in that regard it was legal. However, he pitchforked Stalock's pad into the net which helped the puck cross the goal line after the initial save. Plus, he kinda sorta double hit the puck (once that puck leaves his blade it can't touch it again and it did) which would constitute shooting a rebound which are not allowed in shootouts.
The more think about it I think the only thing they must have reviewed there was if Johansson stopped or not. In other words, even though they reviewed it the reviewed the wrong thing.
Ron Burgundy 4 President wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:49 pm
The more think about it I think the only thing they must have reviewed there was if Johansson stopped or not. In other words, even though they reviewed it the reviewed the wrong thing.
Agree. Pushed it in, possibly double hit the puck as JT said.
They also need to have a timer, the shooter in these game deciding exhibitions should have to keep a decent hockey playing pace. I’m not one hundred percent sure how that gets defined, but we all know it when we see it, and it wasn’t there on that GW goal.
Ron Burgundy 4 President wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:49 pm
The more think about it I think the only thing they must have reviewed there was if Johansson stopped or not. In other words, even though they reviewed it the reviewed the wrong thing.
Agree. Pushed it in, possibly double hit the puck as JT said.
They also need to have a timer, the shooter in these game deciding exhibitions should have to keep a decent hockey playing pace. I’m not one hundred percent sure how that gets defined, but we all know it when we see it, and it wasn’t there on that GW goal.
In some lower leagues they have a player on the goalie's team chase down the shooter. In most cases they almost never actually catch the shooter, but it does prevent the sort of nonsense we saw in Johansson's approach tonight.
Ron Burgundy 4 President wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:35 pm
In some lower leagues they have a player on the goalie's team chase down the shooter. In most cases they almost never actually catch the shooter, but it does prevent the sort of nonsense we saw in Johansson's approach tonight.
That seems too gimmicky, even for the shootout, but I agree that what a lot of guys are doing with the low speed does not resemble anything you would see during a hockey game and doesn't belong.
Ron Burgundy 4 President wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:35 pm
In some lower leagues they have a player on the goalie's team chase down the shooter. In most cases they almost never actually catch the shooter, but it does prevent the sort of nonsense we saw in Johansson's approach tonight.
That seems too gimmicky, even for the shootout, but I agree that what a lot of guys are doing with the low speed does not resemble anything you would see during a hockey game and doesn't belong.
Well, the 3 on 3 doesn't resemble normal hockey so I'm ok with most shootout moves. If you don't like these gimmicks would you rather go back to the old days of 5 on 5 or more recently 4 on 4 in OT? I wouldn't.....it's a bummer when the Wild lose but it's fun watching the 3 on 3's IMHO and shootouts are fun to!
We'll find out a lot more about our "new" team with a pretty darn tough 3 game trip comin up....
***THE REAL HORNETS HAS THOUSANDS OF POSTS and joined RC October 4, 2017!***