Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : And my thinking is the opposite . Shouldn't the onus be on the players to play the puck ( like the rest of the league does ) ?
    Posted by Chowdahkid-

    They were playing the puck by passing it back and forth.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : They were playing the puck by passing it back and forth.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    and that's why an arguement can be made for both teams.  Why did Tampa stand around and wait ?   the same can be said about Philly doing their part on not playing Hockey.
    Anyway, last night at my game it was fun as we accused the other team of playing the 1-3-1. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : They were playing the puck by passing it back and forth.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    C'mon dez.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : C'mon dez.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-

    That's my point though Chowdah. Only 1 of the 2 teams can be deemed to be "playing the puck", regardless of how lame it may have been.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : That's my point though Chowdah. Only 1 of the 2 teams can be deemed to be "playing the puck", regardless of how lame it may have been.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    Here's my point dez. How many games do you watch where a team is deploying some form of a trap and it is accepted as part of the game ?

    Now my second question . How many games do you watch where teams do what Philly did and it is accepted as part of the game ?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : Here's my point dez. How many games do you watch where a team is deploying some form of a trap and it is accepted as part of the game ? Now my second question . How many games do you watch where teams do what Philly did and it is accepted as part of the game ?
    Posted by Chowdahkid-

    I guess I just may not have noticed T-Bays lack of puck pursuit for the exact reason you're getting at.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : Shouldn't there be some onus on the players to at least pursue the puck?
    Posted by dezaruchi


    i get what you're saying, but one could also argue that there should be some onus on the players with the puck to get it out of their zone.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : i get what you're saying, but one could also argue that there should be some onus on the players with the puck to get it out of their zone.
    Posted by goodnewsbears

    Let's all agree that it looked foolish. Hope it never happens again.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : Let's all agree that it looked foolish. Hope it never happens again.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    Yep , that's not hockey.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : Let's all agree that it looked foolish. Hope it never happens again.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    we can definitely agree on that.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RawrBear. Show RawrBear's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    It's true that all teams go into some form of trap defense at certain times during every game, but the way TB does it is ridiculous. A lot of times when teams go into a trap they'll at least have one guy forward of the opponents blue line by a couple feet. Most forward guy on TB is usually closer to the red line. It's ridiculous.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    I thought it was funny and think Philly did the right thing. Guy Boucher is a good coach, but I can't help but think he feels he is smarter than most. I wouldnt be upset if I bought tickets to that game, you saw something alot of people are talking about today and I dont think I've ever seen it.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RawrBear. Show RawrBear's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    Apparently TB fans "love" watching this style of defensive hockey according to all the forums I visit. Until an opponent pulls it on them.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    It's true that all teams go into some form of trap defense at certain times during every game, but the way TB does it is ridiculous. A lot of times when teams go into a trap they'll at least have one guy forward of the opponents blue line by a couple feet. Most forward guy on TB is usually closer to the red line. It's ridiculous.
    Posted by RawrBear


    It is the most passive trap in the league ! Agreed !
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : Shouldn't there be some onus on the players to at least pursue the puck?
    Posted by dezaruchi



    according to the rule book the onus is on the offensive team to keep the puck in constant motion.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonicator. Show Olsonicator's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    I can't believe I missed this story until now, while it was right in front of my nose.

    unbelievable story, this is one of the best things that has happened in hockey for a long time. Finally, and actual story!! 

    I honestly have no idea how the league will correct this, any ideas?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : according to the rule book the onus is on the offensive team to keep the puck in constant motion.
    Posted by Orrthebest

    Which they were doing my technical friend. I didn't see the puck stop once.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonicator. Show Olsonicator's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    Guess you watched a different series than I did.  In the one I saw, the Bruins D held the puck and exploited the lack of pressure they were getting. They moved the puck back and forth until the '1' forward tired and an opening occurred. From game 4 on Boucher had stopped using the system because it was being exploited. Then his eyes went googly and he flipped out.  But that was the version I watched.  Maybe it was different  in other versions. In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts :
    Posted by OatesCam




    props to ference for slowing it down, letting his forwards gain speed through the neutral zone.

    this was an amazing play, obviously.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : Which they were doing my technical friend. I didn't see the puck stop once.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_vI5G2fNlw

    From 7 seconds of this clip to 34 seconds the puck does not move.  One player has possession and makes no attempt to make a play.  The ref finaly blows it down.

    But nice try though. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_vI5G2fNlw From 7 seconds of this clip to 34 seconds the puck does not move.  One player has possession and makes no attempt to make a play.  The ref finaly blows it down. But nice try though. 
    Posted by Orrthebest

    When the puck is being stick-handled it is moving. Terrible effort on your part.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : When the puck is being stick-handled it is moving. Terrible effort on your part.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    The refs did not think so because they blew the play dead.  Quit being stupid to try and make some sort of point.  I know some fans don't like the trap and are letting that cloud their view but what the Flyers did is against the rules and they should have been given a delay of game penalty. 

    Here is Kerry Fraser take on it: http://tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=380181#YourCallTop



     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : The refs did not think so because they blew the play dead.  Quit being stupid to try and make some sort of point.  I know some fans don't like the trap and are letting that cloud their view but what the Flyers did is against the rules and they should have been given a delay of game penalty.  Here is Kerry Fraser take on it: http://tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=380181#YourCallTop
    Posted by Orrthebest

    Who's being stupid? You decided to cite a rule claiming the puck needs to be moved. Was Philly given a penalty for breaking this rule? No........then there were no rules broken. You aren't delaying the game by standing still with the puck. What's next, penalties for not moving the puck fast enough on the PP? I'm not really interested in what you think should've been called. How about you figure out the difference between a puck that is moving and 1 that is frozen before claiming someone else is being stupid.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : Who's being stupid? You decided to cite a rule claiming the puck needs to be moved. Was Philly given a penalty for breaking this rule? No........then there were no rules broken. You aren't delaying the game by standing still with the puck. What's next, penalties for not moving the puck fast enough on the PP? I'm not really interested in what you think should've been called. How about you figure out the difference between a puck that is moving and 1 that is frozen before claiming someone else is being stupid.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    So why did the Ref blow the play dead then?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts:
    In Response to Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts : So why did the Ref blow the play dead then?
    Posted by Orrthebest

    Obviously not because an actual rule was being broken. You tell me. I'm not the one making claims about broken rules.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: Flyers response to the 1-3-1 against Bolts

    Henrik Zetter5berg's take was in today's Toronto Sun.  "Hilarious," Zetterberg said. "It was a good way to show how boring it could be if the other team doesn't do anything. That's the way we played in Sweden 10, 12 years ago. A 1-3-1, really strict, and the game became really boring.

    "With the skill we have in this league, you shouldn't be able to play that way. If a team wants to do it (fine), but it's a waste of talent."

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share