First, NJD's first goal trickles across the line AFTER the whistle blows, then a 5 min major against the Devs for a high hit on Lindgren is found to be NO PENALTY AT ALL.
one is actually a real rule (if it meets the conditions).
if the refs blow the whistle but the puck was going in and their blowing the whistle didn't impact the play the goal counts.
rule 37:
"...if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck..."
If there's an ambiguity or a tough call, it's guaranteed to go against the Rangers.
I'm sure every team feels this way.
in the Canadiens Bruins game last Saturday I saw a Bruins goal waived off due to goalie interference that was probably the weakest GI I have ever seen.
Of course I was ok with it just to hear Jack Edwards whine, but there is no rhyme or reason to it IMO.
In this case the first call in the OP is very likely the rule that some people may not know.
I'm sure, but having seen almost every Rangers game for a very long time, I can tell you that calls RARELY and I mean RARELY go our way. It's ridiculous. Valiquette said as much last broadcast.
RE: RE: RE: You shouldn't want them to do you any favors
If there's an ambiguity or a tough call, it's guaranteed to go against the Rangers.
I'm sure every team feels this way.
in the Canadiens Bruins game last Saturday I saw a Bruins goal waived off due to goalie interference that was probably the weakest GI I have ever seen.
I'm sure, but having seen almost every Rangers game for a very long time, I can tell you that calls RARELY and I mean RARELY go our way. It's ridiculous. Valiquette said as much last broadcast.
Valiquette is just about the Rangers Jack Edwards, what do you expect.
If Elliotte Friedman says it then I'd give it some credibility.
No comments on the no call against Trocheck on Holtz?
Clearly it didn't go in as a result of Igor somehow letting up because he heard a whistle. I didn't know the rule pj referred to, but it makes sense to me that a play like that should count as a goal.
I did think that hit on Lindgren warranted a penalty, and was a clearer penalty than any of the non-calls on Rangers.
is a bizarre degree of inconsistency where subjective rules are seemingly always interpreted in a manner that disfavors the Rangers on replay reviews. It has been this way since roughly the 2022 playoffs. The most glaring example is the “distinct kicking motion” rulings, which there is simply no way to harmonize.
It is rank incompetence to apply rules so inconsistently, especially with the benefit of replay review.
Happy to have been wrong on Lavy. He’s got the boys playing smart and fast. Was a little bit of a track meet at times tonight but we weren’t getting skated out of the gym like we did in last years series
an nice 2 points coming off the strange and long early season break.
What can you said about Bread that hasn’t already been said?!
I know each fan thinks their broadcast team is the best and we Rangers fans have a terrific team both in the booth and studio but the Devils broadcast team is just plain dreadful!
What’s the point of having anyone on the booth with the hoarse voiced babbling dope, Daneyko!
If there's an ambiguity or a tough call, it's guaranteed to go against the Rangers.
I'm sure every team feels this way.
in the Canadiens Bruins game last Saturday I saw a Bruins goal waived off due to goalie interference that was probably the weakest GI I have ever seen.
Of course I was ok with it just to hear Jack Edwards whine, but there is no rhyme or reason to it IMO.
In this case the first call in the OP is very likely the rule that some people may not know.
The calls against them must be like 8-2 this year from Toronto many of them suspect. The calls for them were a blatant puck not crossing the goal line against Columbus and the other one I don't remember. It might be bad luck mixed in with some incomptence but I'm starting to buy the conspiracy theory that this is Gary's revenge for the letter calling out the league for their Tom Wilson ruling.
I'm sure, but having seen almost every Rangers game for a very long time, I can tell you that calls RARELY and I mean RARELY go our way. It's ridiculous. Valiquette said as much last broadcast.
Valiquette is just about the Rangers Jack Edwards, what do you expect.
If Elliotte Friedman says it then I'd give it some credibility.
Even if he's a homer comparing Valiquette to Jack Edwards might be the most assinine thing I've ever heard. Valiquette actually adds a ton of stats and knowledge and calls the Rangers out (usually) when they're playing poorly and doesn't say borderline offensive things on air over and over again. Vailquette is not any more of a homer than any home town analyst and is literally the best analyst I've ever seen doing any sport with the amount of knowledge and stats that he shares as well as the personality that he brings. Comparing him to that clown Jack Edwards is hilariously ignorant.
an nice 2 points coming off the strange and long early season break.
What can you said about Bread that hasn’t already been said?!
I know each fan thinks their broadcast team is the best and we Rangers fans have a terrific team both in the booth and studio but the Devils broadcast team is just plain dreadful!
What’s the point of having anyone on the booth with the hoarse voiced babbling dope, Daneyko!
I like Daneyko. He's a homer but not to the extent that Chico was. I don't mind their play by play guy. It's Bryce Salvador that I can't stand. The guy has the personality of a potato. He was barely a Devil. Why can't they find someone better? Even Thomas Hickey for the Islanders is better.
I'm sure, but having seen almost every Rangers game for a very long time, I can tell you that calls RARELY and I mean RARELY go our way. It's ridiculous. Valiquette said as much last broadcast.
Valiquette is just about the Rangers Jack Edwards, what do you expect.
If Elliotte Friedman says it then I'd give it some credibility.
Even if he's a homer comparing Valiquette to Jack Edwards might be the most assinine thing I've ever heard. Valiquette actually adds a ton of stats and knowledge and calls the Rangers out (usually) when they're playing poorly and doesn't say borderline offensive things on air over and over again. Vailquette is not any more of a homer than any home town analyst and is literally the best analyst I've ever seen doing any sport with the amount of knowledge and stats that he shares as well as the personality that he brings. Comparing him to that clown Jack Edwards is hilariously ignorant.
Couldn’t agree more.
Sure, Valiquette is employed by MSG but he’s also the President & CEO of Clear Sight Analytics and brings such a great perspective to each and every broadcast that I don’t know you can get just anywhere.
Edwards is by far the biggest homer and douche you’d ever want to hear as a so-called professional broadcaster representing a professional organization. There have been a number of documented on-air incidents that he’s been involved in over the years that to draw such a comparison between the two is so embarrassingly far off base.
He’s also a massive upgrade over Ron Duguay, it isn’t even close.
Care to comment on some posters(don't remember if you) who said Zac Jones is to small to play in the league effectively.
It was he who was lobbying intensely to ship out of town Trochek's and Laf's asses, just sayin' (: Plain to see that KK continues to struggle producing offensively, confidence lags and nags if not as a 200' defensive forward. But Rangers didn't have the option to select Hughes, but some others farther down, maybe a different story
So far this season what tickles me most about NYR play--aside from the baguette line--are the team's outlets from its own end: I got so sick and tired under GG watching d-men and the rare backchecking forward send the puck up the wall only to be stuffed, play slowed and more often than not opponent re-set at our BL. So far, our exits, often starting right at or between tops of the circles, go to a forward at speed breaking up ice linemates in tow or even able to head man in open ice. Such a difference.
Valiquette made a lot of interesting comments last night in PG in the course of commenting on Devils' difficulties in their own end, in goal, etc., even as NJD are as dangerous as anyone in attacking rush (w/o Meier). He noted that last year NYR were top 5 on the offensive rush but bottom 1/4th vs defensive rush. This year it's flipped, they're top 5 in the latter but bottom 1/3rd or so in the former, arguably more important come games later in season. Think a critical part of that turn around is the forwards' buying in to backchecking.
Plain to see that Kappo is struggling offensively, but he's got one more goal this season than Zib.
The one negative is the 5v5 play of the first line
I don’t want to be a whiny ass but this line has been a big disappointment the first 15 games.
Still a lot of season left for them to start producing some offense.
Valiquette is employed by the Rangers, the fact he says calls are going against the team carries zero weight to me (a non-fan) for you fans sure it's confirmation bias he tells you what you think is true and want to believe to be true (it's clearly impossible the calls were right and just happened to go against the Rangers /s). That was why I compared him to Jack Edwards. Yes they have different roles and different levels of offensiveness but both are employed by their team and are unlikely to say things counter to the teams interests. I don't care how great you think he is or if he sometimes offers critiques of the team play it doesn't matter to me if he thinks calls more often than not go against them.
My comment was simply saying if a 3rd party unaffiliated source tells me the Rangers are on the short-end of calls and it's legitimate than I put some credence to it. Sorry, not sorry.
And 1 of the 2 calls the OP was braying about was a legit rule that apparently most of you did not know, as I mentioned in my response.
And lastly, I always agree the NHL refereeing and review process is wildly inconsistent - for all teams - but I do not believe there is a league wide conspiracy to force calls to go against the Rangers any time its close. You can all believe that - if that's what Valiquette hinted at - since many of you seem to believe it already.
the refs are now instructed to call any marginal plays that could be majors as majors even if they're not sure because it allows them to review it.
So the hit on Lindgren (which I did not see) was very likely called a major so they can review it and confirm it. this is a good rule.
It is 20.6
Quote:
....According to Rule 20.6, "Referees shall review all plays that result in the assessment of any Major Penalty (other than a Major Penalty for Fighting) for the purpose of confirming (or modifying) their original call on the ice. ... Communication between the Situation Room and the On-Ice Officials shall be limited to contact between the appropriate Game Logger in the Situation Room and the Referee to ensure the Referee is receiving any and all video they might request, as well as the appropriate replay angles they may need to review the penalty call. There shall be no other contact or consultation between the On-Ice Official(s) and the NHL Situation Room, or with any other non-game participant. The Referee shall have the following options after video review of his own call: (i) confirming his original Major Penalty call; (ii) reducing his original Major Penalty call to a lesser penalty; or (iii) rescinding the original Major Penalty altogether...
So because a major was called it didn't mean there was a major penalty and Toronto said let's screw the Rangers, it means the ref thought "that hit looked bad" and called the major so he could have access to video review and confirm if it was as bad as he thought. but again to be clear, I did not see the hit. Just offering a different perspective.
Valiquette is employed by the Rangers, the fact he says calls are going against the team carries zero weight to me (a non-fan) for you fans sure it's confirmation bias he tells you what you think is true and want to believe to be true (it's clearly impossible the calls were right and just happened to go against the Rangers /s). That was why I compared him to Jack Edwards. Yes they have different roles and different levels of offensiveness but both are employed by their team and are unlikely to say things counter to the teams interests. I don't care how great you think he is or if he sometimes offers critiques of the team play it doesn't matter to me if he thinks calls more often than not go against them.
My comment was simply saying if a 3rd party unaffiliated source tells me the Rangers are on the short-end of calls and it's legitimate than I put some credence to it. Sorry, not sorry.
And 1 of the 2 calls the OP was braying about was a legit rule that apparently most of you did not know, as I mentioned in my response.
And lastly, I always agree the NHL refereeing and review process is wildly inconsistent - for all teams - but I do not believe there is a league wide conspiracy to force calls to go against the Rangers any time its close. You can all believe that - if that's what Valiquette hinted at - since many of you seem to believe it already.
Jack Edwards is the biggest homer in the NHL. He's an embarrassment, the guy whines more than any announcer in the league. Valiquette doesn't even come close to Edwards.
I've said it a million times and people can disagree if they want
But in my opinion the NHL for all it's faults especially in the PR dept is by far the best most consistently officiated sport of the big 4. The NBA has reached WWE levels. We all know about the NFL issues. MLB and the strike zone almost vary from pitch to pitch. I feel in the last few decades the NHL decided to legislate obstruction out of the game so now pretty much everything is a penalty. They pretty much call it no matter the game/score situation. Sure they make mistakes. They're human. Was the McLeod hit edgy? I guess but I saw it as him aiming to go through the body not the head. If that Trouba hit on Timo in the playoffs was not the head as the primary point of contact there's no way in hell McLeod's hit was a penalty. As a Devils fan I've defended Trouba and his hits a lot as very Stevenesque right on the line. So come on you can't root for him and Trocheck and their styles and then expect to have McLeod called for a penalty there.
talking Rangers, its time to talk about Gabe Perreault.
Many were surprised when he fell to the Rangers last draft with the 23rd overall pick.
He is a freshman at Boston College, and his first 3 weeks have been amazing. Leads the team in scoring with 15 points in the first 10 games (and BC has had a very tough schedule against some of the very best college hockey teams). The other night he won a game with a shootout goal.
He has been named "Rookie of the Week" in 2 of the first three weeks of the season.
Looks like the Rangers have found a right wing with a great future.
So far this season what tickles me most about NYR play--aside from the baguette line--are the team's outlets from its own end: I got so sick and tired under GG watching d-men and the rare backchecking forward send the puck up the wall only to be stuffed, play slowed and more often than not opponent re-set at our BL. So far, our exits, often starting right at or between tops of the circles, go to a forward at speed breaking up ice linemates in tow or even able to head man in open ice. Such a difference.
Valiquette made a lot of interesting comments last night in PG in the course of commenting on Devils' difficulties in their own end, in goal, etc., even as NJD are as dangerous as anyone in attacking rush (w/o Meier). He noted that last year NYR were top 5 on the offensive rush but bottom 1/4th vs defensive rush. This year it's flipped, they're top 5 in the latter but bottom 1/3rd or so in the former, arguably more important come games later in season. Think a critical part of that turn around is the forwards' buying in to backchecking.
Plain to see that Kappo is struggling offensively, but he's got one more goal this season than Zib.
We talked about this a bit in the off-season, but team speed and playing fast are much different concepts. Rangers are playing fast without a ton of blazers.
a coach makes a difference there's this from Panarin about his fast start to the season:
“Except I did more work over the summer. That’s probably not because of me, the coach gave me a conditioning [program]. I disagree with him, but I still do it.”
Comparing anyone to Jack Edwards is fighting words. Saying a homer announcer is like Jack Edwards is like saying all meat eaters are Jeffrey Dahmer.
Fair, maybe Edwards wasn't the right choice, the point, however stands that Valiquette works for the team and he has a natural bias to protect his employment and until a 3rd party validates for me the Rangers are getting "hosed" I think they're like every franchise who thinks the league and the refs are out to get them.
both gripes on this thread were wrong. you could maybe argue the McLeod hit was a minor penalty, maybe, but its still borderline and from the sounds on here I expected something much worse.
I get it fans are fans.
Agree with PJ on one point but disagree on another
On the refs, I do not in any way believe that refs or Toronto are out to screw the Rangers. To me, when i saw the replay and the puck roll in behind Igor that was absolutely a good goal. And that was before I knew the rule. Just think of it as how you would feel if that was a Ranger goal, then most fans would agree that is a goal. By the way, I heard Valiquette in between periods and he did not suggest any conspiracy theory against the Rangers. He just did not know the rule and was relying on the whistle having been blown.
As to the McLeod hit I initially thought it was a penalty maybe not a major. When I looked at replay, I could understand the reversal.
So on those points I agree with PJ who is usually on the money for hockey issues. Where I disagree is his portrayal of Valiquette. The comparison to the other guy is way off base IMO. Valiquette is defintely no more of a homer than any other announcer and does offer a lot of interesting insights. I think Micheletti is far worse. Never utters a bad word or honest critique about any Ranger.
RE: Agree with PJ on one point but disagree on another
...I think Micheletti is far worse. Never utters a bad word or honest critique about any Ranger.
Not true. Is he a homer? Sure, no more than Sam. But Joe's speed of insight is nearly peerless, more so than most of NHL Network and on par with CBC network guys (Brian is ok but he's not usually in the run of play as is Joe). He doesn't get on a soap box in Hyde Park. He'll praise Fox for ~ pedestrian plays (homer) and note in the next breath that Fox turned it over inside his own end; same with Laf last night, as he tried to pinch at far boards/BL but didn't keep it in and Devils then went on a 2 on 1 semi-break that Igor saved. Nicoletti is matter of fact about Rangers' mistakes, but he doesn't bury them, imo cig.
...We talked about this a bit in the off-season, but team speed and playing fast are much different concepts. Rangers are playing fast without a ton of blazers.
Excellent parse, Brett.
RE: RE: Agree with PJ on one point but disagree on another
...I think Micheletti is far worse. Never utters a bad word or honest critique about any Ranger.
Not true. Is he a homer? Sure, no more than Sam. But Joe's speed of insight is nearly peerless, more so than most of NHL Network and on par with CBC network guys (Brian is ok but he's not usually in the run of play as is Joe). He doesn't get on a soap box in Hyde Park. He'll praise Fox for ~ pedestrian plays (homer) and note in the next breath that Fox turned it over inside his own end; same with Laf last night, as he tried to pinch at far boards/BL but didn't keep it in and Devils then went on a 2 on 1 semi-break that Igor saved. Nicoletti is matter of fact about Rangers' mistakes, but he doesn't bury them, imo cig.
My one criticism of Micheletti is he’s often too vanilla or falls victim to stating the obvious. Almost as if he’s rehearsing or showcasing for another broadcast network role which we often see him in during the post season.
Otherwise, he’s the perfect straight man so to speak to Sam. As opposed to Daneyko who dominates the air and just won’t shut up!
RE: RE: RE: Agree with PJ on one point but disagree on another
...My one criticism of Micheletti is he’s often too vanilla or falls victim to stating the obvious. Almost as if he’s rehearsing or showcasing for another broadcast network role which we often see him in during the post season.
Otherwise, he’s the perfect straight man so to speak to Sam. As opposed to Daneyko who dominates the air and just won’t shut up!
True, and at the same time, Sam leaves him a lot of air time to fill.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Agree with PJ on one point but disagree on another
...My one criticism of Micheletti is he’s often too vanilla or falls victim to stating the obvious. Almost as if he’s rehearsing or showcasing for another broadcast network role which we often see him in during the post season.
Otherwise, he’s the perfect straight man so to speak to Sam. As opposed to Daneyko who dominates the air and just won’t shut up!
True, and at the same time, Sam leaves him a lot of air time to fill.
Agreed. They’re very complimentary and it’s obvious they have a great deal of respect for one another during the broadcast.
The play by play weasel on the NJD broadcast defers entirely too much to the loquacious and blusterous, Daneyko.
...We talked about this a bit in the off-season, but team speed and playing fast are much different concepts. Rangers are playing fast without a ton of blazers.
Excellent parse, Brett.
A structured system can do wonders. They have one now.
if the refs blow the whistle but the puck was going in and their blowing the whistle didn't impact the play the goal counts.
rule 37:
"...if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck..."
If there's an ambiguity or a tough call, it's guaranteed to go against the Rangers.
Quote:
just make the correct calls.
If there's an ambiguity or a tough call, it's guaranteed to go against the Rangers.
I'm sure every team feels this way.
in the Canadiens Bruins game last Saturday I saw a Bruins goal waived off due to goalie interference that was probably the weakest GI I have ever seen.
Of course I was ok with it just to hear Jack Edwards whine, but there is no rhyme or reason to it IMO.
In this case the first call in the OP is very likely the rule that some people may not know.
Quote:
In comment 16293496 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
just make the correct calls.
If there's an ambiguity or a tough call, it's guaranteed to go against the Rangers.
I'm sure every team feels this way.
in the Canadiens Bruins game last Saturday I saw a Bruins goal waived off due to goalie interference that was probably the weakest GI I have ever seen.
Dwight King did more...
Valiquette is just about the Rangers Jack Edwards, what do you expect.
If Elliotte Friedman says it then I'd give it some credibility.
I did think that hit on Lindgren warranted a penalty, and was a clearer penalty than any of the non-calls on Rangers.
It is rank incompetence to apply rules so inconsistently, especially with the benefit of replay review.
He's been incredible...and Vesey what a play!
What can you said about Bread that hasn’t already been said?!
I know each fan thinks their broadcast team is the best and we Rangers fans have a terrific team both in the booth and studio but the Devils broadcast team is just plain dreadful!
What’s the point of having anyone on the booth with the hoarse voiced babbling dope, Daneyko!
If he can stay healthy, he will be an all time great when it's said and done. I fear for him because he's not a big guy. Man he's fun to watch.
And Kakko...yeah, I'm pretty much done with him
The discrepancy in offensive skill between Hughes and Kakko is like the discrepancy in looks between Megan Fox and Rosie O'Donnell.
Quote:
In comment 16293496 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
just make the correct calls.
If there's an ambiguity or a tough call, it's guaranteed to go against the Rangers.
I'm sure every team feels this way.
in the Canadiens Bruins game last Saturday I saw a Bruins goal waived off due to goalie interference that was probably the weakest GI I have ever seen.
Of course I was ok with it just to hear Jack Edwards whine, but there is no rhyme or reason to it IMO.
In this case the first call in the OP is very likely the rule that some people may not know.
The calls against them must be like 8-2 this year from Toronto many of them suspect. The calls for them were a blatant puck not crossing the goal line against Columbus and the other one I don't remember. It might be bad luck mixed in with some incomptence but I'm starting to buy the conspiracy theory that this is Gary's revenge for the letter calling out the league for their Tom Wilson ruling.
Quote:
I'm sure, but having seen almost every Rangers game for a very long time, I can tell you that calls RARELY and I mean RARELY go our way. It's ridiculous. Valiquette said as much last broadcast.
Valiquette is just about the Rangers Jack Edwards, what do you expect.
If Elliotte Friedman says it then I'd give it some credibility.
Even if he's a homer comparing Valiquette to Jack Edwards might be the most assinine thing I've ever heard. Valiquette actually adds a ton of stats and knowledge and calls the Rangers out (usually) when they're playing poorly and doesn't say borderline offensive things on air over and over again. Vailquette is not any more of a homer than any home town analyst and is literally the best analyst I've ever seen doing any sport with the amount of knowledge and stats that he shares as well as the personality that he brings. Comparing him to that clown Jack Edwards is hilariously ignorant.
What can you said about Bread that hasn’t already been said?!
I know each fan thinks their broadcast team is the best and we Rangers fans have a terrific team both in the booth and studio but the Devils broadcast team is just plain dreadful!
What’s the point of having anyone on the booth with the hoarse voiced babbling dope, Daneyko!
I like Daneyko. He's a homer but not to the extent that Chico was. I don't mind their play by play guy. It's Bryce Salvador that I can't stand. The guy has the personality of a potato. He was barely a Devil. Why can't they find someone better? Even Thomas Hickey for the Islanders is better.
The NHL needs to fix this.
Today's Hughes goal was the right call, I just didn't know the rule.
Twitter - ( New Window )
He was very good last night.
Quote:
In comment 16293504 Anakim said:
Quote:
I'm sure, but having seen almost every Rangers game for a very long time, I can tell you that calls RARELY and I mean RARELY go our way. It's ridiculous. Valiquette said as much last broadcast.
Valiquette is just about the Rangers Jack Edwards, what do you expect.
If Elliotte Friedman says it then I'd give it some credibility.
Even if he's a homer comparing Valiquette to Jack Edwards might be the most assinine thing I've ever heard. Valiquette actually adds a ton of stats and knowledge and calls the Rangers out (usually) when they're playing poorly and doesn't say borderline offensive things on air over and over again. Vailquette is not any more of a homer than any home town analyst and is literally the best analyst I've ever seen doing any sport with the amount of knowledge and stats that he shares as well as the personality that he brings. Comparing him to that clown Jack Edwards is hilariously ignorant.
Couldn’t agree more.
Sure, Valiquette is employed by MSG but he’s also the President & CEO of Clear Sight Analytics and brings such a great perspective to each and every broadcast that I don’t know you can get just anywhere.
Edwards is by far the biggest homer and douche you’d ever want to hear as a so-called professional broadcaster representing a professional organization. There have been a number of documented on-air incidents that he’s been involved in over the years that to draw such a comparison between the two is so embarrassingly far off base.
He’s also a massive upgrade over Ron Duguay, it isn’t even close.
It was he who was lobbying intensely to ship out of town Trochek's and Laf's asses, just sayin' (: Plain to see that KK continues to struggle producing offensively, confidence lags and nags if not as a 200' defensive forward. But Rangers didn't have the option to select Hughes, but some others farther down, maybe a different story
The NHL needs to fix this.
Today's Hughes goal was the right call, I just didn't know the rule. Twitter - ( New Window )
Brett, when I saw that yesterday, I couldn't convince myself that the whole puck clearly crossed the line, whereas with Cuylle's, I could.
Valiquette made a lot of interesting comments last night in PG in the course of commenting on Devils' difficulties in their own end, in goal, etc., even as NJD are as dangerous as anyone in attacking rush (w/o Meier). He noted that last year NYR were top 5 on the offensive rush but bottom 1/4th vs defensive rush. This year it's flipped, they're top 5 in the latter but bottom 1/3rd or so in the former, arguably more important come games later in season. Think a critical part of that turn around is the forwards' buying in to backchecking.
Plain to see that Kappo is struggling offensively, but he's got one more goal this season than Zib.
Still a lot of season left for them to start producing some offense.
Valiquette is employed by the Rangers, the fact he says calls are going against the team carries zero weight to me (a non-fan) for you fans sure it's confirmation bias he tells you what you think is true and want to believe to be true (it's clearly impossible the calls were right and just happened to go against the Rangers /s). That was why I compared him to Jack Edwards. Yes they have different roles and different levels of offensiveness but both are employed by their team and are unlikely to say things counter to the teams interests. I don't care how great you think he is or if he sometimes offers critiques of the team play it doesn't matter to me if he thinks calls more often than not go against them.
My comment was simply saying if a 3rd party unaffiliated source tells me the Rangers are on the short-end of calls and it's legitimate than I put some credence to it. Sorry, not sorry.
And 1 of the 2 calls the OP was braying about was a legit rule that apparently most of you did not know, as I mentioned in my response.
And lastly, I always agree the NHL refereeing and review process is wildly inconsistent - for all teams - but I do not believe there is a league wide conspiracy to force calls to go against the Rangers any time its close. You can all believe that - if that's what Valiquette hinted at - since many of you seem to believe it already.
the refs are now instructed to call any marginal plays that could be majors as majors even if they're not sure because it allows them to review it.
So the hit on Lindgren (which I did not see) was very likely called a major so they can review it and confirm it. this is a good rule.
It is 20.6
So because a major was called it didn't mean there was a major penalty and Toronto said let's screw the Rangers, it means the ref thought "that hit looked bad" and called the major so he could have access to video review and confirm if it was as bad as he thought. but again to be clear, I did not see the hit. Just offering a different perspective.
Valiquette is employed by the Rangers, the fact he says calls are going against the team carries zero weight to me (a non-fan) for you fans sure it's confirmation bias he tells you what you think is true and want to believe to be true (it's clearly impossible the calls were right and just happened to go against the Rangers /s). That was why I compared him to Jack Edwards. Yes they have different roles and different levels of offensiveness but both are employed by their team and are unlikely to say things counter to the teams interests. I don't care how great you think he is or if he sometimes offers critiques of the team play it doesn't matter to me if he thinks calls more often than not go against them.
My comment was simply saying if a 3rd party unaffiliated source tells me the Rangers are on the short-end of calls and it's legitimate than I put some credence to it. Sorry, not sorry.
And 1 of the 2 calls the OP was braying about was a legit rule that apparently most of you did not know, as I mentioned in my response.
And lastly, I always agree the NHL refereeing and review process is wildly inconsistent - for all teams - but I do not believe there is a league wide conspiracy to force calls to go against the Rangers any time its close. You can all believe that - if that's what Valiquette hinted at - since many of you seem to believe it already.
Jack Edwards is the biggest homer in the NHL. He's an embarrassment, the guy whines more than any announcer in the league. Valiquette doesn't even come close to Edwards.
People wanted that, especially after review, to be a major.
I'm out, this thread is glorious.
Many were surprised when he fell to the Rangers last draft with the 23rd overall pick.
He is a freshman at Boston College, and his first 3 weeks have been amazing. Leads the team in scoring with 15 points in the first 10 games (and BC has had a very tough schedule against some of the very best college hockey teams). The other night he won a game with a shootout goal.
He has been named "Rookie of the Week" in 2 of the first three weeks of the season.
Looks like the Rangers have found a right wing with a great future.
People wanted that, especially after review, to be a major.
I'm out, this thread is glorious.
It’s fine to conclude it wasn’t a major, but if you looked and that and thought it wasn’t even a minor penalty, then we’ll have to disagree.
Valiquette made a lot of interesting comments last night in PG in the course of commenting on Devils' difficulties in their own end, in goal, etc., even as NJD are as dangerous as anyone in attacking rush (w/o Meier). He noted that last year NYR were top 5 on the offensive rush but bottom 1/4th vs defensive rush. This year it's flipped, they're top 5 in the latter but bottom 1/3rd or so in the former, arguably more important come games later in season. Think a critical part of that turn around is the forwards' buying in to backchecking.
Plain to see that Kappo is struggling offensively, but he's got one more goal this season than Zib.
We talked about this a bit in the off-season, but team speed and playing fast are much different concepts. Rangers are playing fast without a ton of blazers.
“Except I did more work over the summer. That’s probably not because of me, the coach gave me a conditioning [program]. I disagree with him, but I still do it.”
Fair, maybe Edwards wasn't the right choice, the point, however stands that Valiquette works for the team and he has a natural bias to protect his employment and until a 3rd party validates for me the Rangers are getting "hosed" I think they're like every franchise who thinks the league and the refs are out to get them.
both gripes on this thread were wrong. you could maybe argue the McLeod hit was a minor penalty, maybe, but its still borderline and from the sounds on here I expected something much worse.
I get it fans are fans.
On the refs, I do not in any way believe that refs or Toronto are out to screw the Rangers. To me, when i saw the replay and the puck roll in behind Igor that was absolutely a good goal. And that was before I knew the rule. Just think of it as how you would feel if that was a Ranger goal, then most fans would agree that is a goal. By the way, I heard Valiquette in between periods and he did not suggest any conspiracy theory against the Rangers. He just did not know the rule and was relying on the whistle having been blown.
As to the McLeod hit I initially thought it was a penalty maybe not a major. When I looked at replay, I could understand the reversal.
So on those points I agree with PJ who is usually on the money for hockey issues. Where I disagree is his portrayal of Valiquette. The comparison to the other guy is way off base IMO. Valiquette is defintely no more of a homer than any other announcer and does offer a lot of interesting insights. I think Micheletti is far worse. Never utters a bad word or honest critique about any Ranger.
Not true. Is he a homer? Sure, no more than Sam. But Joe's speed of insight is nearly peerless, more so than most of NHL Network and on par with CBC network guys (Brian is ok but he's not usually in the run of play as is Joe). He doesn't get on a soap box in Hyde Park. He'll praise Fox for ~ pedestrian plays (homer) and note in the next breath that Fox turned it over inside his own end; same with Laf last night, as he tried to pinch at far boards/BL but didn't keep it in and Devils then went on a 2 on 1 semi-break that Igor saved. Nicoletti is matter of fact about Rangers' mistakes, but he doesn't bury them, imo cig.
Excellent parse, Brett.
Quote:
...I think Micheletti is far worse. Never utters a bad word or honest critique about any Ranger.
Not true. Is he a homer? Sure, no more than Sam. But Joe's speed of insight is nearly peerless, more so than most of NHL Network and on par with CBC network guys (Brian is ok but he's not usually in the run of play as is Joe). He doesn't get on a soap box in Hyde Park. He'll praise Fox for ~ pedestrian plays (homer) and note in the next breath that Fox turned it over inside his own end; same with Laf last night, as he tried to pinch at far boards/BL but didn't keep it in and Devils then went on a 2 on 1 semi-break that Igor saved. Nicoletti is matter of fact about Rangers' mistakes, but he doesn't bury them, imo cig.
My one criticism of Micheletti is he’s often too vanilla or falls victim to stating the obvious. Almost as if he’s rehearsing or showcasing for another broadcast network role which we often see him in during the post season.
Otherwise, he’s the perfect straight man so to speak to Sam. As opposed to Daneyko who dominates the air and just won’t shut up!
Otherwise, he’s the perfect straight man so to speak to Sam. As opposed to Daneyko who dominates the air and just won’t shut up!
True, and at the same time, Sam leaves him a lot of air time to fill.
Quote:
...My one criticism of Micheletti is he’s often too vanilla or falls victim to stating the obvious. Almost as if he’s rehearsing or showcasing for another broadcast network role which we often see him in during the post season.
Otherwise, he’s the perfect straight man so to speak to Sam. As opposed to Daneyko who dominates the air and just won’t shut up!
True, and at the same time, Sam leaves him a lot of air time to fill.
Agreed. They’re very complimentary and it’s obvious they have a great deal of respect for one another during the broadcast.
The play by play weasel on the NJD broadcast defers entirely too much to the loquacious and blusterous, Daneyko.
Quote:
...We talked about this a bit in the off-season, but team speed and playing fast are much different concepts. Rangers are playing fast without a ton of blazers.
Excellent parse, Brett.
A structured system can do wonders. They have one now.