Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: kcarrera and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS
Posted at 3:08 PM ET, 12/ 3/2010

More from Bruce Boudreau on coach's challenge

By Katie Carrera

Bruce Boudreau addressed the washed out would-be tying goal from last night's 2-1 loss in Dallas and how he believes a coach's challenge would remedy such situations and help the NHL get more calls right this afternoon at KCI.

Here's video of the washed out goal, including several replay angles (H/T Puck Daddy):

The announcement made in the American Airlines Center last night for the no-goal was that a player (Alex Ovechkin) was in the crease. Whether that was the cause of the referee's call or the incidental contact, according to the NHL rulebook neither play is reviewable.

Rule 38.4 lists the situations subject to review by the video goal judge, which include:


  • Whether the puck crossed the goal line.

  • If the puck was in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged.

  • If the puck entered the net before time expired in a period.

  • Whether the puck was directed into the net by a hand or foot, and subsequently if it was done so with a "distinct kicking motion".

  • If the puck was deflected directly in to the net by an official.

  • If the puck was hit by a high-stick -- defined as above the cross bar -- by an attacking player.

  • To determine the correct time on the official game clock.

  • Or to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of a potential goal, defined as making sure the puck did not enter the net through the meshing or underneath the goal frame.

So in the case of this goal, what Boudreau discussed today is his hope to one day have a coach's challenge where officials would review that washed out goal to determine if it should stand or not.

"It might only happen a half a dozen times a year but those half a dozen times a year could be very important in the overall end of the scheme of things, which is why I think they should have a coaches challenge," Boudreau said. "For example, if it is a goal [considered] un-reviewable to the league, an un-reviewable call, maybe this would be an exception to the rule where you could challenge it.

"The good referees in our league, or what I classify as the real good referees, they come up and they admit that they made a mistake," Boudreau continued. "That's fine. We're all going to make mistakes as refs and coaches and players, but I think the whole idea is to get it right. And if it takes two minutes to get it right I don't think viewers are going to turn off their TVs because the game ended at 9:37 [p.m.] instead of 9:34."

This topic is obviously open to debate, as the suggestion of a coach's challenge has been floated at the league's general managers's meetings and other NHL gatherings but as for now it doesn't appear as though it has gained much traction.

Do you think the NHL would be better off with a coach's challenge, or perhaps making situations like last night's washout reviewable?

By Katie Carrera  | December 3, 2010; 3:08 PM ET
Categories:  Bruce Boudreau  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: First impressions of Scott Hannan
Next: Semyon Varlamov to start against Thrashers

Comments

It shouldn't even be a "coaches' challenge". Any goal like this should be reviewed. I've seen them review goals for no apparent reason. Make the call on the ice, then review and see if it was the right call.

And no, not every goal. But 7 seconds left and ties the game? You THINK someone was in the crease? Possibly interference? Make the call and go review it.

I've seen them take 5 plus minutes for no apparent reason (other than it involved Crosby)

Posted by: Vekx | December 3, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Watching Ovy lately has been hard. Last night may have been the worst yet. Hopefully, he snaps out of it during this homestand.

Posted by: underpants2 | December 3, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I would like to see a " coaches' challenge" implemented in the NHL similar to the NFL. Since 'timeouts' aren't as important in the NHL as they are in the NFL, I would think they could maybe give the challenging team a bench minor if their challenge was not overturned, and limit it to one challenge per game.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Any washed out goal that occurs within the final minute of a period should be automatically reviewed and verified without a challenge. Any goal in the entire game should be challengable by the coach (limit two challenges per game) and if the call stands, the challenging coach should be issued a bench minor for delay of game.

Posted by: sabredc | December 3, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

This seems like a very good idea. They clearly got this one wrong so why not provide a vehicle to fix it.

Posted by: hateisnotafamilyvalue | December 3, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

What are some of you on here smoking? Ovechkin is third in NHL in points at the moment, and everyone is acting as if he is in a slump? For a guy who consistently plays well season in and out, it's funny some people consider a guy who is third in points and is captain of one of the NHL's top team to be struggling. I guess everyone is used to him being the leading point scorer or goal scorer.

Posted by: hockeynightincanada | December 3, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

What are some of you on here smoking? Ovechkin is third in NHL in points at the moment, and everyone is acting as if he is in a slump? For a guy who consistently plays well season in and out, it's funny some people consider a guy who is third in points and is captain of one of the NHL's top team to be struggling. I guess everyone is used to him being the leading point scorer or goal scorer.

Posted by: hockeynightincanada | December 3, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

@ hockeynightincanada, I absolutely hate the talk of Ovi cooling, but despite the points Ovi is not performing as he once was. He remains a phenomenal talent and will score more, but he's off. You don't have to be smoking to know that's simply the fact.

Posted by: Justafan | December 3, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I am smoking, but he is still playing bad. He is constantly loosing the puck or fanning.

It's unlike him.

Posted by: underpants2 | December 3, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Ovi is awesome, end of story....that he's in a goal-scoring drought (as are many forwards) and the team hasn't lost a step speaks VOLUMES about this team.

I was thinking about how i'm constantly advocating for Erskine, and it brought me back 25 years ago having similar debates as to who was better: langway or stevens. As you can guess, I was a stevens fan (imo, the best all-round dman to ever don a Caps jersey)....so everything stays the same, only the names change (langway= shultz/alzner.....stevens=erskine)....i might be living in the past somewhat, but i sure hope the future isn't the past revisited

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

IS IT 1997???? Since when did the nhl revert back to disallowing goals for someone in the crease??

Posted by: hockeypunk | December 3, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

hockeynightincanada- I would be smoking the KB if I could but what does that have to do with the question of a coaches challenge?

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

@funkyglovefacewash

beautiful response, you should be living in vermont ;)

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

If the actual explanation for the no-goal decision is that he was in the crease, it seems to go against the NHL's own clearly stated policy:

[A]n attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480

Posted by: edwardeichler | December 3, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why our major sports in America are so far behind. Ever see a televised Rugby match? A ref has an earpiece and mic and the tv judge can overrule a call in seconds, not minutes! Not to mention the audience hears all of it! It's a shame the refs here are turning more into directors trying to build excitement.

Posted by: cappies | December 3, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

cappies:
and if you can picture this in your mind - the rugby ref will sometimes 'draw' a box with his fingers - meaning lets take a look at it on video

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | December 3, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

You all are missing the point of the "non-review." As in the NFL, penalties are always non-reviewable. This goal was washed out, not because there was a question of the puck crossing the line or time-expiring or a kicked puck, but simply because a goaltender interference penalty was called. In order for that goal to have been allowed, the PENALTY would have had to be overturned. The NHL and the NFL do not allow their refs to be questioned in this manner. That happens behind closed doors at referee meetings. And the refs who are decided to have done the best job during the regular season (i.e. the fewest blown calls) get the honor (and additional income) of working the playoffs.

As the NHL works now, EVERY goal is reviewed. Most of them are clear-cut and only need 20 or 30 seconds to determine they are a good goal and the game continues without delay. Every ALMOST goal is also reviewed just in case an on-ice official missed the puck crossing the line. The 1% of the time that play is delayed by the replay booth, it is to make sure the call is correct on a goal due to one of the points listed in the above article. It is NEVER to challenge the legitimacy of a penalty that was called on ice.

IMHO, this type of play will never be reviewable, even with a coach's challenge, as it is questioning a PENALTY call and not a GOAL.

Last point - I do not believe that play should have been called as goaltender interference. It was a bad call, which is a part of all sports.

Posted by: BeninMD | December 3, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"the PENALTY would have had to be overturned"

there was no penalty called on the play. (although BB got a bench minor before play began again)
it was incidental contact/goalie interference - which is basically in the course of play - a player inhibits the goalie from playing the puck.

"As the NHL works now, EVERY goal is reviewed. Most of them are clear-cut and only need 20 or 30 seconds to determine they are a good goal and the game continues without delay"

i wasn't aware that somebody in toronto valididated every goal before play continued.

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | December 3, 2010 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Other than the start of the season and a few games here and there The Cpas look better this year. More effort, team play and tougher. OVI in some ways looks better. Knocking that Burrish after the end of the 1st period was one of the best things I have seen him do in years. he is more of a leader less selfish. The goals will come for him. BTW, That is easy to say Stevens is] the best defenseman in Caps history. he might be in the top six or seven defensemen in the last thirty years. Coffey, Bourqe, Pronger, Lidstrom, Potvin and the maybe Stevens.

Posted by: pkme | December 3, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I would think that any decent NHL referee would want to review a play that involves washing out a goal by an offensive player who is screened (from the referee's position) by the goaltender and a defensive player. How can you possibly see interference through two screening players. You can't.......and if you call it, it is only a guess.

Posted by: prestoj | December 3, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

why can't they just amend the rule to allow for a review of a goal/no-goal decision which may have involved the commission of a penalty, such as goaltender interference, interference, crosschecking, or whatnot?

A coach's challenge may be a good idea. But it seems to me that the obvious solution here is to make this call reviewable.

Posted by: j762 | December 3, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Beninmd:
There was no penalty call here. The only signal the ref made was the no-goal. He didn't raise his hand, and didn't point OV to the box.
This was just like the Montreal game which ended the streak last year. They disallowed the goal for supposed interference, but no penalty was called.

Posted by: j762 | December 3, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Capt Kirk: My understanding is that video judges look at all the goals in Toronto. If they have enough of a question, they blow the horn and stop play before the puck drops. It's not like they have to give the all-clear for a faceoff; it's the negative of that, that the all-clear is presumed unless they blow the horn for a review.

Yes, as pointed out, you can have "inhibited the goalie" without having goaltender's interference as a penalty.

I, too, though just being in the crease wasn't enough for a penalty. Refs blew it. There isn't any reason on earth they can't add this to the list of reviewable goals. Plus, let's face it, great drama in football when the coaches launches that flag on the field.

BTW, gotta love Bruce, the way he can't count. He says no fan would mind if the game is "delayed two minutes" and ends at "9:37 instead of 9:34."

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Capt Kirk: My understanding is that video judges look at all the goals in Toronto. If they have enough of a question, they blow the horn and stop play before the puck drops.

then they earned their money last night with the nyr/nyi & bos/tb games

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | December 3, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

BTW, gotta love Bruce, the way he can't count. He says no fan would mind if the game is "delayed two minutes" and ends at "9:37 instead of 9:34."

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 6:20 PM
--------------------
Maybe Bruce's math skills explain why the Caps get so many 'too many men' penalties. ;-)

Posted by: tess2201 | December 3, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

BTW, gotta love Bruce, the way he can't count. He says no fan would mind if the game is "delayed two minutes" and ends at "9:37 instead of 9:34."

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 6:20 PM
--------------------
Maybe Bruce's math skills explain why the Caps get so many 'too many men' penalties. ;-)
LOL, good ones, both Tom and Tess.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

BTW, the loss for last night is not due to Caps or refs but...moi.

At this point, you know what I'm going to tell you. I'll tell you anyway.

mrstominsocal1 worsk three days a week and gets home 6:15 PST. The game started 5:30 PST. I stopped at the store and bought plenty to "rock the white" : chicken breasts, shrimp and pork chops. I got home and boiled the two pounds of shrimp while game was starting and then ate the shrimp while it was 0-0 through 1 period. We,, mrstominsocal1 comes home and heats up some red meat and "insists" on red wine to have with her food. I didn't want to open two bottles, so when I finished eating shrimp I took some of the meat and a glass of the red wine. After I poured my red wine but before I even drank is when Dallas got their first goal. I knew then it just wasn't to be.

But, everyone here can bet their butt (you, me, kittypawz, everyone) that I'm having the lamb shanks at 4 pm PST tomorrow with red wine to rock the red appropriately.

Sorry.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

tominsocal1:
i can only suggest that you have spare boxes of red and white on hand for emergency purposes
make it so!!

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | December 3, 2010 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Tom- you better be gnawing on lamb shanks tomorrow! And tell Mrstominsocal that she needs to get her priorities straight.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Tom- you better be gnawing on lamb shanks tomorrow! And tell Mrstominsocal that she needs to get her priorities straight.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 7:37 PM

that right - we can forgive you in december - but you will be held accountable in april/may & june
earn whatever brownie points you need too - so she'll be on board by then :D

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | December 3, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

@capt- boxes,LOL. I'm sure Tom appreciated that as well.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

It looked to me like Schultz actually hit some people in last night's game. Did anyone else see it that way? Normally, Schultz gets credited for a "hit" by pushing an opposing player a bit. Last night he was not exactly Scott Stevens, but it looked to me like he was making actual hockey checks. I wonder if bringing in Hannan has lit a fire under Schultz, either by inspiring him or causing him to think his position in the first pairing with Green might be in jeopardy. Either way, it would be great.

Posted by: zmega | December 3, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

zmega:
after he got his stick slashed out of his hands - i think he got credit for a hit when he was tagged for interference
hehehe

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | December 3, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

zmega- I've noticed quite a few instances this season where Schultz has laid a good hit on someone. I learned a long time ago from both playing and watching hockey, that you don't have to be physical to be effective, which is why I've been a fan of Schultz all along. That being said, I'd prefer to see all of our players including Schultz be more physical, because ideally all of our players would be physical as well as positionally sound. It's definitely nice to see him throw his big frame around.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

FunkyGloveFacewash:
i'd like to see any of the 'less' physical guys lay out a nice big hit, when it's almost free - like one forward trying to keep the o-zone during a line change. they way they'll at least they 'could' get hit

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | December 3, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

No, Schultz nailed someone behind the Caps goal. Dallas announcers even made a point of it.

Ever since he grew that Gilbert Roland-style mustache he's gotten quite nasty. I heard he even told his mom, "None of your beeswax" in response to one of her questions.

BTW, I'm about to have pork chops and clam chowder to get the "rock the white" out of my system tonight. Everything I have tomorrow will be red and bloody. Then Sunday night it's Ravens football. You can make some nice purple drinks with vodka, orange and cranberry juices and Razmatazz.

I'm in a foul mood at the moment. First we put up the Xmas tree and one of the cats knocked over and broke a statue trying to sniff the tree. Then I went out back and sat in a chair that was wet from the sprinkler. I'm about to use my one timeout for the day.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

you don't have to be physical to be effective, which is why I've been a fan of Schultz all along.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

that's the difference between Caps fans and Flyers/Bruins fans . (I reference those two fans because while living in Md., I knew and still know far too many Flyers fans; now in the northeast, I'm proud to know many Bruins fans).....
Why in the world would you not only want, but like,someone playing in the nhl to not be physical? The nhl is a man's league, and for the $ fans shell out and the cash players make, we don't want to see "flag" hockey...if we did, we'd watch college or European hockey. No way Shultz cracks either the Bruins or Flyers backline (teams we'll have to get through to achieve our goal), yet to many like yourself he's the second coming of Langway. We can argue all night as to his "effectiveness", but please don't bombard me w/irrelevant comparisons to other players "who play a similar style."

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Capt- yeah, I'd prefer everyone played physical and hit with a vengeance for sure. To me, that's one of the best parts of hockey.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

@vermont- Please don't ever put a label on Funky. You could say labels and Funky, kind of clash. The second coming of Langway? LOL YOU just compared Schultz to Langway! Are you kidding me? I was merely saying how I learned some time ago to appreciate players that can get the job done without being physical and in no way said I prefer players that play that way.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

BTW- the difference between Caps fans and Flyers fans is that Caps fans are far more intelligent and the difference between Caps fans and Bruins fans is that Caps fans know how to speak correctly.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

@funky

well if i can't label you a Caps fan, what are you doing wasting your time blogging about them?? I suggest you go back and re-read my posts....I WOULD NEVER COMPARE SHULTZ TO LANGWAY, just as I would never compare Erskine to Stevens (i merely mentioned that arguing Erskine's value to the team versus Shultz's....the argument brought me back 25 years when I made a similar argument pitting a tough/fighting dman against another "stay-home" but unwilling fighter....at least Langway, by that time, had developed a rep as a fearsome fighter; if Shultz's only fight against Jackman a few years ago is any indication (and I believe it is),it's safe to assume Shultz will never be feared)

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

@funky

then I'm glad I'm a Caps fan

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

vermontcaps: OK, I need to slap you down with a cease and desist order.

Nobody here ever, ever, ever, ever compared Schultz to Langway. Not once. Not ever. Not even the most ardent Kool-Aidaholic.

Fact is, I don't think anyone here, ever, said Schultz was any more than a 2nd pair D. I myself have posted numerous times that given time, perhaps, he could become a Calle Johansson type D. That would be marginal first pair. I believe that's the most we can hope for.

Langway? Who in their right mind would suggest Schultz would win Norris not once but twice and be first team All-Star even once, much less multiple times?

I don't know, vermontcaps, maybe you hit the maple syrup once too many times before that post.

I'm expecting a retraction (from you, not me) :)

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

@ vermont- I don't know where Erskine came in to all this(I'm a big fan of the lumberjack and always have been). I was responding to Zmega's comment about Schultz making a hit on someone. FTR, I prefer tough physical players(as my handle would suggest)but have learned over the years to appreciate what less physical guys can bring to the table.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

So, here's a question for those of you, unlike me, who regularly watch all the other teams:

Is there any D man in hockey who evokes images of Langway?

First, the game has changed from clutch and grab to finesse to some extent...but, Langway had tremendous strength. And he was a clean player, not mean at all. Just extremely styrong. Scott Niedermeyer was that way (once he and Ovechkin collided and Ovi bounced off and went down). Maybe Rob Blake back in the day. Today? Anyone? Maybe the game has changed and they are more mobile. Who watches the Kings? Doughty? What about Weber? Keith? Is anyone out there even close to Langway? When Rod put someone in his sights, that player was neutralized. Same with Scott Stevens. Who today, I don't know. Pronger? Chara? Don't think so.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Tom if you really want to "rock the white" you should not eat meat. The hockey gods frown on animal sacrifice. You should instead turn to Adjaruli Khachapuri(ადჯარული ხაჭაპური ). It is white, decadent, and delicious.

However the true winning food appears to be Ajapsandali(აჯაფსანდალი) as when I watch a game while eating it, the caps win.

Posted by: trunkenmath | December 3, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"Fact is, I don't think anyone here, ever, said Schultz was any more than a 2nd pair D."......I spent a fair amount of time last night (hey, it was thursday) finally convincing someone to concede that Shultz wasn't in the top 20-25 dmen in the LEAGUE.

@funky

erskine came into this because you mentioned (and maybe i misinterpreted) that I compared Shultz to Langway, correct? (On a previous thread, i linked the two to make another point; perhaps there's the confusion and i apologize if it's my bad).....i'm happy to hear you appreciate old-time hockey

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

One final thought on this subject:

Robinson begat Langway who begat Stevens who begat Niedermeyer who begat?

That's some serious hardware between those four HoF'ers. I'm trying to think if anyone came along in Niedermeyer's shadow to carry on the family name. But I'm believing it was all daughters.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

sorry i can't respond quicker fellas, my computer is slower than syrup running on a cold march morning (i'll try to start drinking straight from the tap, tom)

i'm not looking to get snippy, I just love debating the Caps....though it can be a lot like dems/reps talking, at least the topic is always awesome

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

jovanovski in phoe has evolved....big, mean, his fighting pattern career-wise similar to langways.....he has more upside, but his value to the coyotes is akin

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

i meant offensive upside, compared to langway; his defense isn't as intimidating, but some nights it can be real close.

komisarek is similar to langway, of course chara

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

vermont: I read all the posts, but I didn't see that exchange between you and that misguided person, but I'll take your word for it and detract the cease and desist. BTW, we can rank every D in the league and I think Schultz will be between 75-100.

trunkenmath: I'll take your word, too, on that food. I'll take pork, chicken and seafood however to rock the white. Somehow I don't think the Hockey Gods mind a bit of sacrifice or blood.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Now that the Capitals are all set to for better team Defense, it is now up to the Captain of this team to step it up! Especially in a game like Dallas when they needed scoring. Wake up Captain!!

Posted by: JohnWWW | December 3, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

@tom

it was the live game thread last night....he conceded SHultz was 30-35, my take was 90+......quite frankly, if Shultz would just rough somebody up, show some anger and play just once like he's got a burr in his saddle i'd probably give him more slack.........my beef with him last night was: Majo gets smoked by Burish (no slouch in the fisticuffs), Ovi goes after him and scrum ensues...Fehr, to his credit, without hesitation backed up his captain by flying and JUMPING into the pile (first time in his career i've seen him not be on the receiving end of such a confrontation with a stupid smirk on his face...PROPS to Fehr)...Ott(no slouch to fisticuffs, either) starts pawing at Ovi and THE LARGEST MAN ON THE ICE STOOD BY MEEKLY AND WATCHED. I've got to believe that, ultimately, his unwillingness to try to support teammates has to breed some form of bewilderment and resentment. That bothers me greatly about him

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

@vermont- it's all good, I dig your passion.

@ tom- It's hard for me to compare anyone today to Langway, I am biased. When I first really started watching hockey was right around the time the Caps got Langway. We moved to Silver Spring just before the trade and my new friends introduced me to hockey and the Caps. I'll always view Langway in a different class.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

vermont: Honestly, the feeling you expressed that it's like dems/reps here I could see 20-30 years ago. But something started to change in this country in the 90s and it has gotten really terrible. Look, we're all Caps fans first, hockey fans second. Even if some troll from the Pens blog comes on, well, at least that person is a hockey fan. You know, you take the average Pens fan, even a Crosby lover, and if you and I and that person were watching say Devils and Flyers we could all rag on Kovalchuk and Hartnell's appearance with equal vigor. Common ground could be found. And if hockey fans from all teams were forced to watch a baseball game, we'd all agree ANY hockey game is better than ANY baseball game. As a citizen (a fence sitter, in the middle, just like I am here) though I'm really wondering if this chasm that has split us apart, in the country, will ever heal.

Sorry to get off topic, but point is even in our most spirited debates we are Caps fans first and foremost.

Maybe then by the same token a certain 535 inhabitants of DC might realize over their own individual fiefdoms that we are Americans first and foremost.

I say take all 535 members of Congress and blindfold them and drop them at random over the four corners of the earth. Let them suffer alone for about three-six months, then go and get them. Then let's see how they behave. A little appreciation for the country, eh?

Sorry.

Posted by: tominsocal1 | December 3, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

"I would think they could maybe give the challenging team a bench minor if their challenge was not overturned, and limit it to one challenge per game."
Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 3:40 PM

There is already a precendent for this procedure if the coach thinks an opposing player is using an illegal stick. Get it wrong and get a penalty. Seems it would be easy to extend to situations like the one last night.

Posted by: Wiley_One1 | December 3, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

and reacting in that kind of situation is generally instinctive, something innate....i don't think shultz has that in him, and that's why i don't think his compete level will ever elevate his play over what we see now (and to me he's an avg, competent backliner now)

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

@tom
i didn't necessarily mean the nastiness that accompanies dems/reps, just that when it comes to hockey it boils down to two main styles: skill or physical, with something preferably in the middle (like yourself, where my politics reside and i hope the caps play).....i just don't want to wear out my welcome; just ask my wife, she'll attest that most of our conversations ultimately come down to persuasion, and we're all just trying to persuade each other that our vision is best for the team :)

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

@ Wiley_One- good point.

@ vermont- I think for all hockey fans it's frustrating to see a player not play with a certain level of intensity (especially when that player stands at 6'6"). I think this is why it took so many fans to come around to accepting Schultz. Believe me, I wish the guy had a mean streak to go with his frame. If he did, he could be one of the best in the league.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

and continuing with the political theme, i think there's an organizational conspiracy to keep the lumberjack down.....why did BB have to render Erskine a "lame duck" by announcing he'll sit if/when everyone is happy; why didn't he say, "we'll play the 6 dmen who we feel give us the best chance to win on any given night." I mean, c'mon! Why wouldn't everyone sans Erskine feel comfortable and entitled to ice time when the coach comes out and states it? it smacks of elitism and favoritism

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

last post:

if/when everyone is healthy, not happy....sorry

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Wake up Captain!!

Posted by: JohnWWW | December 3, 2010 10:12 P

JohnWWW - i'm awake i swear (rubbing the sleep from my eyes) - ok, never mind - you weren't talking to me

Posted by: Capt_Kirk_in_AZ | December 3, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

BTW, That is easy to say Stevens is] the best defenseman in Caps history. he might be in the top six or seven defensemen in the last thirty years. Coffey, Bourqe, Pronger, Lidstrom, Potvin and the maybe Stevens.

Posted by: pkme | December 3, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

in case you show up, pkme, i'm sure this is in response to an earlier post of mine. Glad to see you're as big a fan of Stevens as I am (fav player of all time; met him, have auto. stick from him), but with due respect it isn't "easy" to declare him best caps dman ever. Langway won 2 Norris, w/the team, saved the franchise from extinction at worst/relocation at best, and has his # retired...rightfully so (not to mention he used to own Langway's, where I had more than a few)

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Believe me, I wish the guy had a mean streak to go with his frame. If he did, he could be one of the best in the league.

Posted by: FunkyGloveFacewash | December 3, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

that's why he'll always underachieve. i want to see hannan paired w/green (and poti/erskine) because the team needs an overachieving erskine more than an underachieving shultz in the 6th spot.

say we were a pretender but wanted to become a contender and looked to upgrade the d heading into the playoffs. if we had a chance to acquire a dman who played every game of the year on the best team in the league, was 1st on their backline in in hits/blocked shots/fights, was top-3 in goals/points, was a +player despite playing w/alternating ahl talent, wouldn't we want to acquire him and be stoked if we did? I know i'd be, thus my consternation over BB's decision to make Johnny a lame duck.

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 11:37 PM | Report abuse

of course, we can't acquire that defenseman because we already have him, but he's not good enough to be a regular on the team so as soon as the chosen ones are healthy, he'll be in the press box...so sad (tragic because it'll have to be at the expense of someone's health before we see him on a regular basis, according to the coach)

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Vermon

Langway was one of the great shutdown defenseman of all time. A true great. A leader of the team and an intense competitor. Steven did more up and down the ice and seemed to be more versatile than Langway. Had Stevens stayed with the Capitals they would have retired his Jersey and I think the Caps may have beaten the Wings. No I am not delusional. Without Stevens I do not believe the Devils would have been as successful. Alright I would put both Langway and Stevens in the last 30 years within the top ten grouping.

Back to Schultz. You can not ignore the number one plus/minus in the league. He was hardly on the power play and logged a lot of short handed minutes as well last season. Remember the Capitals penalty kill last season was dreadful. IMO he would be among the top 35 D in the NHL. He is a total positional defenseman. Not a mucker, a hitter or anything than what he is. He plays very smart hockey and sometimes that is good enough.

Posted by: pkme | December 3, 2010 11:59 PM | Report abuse

I had read the earlier threads on the term "gypped". While the first syllable was the same as the word "gypsy", it never had dawned on me that there was a connection. (Of course, I've heard the term "gypsy" used when talking about people who move around a lot; e.g. corporate gypsy.)

As a kid, "gypped" was the typical term used for "robbed". Around the time I went to college, "ripped off" became the more common term.

While political correctness sometimes runs amok, it's probably better to use the term "rip-off" since it's less likely to offend. (I don't think the term "rip-off" would offend any ethnic group, as far as I know.)

Posted by: CapsFan75 | December 4, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

BB likes having one left handed shot and one right handed shot on his defense pairings. Looking up which way Hannan shoots. Both Green and Hannan I believe have generally played on the right also. Trying to figure that out.

Posted by: pkme | December 4, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

This rule should be absolute:

Any goal or any washed out goal should be reviewable. Period.

Posted by: dimagus | December 4, 2010 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Larry Murphy would be a great Dman although many Caps fans used to ridcule him. Gonchar was fantastic also.

Posted by: pkme | December 4, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

@pk,

I think we established that Hannan's a left handed shooter (but right handed?).

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 4, 2010 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Stevie
Thanks. I just looked up on NHL.com and looked at the Caps pairing and every defenseman that is paired up shoots a different side than their partner.

Posted by: pkme | December 4, 2010 1:00 AM | Report abuse

BB definitely has his preferences.

Posted by: stevie_in_gp | December 4, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

@BB

Bruce, it really is a shame that you don't appreciate John Erskine. There are 4 guys on this team with brass B's. DJK gets no time for some strange reason, because he looks ten times better than Brash ever did on skates.

Cheap shot on MJ doesn't get thrown with 2 seconds to go in the period if a beast like King is ready to roll come the horn at the 3rd. Those open ice hits change careers (Lindros). GM brought DJK here to stop that stuff !! King is one of the top five most feared guys in the league. Hawks fans can't believe that we're not playing him, because they know what a great "cop" he is.

Hendricks, Bradley,and Erskine thank you for not playing "patty cake" hockey like so many on this team.

Man is it great not to have to watch Flush and his "Eurotrash - float around" game anymore.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We're still too wimpy to win 16 games INJURED in the spring.

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | December 4, 2010 1:21 AM | Report abuse

I hope nobody minds because I posted this on another thread that got a little sidetracked, but after Ovechkin's washed-out goal in the third period of game 7 against Montreal in last year's playoffs, I put together a frame-by-frame analysis. The call against Dallas was an even better reason to make washouts reviewable, I think.

http://tugpullpushstop.blogspot.com/2010/05/were-ovechkin-and-capitals-robbed.html

Posted by: OakdenWolf | December 4, 2010 1:21 AM | Report abuse

@Flush

Many on this site wished you well. I don't. I think your effort level was pathetic. You stunk in the playoffs, because you have no heart, guts, or PRIDE. You'll be exposed for the "Weenie" that you really are out west too, come the playoffs.

GMGM really pulled on off on the Av's, because this man, Flush, doesn't belong in the NHL. Thank you George. Now, move more of the "nonplayoff weenies". Fehr?????

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | December 4, 2010 2:18 AM | Report abuse

@pkme

Gonchar was a headcase. He won a ring because he was picked up by the Pens.
We needed Larry Murphy to clear the crease more back then, which he didn't do. Obviously, in the right situation, he turned out to be a great defenseman. But, I can understand Caps fans being frustrated with both guys, (The players didn't like Gonch either!)

Loved Langway, but Stevens was the most feared D-man to ever play the game. He RADICALLY changed the way forwards went through the neutral zone when he was on the ice. I watched Mario slow down many times at that red line when Stevens was out there.

Plus, the kicker, Scott fought the biggest Beast to ever roam the ice: Probert - the legend starts now that he has passed. Thank you Scotty. Wish we had one guy with half your spunk !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OOPs, We have one guy with half your spunk. His name is Erskine, but our AHL coach won't play him because Johnny plays too mean !!!! Boy, Shultz really stepped in there when Buf ran our goalie. Loved that "love tap" 6 foot 5 inch Stecks gave Buf too. Get a clue Bruce. This isn't Hershey!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | December 4, 2010 2:37 AM | Report abuse

@stanton!

We know you're keeping up with the posts. You can leave the "sin bin" now

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | December 4, 2010 2:46 AM | Report abuse

In katie's latest article, she quotes BB saying "monkey around." Isn't this a racial slur towards the rock band -- The Monkeys. Maybe I'll write WaPo and let them know of this violation and that I expected better integrity in their writing than to quote a bigot referring to our friends who had that one magnificent hit "hey hey we're the Monkeys".

Posted by: LloydChristmas | December 4, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse

@hunterforcoach

yes, Stevens feared no man and wasn't afraid to let everyone on the ice know it; that's what the team is missing now, that tough-as-nails swagger...i'm convinced BB's afraid to dress confrontational players because they might create situations where his "boys" might have to step-up and confront and/or respond to other players looking to go. What I remember and admired most about Stevens was his ongoing war with Dave Brown. I guess the Caps fans of today have no recollection of Brown intimidating our team, beating guys like Mike Gartner up, and Stevens not tolerating any of it. It's strange how we seem to take the Flyers sloppy seconds (tocchet, berube, brashear, knuble) but I can only think of Keith Jones playing for them after he left us

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

@ Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 8:30 AM

You forgot Bob Kelly, and Clement......off the top of my head.

Posted by: Capsfannmiss | December 4, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

@cstanton, vermontcaps, hunterforcoach

http://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/99463

didn't know kaleta could throw like that, wow!

Also, Erskine should stay in the lineup until he plays himself out or there should be a rotation going or Poti, Alzner, and him should take turns sitting.

Posted by: StanleyCap | December 4, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Gonchar was a headcase. He won a ring because he was picked up by the Pens.
We needed Larry Murphy to clear the crease more back then, which he didn't do. Obviously, in the right situation, he turned out to be a great defenseman. But, I can understand Caps fans being frustrated with both guys, (The players didn't like Gonch either!)
----------------------------

No we didn't... we already had Langway, Stevens and the young Hatcher who was as nasty as anyone.

Do you really think either Langway or Stevens were capable of passing that pass in the OT of Game 7 against the Flyers which sent Hunter on a breakaway to end that series??

I think NOT!!!

You cannot have everyone playing the same way and expect to win anything. This is a TEAM sport. Guys like Gonchar and Murphy playing a very important role just as guys like Stevens and Langway. You need eveyone of those players to win, NOT just one type.

Posted by: joek443 | December 4, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

I believe there Schultz does a fantastic job for us. Everyone thinks because he is 6 5 that he has to change his style of play, because he has that size. He plays a very very good game, and I think he is getting better every year. We wont ever see a hugh physical game from him, its not how he plays, never has been and never will be. So What.....he is effective in getting good position, has a long reach, makes a good outlet pass, has good skating ability, doesnt take alot of penalties,makes the good safe play most of the time.

I

Posted by: Capsfannmiss | December 4, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

passing that pass = making that pass

Posted by: joek443 | December 4, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

You cannot have everyone playing the same way and expect to win anything. This is a TEAM sport. Guys like Gonchar and Murphy playing a very important role just as guys like Stevens and Langway. You need eveyone of those players to win, NOT just one type.

Posted by: joek443 | December 4, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

agreed, and it's for that reason alone Erskine should stay in the line-up (I'm just incredulous that BB would state publicly that he's a lame-duck, that he's good enough to be an injury fill-in)...Erskine is unique in what he brings to the backline, and we have pairs of everyone else

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Schultz is afraid of contact. There are plenty of times throughout the course of a game he has a nice opportunity to lay a hard hit along the boards or in the corner and he lets up. That's ok though, because one day soon Alzner is going to start checking more too.

Posted by: StanleyCap | December 4, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

@capsfannmiss

your description of Dork sounds like most of the players on my sons' squirt teams, minus the height......when we're paying the man more than twice Erskine gets, and everyone seems to agree (but me) that he'll get a raise "to keep him here", we want and expect more bang for the buck

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

@stanleycap

i saw that fight, i didn't think Kaleta had it in him...that said, i think of him in the same vein as Avery. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile; I don't think Kaleta can repeat, let alone sustain, a showing like that. Hendricks for us is a much classier, and active participant, in that regard

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

@
your description of Dork sounds like most of the players on my sons' squirt teams, minus the height......when we're paying the man more than twice Erskine gets, and everyone seems to agree (but me) that he'll get a raise "to keep him here", we want and expect more bang for the buck

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 9:35 AM

Sounds like a pretty good squirt team.

If you meaning more "bang for your buck" as in the physical part.......you may be waiting for a long long time.

Posted by: Capsfannmiss | December 4, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

@capsfannmiss

unfortunately, i think you're right :(

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

simple = IN NFL, last two minutes reviews are made from the booth!

SO last 60 second goals should be reviewed quickly, it would not take that long!

Simple!

Posted by: hunter321 | December 4, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

@vermontcaps

Your whole take on the Stevens and Dave Brown war gets lost with most Caps fans.
It just blows my mind that we have a GM who went into the Hawks Dressing room and punched their coach, while MJ and Neuvy receive cheap shots with out a big time fight in response. DJK should have pounded Buf, and the Star player who tried to throw a knock out hit on a young Euro-player who is not used to seeing that stuff.

By the way, how does BB not see that Downie is trying to take Ovi out of the game last year. Bradley has to ask permission to go over the boards????????????????????????? Hell, BB should have been yelling, " Brads get in there now."

Again, too wimpy to WIN 16 INJURED in the spring.

Posted by: Hunterforcoach | December 4, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

If you all remember that Stevens shortened Lindros's career with that vicious hit. It was probably the hardest hit I have ever seen any player take. He was wearing a Devil uniform at the time if I recall.

Posted by: pkme | December 4, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

@hunterforcoach

I agree w/ya, Dale!! I'm glad to see fans like you on these boards....I don't seem to have much in common w/caps fans nowadays, I just wish we didn't have to wait until the end of the season to recognize the errors of our ways.

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Your whole take on the Stevens and Dave Brown war gets lost with most Caps fans.
--------------------------------

Stevens had NO business fighting Dave Brown or any other goon... that's exactly what they wanted him to do.

why would you want any player on your team to do what your opponent wants you to do???

they will take that trade any day and twice on sunday!!!

Posted by: joek443 | December 4, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Vermon.

Who do the Caps have that can play 2nd line center other than MJ. he is it. Laich on the left MJ center and Semin on the right flank.

Posted by: pkme | December 4, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Stevens became a much better player in NJ when he stopped getting involved in that kinda nonsense.

Posted by: joek443 | December 4, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"of course, we can't acquire that defenseman because we already have him, but he's not good enough to be a regular on the team so as soon as the chosen ones are healthy, he'll be in the press box...so sad (tragic because it'll have to be at the expense of someone's health before we see him on a regular basis, according to the coach)"
Posted by: vermontcaps | December 3, 2010 11:56 PM

OK, OK, OK. I think we all know about your man-crush on Erskine now. Might be time to give it a rest.

Posted by: Wiley_One1 | December 4, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"While political correctness sometimes runs amok, it's probably better to use the term "rip-off" since it's less likely to offend. (I don't think the term "rip-off" would offend any ethnic group, as far as I know.) "
Posted by: CapsFan75 | December 4, 2010 12:02 AM

Don't be so sure. You must not be aware (or you would not have been so heartless and insensitive) that throughout ancient history, the oppressed people of Ripistan have been subjected to untold cruelty and prejudice. I'm sure that each of them, and their decendents, experience great pain when insensitive individuals such as yourself, calously toss around around hurtful terms such as "ripped-off". Now that you know, we will expect you to be more empathetic to their plight.

Posted by: Wiley_One1 | December 4, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Stevens had NO business fighting Dave Brown or any other goon... that's exactly what they wanted him to do.

why would you want any player on your team to do what your opponent wants you to do???

they will take that trade any day and twice on sunday!!!

Posted by: joek443 | December 4, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

That's the whole point, Joe; Stevens continued to battle Brown BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONLY ONE ON THE TEAM CAPABLE OF PUTTING BROWN IN HIS PLACE WHEN HE HAD TO BE PUT IN HIS PLACE. Aggression, intimidation, and fighting play an important part in the game, even moreso back in the 80's

Along w/DJK being scratched, suppose Erskine wasn't playing tonight (as he won't be as soon as Poti can go)...Boulton, Thorburn, Eager, and Bufglien start taking liberties and Buf runs Varly and injures him badly. I could guarantee w/the lineup we'll have that our team response to Buf and the other 3 would be PATHETIC....this scenario will play itself out, and BB will whine and complain to the media yet he'll have no one to blame but himself

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

my point about the whole Stevens/Brown ongoing war was that Stevens was the only one who'd stick up for our team....it would have been nice to have someone else filling that role back then, but we didn't so Stevens would step-up and do what needed to be done.

With Erskine and DJK outta the lineup, we have no one to intimidate the other team...to some fans, that's a good thing; to fans like myself and hunterforcoach, we remember the pain and humiliation of being bullied in our own barn and hearing 1/2 the arena cheer for the Flyers.....STEVENS ALWAYS SET THINGS RIGHT

Posted by: vermontcaps | December 4, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

That's the whole point, Joe; Stevens continued to battle Brown BECAUSE HE WAS THE ONLY ONE ON THE TEAM CAPABLE OF PUTTING BROWN IN HIS PLACE WHEN HE HAD TO BE PUT IN HIS PLACE. Aggression, intimidation, and fighting play an important part in the game, even moreso back in the 80's
---------------------

No he wasn't... they weren't BB's Caps, they had other guys on the team whose job it was to deal with guys like Brown.

Do you think Bryan Murrary was happy to see Stevens fight guys like Brown? That's the last thing any hockey coach wants to see... one of his top players fighting a GOON on the other team.

Posted by: joek443 | December 4, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company