Smitty Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Well, one thing is that I won't be the "Flames hater" that cowers if I am wrong. So I am shopping right now for a 2 course meal consisting of crow flambe and banana cream humble pie. You can (1) make me eat the latter or (2) just throw it at me. So it looks like the Flames have muscled their way into contention; good for them I say. Sucks being a massive underachiever. Having said that, I will stick one of my earlier posts. It will be dangerous for this team to make the playoffs and get bounced in the 1st round. That would mean (1) their draft pick still sucks relatively to the top 5 (2) the weren't able to capitalize on very much extra playoff revenue and (3) a playoff run may delude management that a rebuild is unnecessary: they're an old team; they better win sooner than later. BTW, congratulations on what looks to have been a very successful Heritage Classic! I taped the game; looks like it was a lot of fun, and unlike the Oiler's version, the home team won. The league should have a Heritage Classic every year or two years at the most. They're quite an awesome spectacle. But please, dear God, someone tell the Flames management to incinerate those God-awful Ronald McDonald costumes posing as uniforms. I was aghast for you guys! Smitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Well, one thing is that I won't be the "Flames hater" that cowers if I am wrong. So I am shopping right now for a 2 course meal consisting of crow flambe and banana cream humble pie. You can (1) make me eat the latter or (2) just throw it at me. So it looks like the Flames have muscled their way into contention; good for them I say. Sucks being a massive underachiever. Having said that, I will stick one of my earlier posts. It will be dangerous for this team to make the playoffs and get bounced in the 1st round. That would mean (1) their draft pick still sucks relatively to the top 5 (2) the weren't able to capitalize on very much extra playoff revenue and (3) a playoff run may delude management that a rebuild is unnecessary: they're an old team; they better win sooner than later. BTW, congratulations on what looks to have been a very successful Heritage Classic! I taped the game; looks like it was a lot of fun, and unlike the Oiler's version, the home team won. The league should have a Heritage Classic every year or two years at the most. They're quite an awesome spectacle. But please, dear God, someone tell the Flames management to incinerate those God-awful Ronald McDonald costumes posing as uniforms. I was aghast for you guys! Smitty the flames were knocking on the playoff door when you posted this smitty. since then they have kicked that door down and are looking like a seriuos headache for whomever they draw in the first round(man I hope its the Nucks). dont want to get too carried away, but its starting to feel a little like 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbow Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 anyone got any coffin nails?.....looking like we may need to use them.....3 losses in a row.....damn 10 days ago i was certain they'd make it to the playoffs but it's looking a bit grim right now....may need 8/10 to get there and that might not even be enough if the ducks or preds go on there own win streak.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 the flames were knocking on the playoff door when you posted this smitty. since then they have kicked that door down and are looking like a seriuos headache for whomever they draw in the first round(man I hope its the Nucks). dont want to get too carried away, but its starting to feel a little like 2004. Yak, you don't understand - so I'll correct you - I was referencing an earlier post to this from Jan. 16th when Flames were like 13th or 14th place in the conference; they most certainly were not "knocking" on the door. As for getting carried away, I'll let the 3 recent losses speak for themselves. Still in 8th, but which direction are the Flames headed for? Smitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whataniceguy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The stripes stole another from us. You cant shorthand a team for the last 4 minutes of a game on questionable calls it BS. Exactly like the last time, then a penalty shot in overtime on a play were Staios clearly tried playing the puck, meanwhile Gio is bleeding out his eye from highstick that went unseen by anyone, sickening!! Refs should lose there jobs for affecting the outcome of game slike that F%$king BULLS*&T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrinhurst Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The stripes stole another from us. You cant shorthand a team for the last 4 minutes of a game on questionable calls it BS. Exactly like the last time, then a penalty shot in overtime on a play were Staios clearly tried playing the puck, meanwhile Gio is bleeding out his eye from highstick that went unseen by anyone, sickening!! Refs should lose there jobs for affecting the outcome of game slike that F%$king BULLS*&T. Didn't see the Gio play, but I did see the Staios play. That was the RIGHT call. I won't say that it should have been a penalty shot, but he should have had the penalty regardless. Sure Staios "tried" to play the puck, but he didn't. Didn't even touch it. Had he touched it, then there would have been no call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbow Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 i think the penalty shot in ot was the correct call. even if staios is playing the puck he didn't hit it so it's a penalty, i'm sure that's the rule. however, the hooking calls on regehr and stajan were a joke. each time the flame player just lifted the stick and didn't touch the ducks player's hands. and the interference on bourque was questionable as he was in a physical match with the ducks player in front of the net well before the penalty call. their battle just happened to move to the side of the net near the play - the defenceman was not going to leave bourque uncovered in front of the net to chase the puck carrier. you hate to see to ppg on questionable calls in such an important game. of course the whack to gio's head in ot, which appeared to occur pretty close to the ref, should have been a 4 min pp for the flames. tough loss but you can't spot the other team 3 goals in less than 4 mins to start the game on the road when you're trying to make the playoffs.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whataniceguy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 i think the penalty shot in ot was the correct call. even if staios is playing the puck he didn't hit it so it's a penalty, i'm sure that's the rule. however, the hooking calls on regehr and stajan were a joke. each time the flame player just lifted the stick and didn't touch the ducks player's hands. and the interference on bourque was questionable as he was in a physical match with the ducks player in front of the net well before the penalty call. their battle just happened to move to the side of the net near the play - the defenceman was not going to leave bourque uncovered in front of the net to chase the puck carrier. you hate to see to ppg on questionable calls in such an important game. of course the whack to gio's head in ot, which appeared to occur pretty close to the ref, should have been a 4 min pp for the flames. tough loss but you can't spot the other team 3 goals in less than 4 mins to start the game on the road when you're trying to make the playoffs.... Dude, that penalty shot was facking joke, he clearly was playing the puck. Dive, swipe and then puck carrier cuts to the net and trips over a sliding defencman, JOKE! the refs took that game from us, regardless of the three quick goals the Flames got their shat together and came back like a team should do instead of packing it at the 6 minute mark of the 1st period. The bad calls from the refs jst make the comeback that much more painful for all involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whataniceguy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Didn't see the Gio play, but I did see the Staios play. That was the RIGHT call. I won't say that it should have been a penalty shot, but he should have had the penalty regardless. Sure Staios "tried" to play the puck, but he didn't. Didn't even touch it. Had he touched it, then there would have been no call. bullshat dude, when a puck carrier cuts to the net and trips over a sliding defenceman its not tripping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Din Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 bullshat dude, when a puck carrier cuts to the net and trips over a sliding defenceman its not tripping. Have you ever watched hockey before?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 bullshat dude, when a puck carrier cuts to the net and trips over a sliding defenceman its not tripping. not true. check the rules. if staios had contacted the puck FIRST, and then took the legs out from the ducks player its no penalty. Unfortunately that was not the case as staios clearly dumped the player long before his stick touched the puck ( intent is immaterial). That being said, he had a good angle on the player so it should have been just a 2 minute penalty ( again check the letter of the rule regarding penalty shots). The penalty i had a hard time with was Bourques. They were both hacking and whacking each other and the ref decides to tag just Rene. Iffy call at best ,but bourque should have known better with a one goal lead and 3 minutes to play. Add that to Nashvilles miracle comeback and things are looking a little bleak. They still have a chance but need 6 wins in their last 8 to get it done ( to bad we only have 2 games against the oilers left) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishinhogdaddy Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 As a Ref for 30+ years, the above was correct. IF he would have hit the puck BEFORE taking down the player , it IS no penalty. Now, trying to explain the other two calls at the end of the third, I have no idea how someone can get a penalty for hooking with his stick on the ice. TO ME THOSE TWO PENALTIES WERE AS BRUTAL AS I"VE SEEN THIS YEAR. AND IN A ONE GOAL GAME!! LET THE PLAYERS DECIDE THE GAME. FHD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrinhurst Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 bullshat dude, when a puck carrier cuts to the net and trips over a sliding defenceman its not tripping. Clearly, you were watching the game with rose coloured glasses on. He was in the process of going to the net, and Staios took out his feet! He didn't even argue the call. He knew he didn't touch the puck or play it at all, took out his feet and tripped him. I'd make that same call every single time. You don't touch the puck, you get called. Penalty. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Clearly, you were watching the game with rose coloured glasses on. He was in the process of going to the net, and Staios took out his feet! He didn't even argue the call. He knew he didn't touch the puck or play it at all, took out his feet and tripped him. I'd make that same call every single time. You don't touch the puck, you get called. Penalty. Period. A Valiant effort, very valiant indeed FNG. But I've given up the ghost on trying to convince these ostriches -oops, I meant Flames fans - who is responsible for the Flames current place in the standings. Best you quit before Hawgstoppah weighs in. For example, I just glossed over the recent comments, but it would appear no one is willing to point a finger at the goaltending that let in 3 goals in the 1st 5 minutes. Smitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrinhurst Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 A Valiant effort, very valiant indeed FNG. But I've given up the ghost on trying to convince these ostriches -oops, I meant Flames fans - who is responsible for the Flames current place in the standings. Best you quite before Hawgstoppah weighs in. For example, I just glossed over the recent comments, but it would appear no one is willing to point a finger at the goaltending that let in 3 goals in the 1st 5 minutes. Smitty I've said my piece. I think I'm done with the topic for now. Don't even get me started on the "only two games left against the Oilers" comment. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbow Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 For example, I just glossed over the recent comments, but it would appear no one is willing to point a finger at the goaltending that let in 3 goals in the 1st 5 minutes. you're right.....kipper was not on his game NOR was the rest of the team....they were standing around for the first 5 mins before they pulled it together.....the old didn't play a full 60 mins of hockey problem.....as i said regardless of questionable penalties you can't start a game like that when you're fighting for your playoff lives.......no question that overall the team just wasn't that good this year even with the scoring coming from different players for a change..... pretty sure it's over now. too bad about the injuries to morrison and moss at a rather inopportune time. would have been good to see the team pull off a playoff position after rallying together in december but c'est la vie.....at least i won't be spending time watching the first round of the playoffs this year (again).....and maybe not many other rounds either..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birchy Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Let's put these two awesome quotes together and see what happens.. Whoever posted that Chara new it was there and ran him into on purpose needs to go back to not knowing anything about hockey and go back to fishing your triple San Juan Worm rig/ dredging tool! bullshat dude, when a puck carrier cuts to the net and trips over a sliding defenceman its not tripping. WINNING! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbow Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 he had a good angle on the player so it should have been just a 2 minute penalty ( again check the letter of the rule regarding penalty shots). ok you made me look (ok i just googled it). don't you think all 4 criteria were met on the penalty so that a penalty shot should have been awarded? Following is from the nhl rule book online: "There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for the Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from behind. They are: (i) The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line); (ii) The infraction must have been committed from behind; (iii) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded); (iv) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper." can't recall the play exactly but it seems to me that all 4 were met. which one(s) do you think weren't met? just curious as i said right at the time of the call penalty shot (even though admittedly didn't know the rules except for (iii)). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanJuanWorm Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 What's the difference between the flames and a woman's bra? A bra has 2 cups Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birchy Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 What's the difference between the flames and a woman's bra? A bra has 2 cups Well played sir.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 ok you made me look (ok i just googled it). don't you think all 4 criteria were met on the penalty so that a penalty shot should have been awarded? Following is from the nhl rule book online: "There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for the Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from behind. They are: (i) The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line); (ii) The infraction must have been committed from behind; (iii) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded); (iv) The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper." can't recall the play exactly but it seems to me that all 4 were met. which one(s) do you think weren't met? just curious as i said right at the time of the call penalty shot (even though admittedly didn't know the rules except for (iii)). no, based on the "angle" i referred to criterium number 2 wasnt met. If a guy takes a guy down from directly behind him then its a penalty shot. Staios came at him slightly from the side (hence the good angle on the opposition player) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yak Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Well played sir.. I believe groucho marx used this joke to open his monologues in the 1930s. ps. why do geese fly upside down over edmonton. theres nothing worth sh#ting on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Well that was close; no crow or humble pie for me! More seriously, what do you Flames fans think? Salvage this team's roster, build from what you have and give it another go, or blow it up like the Oilers and start over? Smitty P.S. I'll also congratulate the Flame-outs for taking my advice for finishing in the worst possible non-playoff draft position. Well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigalcal Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 the Flames will be worse next year in my opinion. They have 11 players with no trade clauses and they will have to sign Tanguay, Morrison and Glencross who deserve double what they make now. See this site for details http://www.capgeek.com/charts.php?Team=9 This year they flirted with the salary cap and they didn't include Langkow's hit as he was injured all season. In other words, unless players waive there no trade clause and the UFA'S decide to play here for less than their deserved value, Flames fans are left with the mess Darryl Sutlter left behind. The farm has nothing as well. The Flames have drafted poorly and have only 2 players that they have drafted on their current roster, actually 4 if you want to include Nemisz and Bouma. Sorry Flames fans.....you are gonna be stuck with a loser for a while....well next year for sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbow Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 yeah i think we've got a lot of trouble.....need to bust the team up if you can with the stupid contracts that sutter handed out over the years.....i think iginla is a great player and i like him a lot on our team but they should have traded him this year while he has value or at least in the off season prior to the draft but he'll only go where he wants to go not to a low finishing team with no future.....and others too.....hard to believe that there's 11 players on the flames with no trade clauses.....usually think of those as only for "stars" and there sure as hell ain't 11 stars on the flames.....big sigh....i think we've got at least couple years of frustration yet to go...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.