Tampa and Flyers Game

[digdug]

I'm still trying to figure out why the refs blew the whistle.

Teams should be able to play any kind of defence they want

Also, teams should be able to play any kind of Offence they want

if that means there is a pause in the action while time is ticking, so be it

 

[Stronger Than All]

Philly had posession of the puck.  What kind of moral victory is this anyways?  TB got a faceoff back in the Flyers zone.

 

[Joe S.]

I'm not sure what point the flyers proved here except looking like jackasses.

 

[Britishbulldog]

I'm still trying to figure out why the refs blew the whistle.

Teams should be able to play any kind of defence they want

Also, teams should be able to play any kind of Offence they want

if that means there is a pause in the action while time is ticking, so be it

I think the whistle was blown because the team in possession I believe is supposed to keep the puck in motion (and the rules might even read continual forward motion but someone can correct me on that).

It was weird though.  They showed a clip where a team made 18+ passes between the 2 dmen and a forward in the same circumstance which looked almost as foolish but didn't result in a whistle.  It looked like 2 college/university teams.  Did any one else see that particular clip?

 

[Peter D.]

I'm not sure what point the flyers proved here except looking like jackasses.

I view it the opposite -- I thought the Lightning looked like fools.

 

[maplesyrup]

I'm not sure how to feel here. Kudos to both teams for sticking to their guns I suppose.

 

[maplesyrup]

Colin Campbell just now on Hockeycentral: (Paraphrasing) "I think Tampa had a responsibility to forecheck there."

 

[AvroArrow]

I'm not sure what point the flyers proved here except looking like jackasses.

I view it the opposite -- I thought the Lightning looked like fools.

I thought both teams were smart - neither was going to give in and play the other team's game.  Why would Philly let themselves get trapped and deal with TB's counter-attack?  Why would TB push a forecheck and break their trap?

I'm sure it was boring as heck to watch, but I think it was all strategy.

 

[Joe S.]

I'm not sure what point the flyers proved here except looking like jackasses.

I view it the opposite -- I thought the Lightning looked like fools.

that play led to a faceoff in there own zone and a good scoring chance for TB... Philly had possession, it's their responsibility to move the puck...

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't get what they proved...

 

[bustaheims]

Colin Campbell just now on Hockeycentral: (Paraphrasing) "I think Tampa had a responsibility to forecheck there."

As much as I'd like to see an end to the trap, I have to disagree with Colin Campbell here. I think the onus has to be on the team with the puck, not the team defending.

 

[maplesyrup]

Colin Campbell just now on Hockeycentral: (Paraphrasing) "I think Tampa had a responsibility to forecheck there."

As much as I'd like to see an end to the trap, I have to disagree with Colin Campbell here. I think the onus has to be on the team with the puck, not the team defending.

I think the divide is pretty much 50/50 here and it's an interesting debate. Like I said, I really don't think any team was wrong here.

 

[Peter D.]

that play led to a faceoff in there own zone and a good scoring chance for TB... Philly had possession, it's there responsibility to move the puck...

I don't think the refs should have blown the whistle (and if this is some sort of rule, why don't they blow it when d-men perch behind their net for 45 seconds?).  I also feel that the Lightning had just as much responsibility to try and retrieve the puck as the Flyers did to advance it. 

 

[Peter D.]

As much as I'd like to see an end to the trap, I have to disagree with Colin Campbell here. I think the onus has to be on the team with the puck, not the team defending.

Why?  Is it not Tampa Bay's goal to try and score as well? 

Both teams were in their right to do what they did.  Or they are equally at fault.  Whichever way one wants to look at it.

 

[Zee]

That is some of the most ridiculous stuff i've seen in hockey.  The trap system really makes a mockery of things, and when a team tries to avoid falling prey to it, they're seen as not being positive?  Why walk right into Tampa's trap?

 

[lamajama]

that play led to a faceoff in there own zone and a good scoring chance for TB... Philly had possession, it's there responsibility to move the puck...

I don't think the refs should have blown the whistle (and if this is some sort of rule, why don't they blow it when d-men perch behind their net for 45 seconds?).  I also feel that the Lightning had just as much responsibility to try and retrieve the puck as the Flyers did to advance it.

This. Perfectly said. That was a joke and to a league trying to
take advantage on an NBA lockout and attract more eyeballs it was an abombination.

 

[Andy007]

Colin Campbell just now on Hockeycentral: (Paraphrasing) "I think Tampa had a responsibility to forecheck there."

As much as I'd like to see an end to the trap, I have to disagree with Colin Campbell here. I think the onus has to be on the team with the puck, not the team defending.

But shouldn't players be going to where the puck is? Even the lone forechecker was staying behind the Philly blueline.

 

[digdug]

Colin Campbell just now on Hockeycentral: (Paraphrasing) "I think Tampa had a responsibility to forecheck there."

I have to disagree with Mr. Campbell big time.    No team 'has a responsibility to forecheck'.  That is ridiculous.  They have a responsibility to have players on the ice.  Where they go is strategy.

 

[bustaheims]

Why?  Is it not Tampa Bay's goal to try and score as well? 

Both teams were in their right to do what they did.  Or they are equally at fault.  Whichever way one wants to look at it.

Because, in all sports, I feel the responsibility to advance the play lies more heavily on the attacking team - they are, after all, the team with possession of the puck/ball/whatever, and, at that time, while the defending team would like to score, until they regain possession, their primary goal is to prevent the other team from scoring. Whether they choose to do that passively or aggressively is up to them. The attacking team is, of course, welcome to try to score passively, but, as we all know, that's virtually impossible.  If they're not advancing the play, they're not going to succeed, but, the defending team still will.

 

[bustaheims]

But shouldn't players be going to where the puck is? Even the lone forechecker was staying behind the Philly blueline.

As I just said in another post, when Philly has the puck, the primary goal of the Tampa skaters is to prevent the Flyers from scoring. How they choose to do that is up to them - whether we like the strategy or not. While I'm not a fan of the strategy the Lightning employed, there's nothing illegal about it and the primary responsibility is on the attacking team to break through it, rather than for the defending team to give them opportunities.

 

[L K]

But shouldn't players be going to where the puck is? Even the lone forechecker was staying behind the Philly blueline.

As I just said in another post, when Philly has the puck, the primary goal of the Tampa skaters is to prevent the Flyers from scoring. How they choose to do that is up to them - whether we like the strategy or not. While I'm not a fan of the strategy the Lightning employed, there's nothing illegal about it and the primary responsibility is on the attacking team to break through it, rather than for the defending team to give them opportunities.

By that same token there was nothing illegal that the Flyers were doing by not advancing the puck up the ice.  They were not intentionally avoiding play with the puck, which is the point of the dead puck/delay of game whistle.  I'm not a fan of what Philly did either, but why should Philly be obligated to try and break through a trap system that is entirely built on low-percentage puck advancement and attempts at capitalizing on turnovers and odd-man rushes the other way?