C’était un article intéressant, qu’en pensez-vous ? Article : https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/new-york-rangers/new-york-rangers/rangers-winner-divisional-games-despite-suspect-officiating#:~:text=The%20New%20York%20Rangers %20a gagné,l’abondance%20de%20vague%20replay%20reviews.&text=Les%20New%20York%20Rangers%20 ont gagné%20leurs%20derniers%20deux%20matchs%20contre,Jersey%20Devils%2C%20et%20officiel%20discutable. Site Web : https://www.prolevelgamer.com/ Discord : https://discord.gg/VmsHpTCGHy Patreon : https://patreon.com/user?u=84783219 $2500 USD Prize Pool Ligue des 6 Ligue EASHL 6 : https : //discord.gg/fSBU8FTW59 Podcast TSP : https://www.youtube.com/c/TalkinSht #NHL #nhlhighlights #newyorkrangers #NYR #rangers
@Rangers de New York
29 Comments
NHL trying so hard to keep us down but we keep winning 😎
Of course Dr Evil Genius would send you an article like that
Imagine when a Panthers fan sees this, they'll turn to the Rangers fan and say "First time?"
That Jack Hughes goal was a good goal, Shesterkin just flat out didn't make the save
I agree that checks to the head should always be a penalty, idk about a 5 minute, but sometimes a check to the head is considered clean when the player is taller than the other. I think it should always be a penalty, players need to bring back the hip checks
That Jack Hughes goal was 100% a good goal. But that hit by mcleod.. I don't think it was a 5 Min but definitely should've been a penalty.
I watched that game. They actually reduced the penalty on the hit on Lindgren down from 5 minutes to NO PENALTY (not even 2 minutes). Which I personally disagreed with (so did the commentators – although it was the MSG network so take that with a grain of salt).
They should of asked me for more examples before they wrote this. How could they write this without reminding the world of the high sticking that never was. Rangers were accessed a high sticking penalty but they argued the player hit his teammate. Refs decided to review it, even though it was only a 2 minute so technically they "couldn't review it". After the review (which wasted about 5 minites) they see that the guy hit his own player. But they still gave Rangers the penalty because "they can't review it" because it was originally called 2 minutes on the ice…..even though they did review, and saw it wasn't a penalty. Good job refs
Refs are bad league wide. But the are exceptionally horrible in Rangers games
The Blue Jackets player lifts his elbow up and leads with it going into the hit. This is always a penalty. Heck, it would have been a minor in the 90s when Scott Stevens was trolling the blue line looking to end careers. But when they review this play and figure out a way to wipe it, there's something very very wrong with this league and their enforcement of their own rules. That said, it's really nothing new—NHL officiating has stunk forever and will continue to stink forever. And the Rangers will also have to deal with the NHL hamstringing them for the forseeable future. They've made too many enemies within the league after being the poster boys for the need to bring in salary caps, eventually suing the league in the aughts to try and control their own marketing, and more recently calling out player safety's spin the wheel of punishment insanity.
It feels like the referees know how good the Rangers are on having a power play ruled in their favor and capitalizing that they want to minimize the calls that are no matter how blatant and obvious it is they for some reason don't want to call it for them… It's like the opposing team has an extra skater at all times meaning the refs!! But thankfully despite that upsurdness the Rangers keeps finding ways around all of that bs but eventually it can cost them dearly!!
I feel like the rules need to be more specific for certain penalties as the reason the reffing is so inconsistent is due to every ref basically having their different definitions for what a penalty is and then that leaves the players not sure on what they are able to do
The thing is, Cuylles goal against Columbus was a good goal and it took literally 5 minutes to wave it off.
Hughes goal technically shouldnt of counted because the refs blew the whistle, and that rule with even the intent to blow it the play is dead. And they overturned it in 10 seconds to give hughes the goal.
I hate to say, "pick a lane", but they clearly have and its "fuck the rangers".
The NYR are the darling daughter of the NHL .. 😂 .. they get more calls than any team in the league
We take a shot puck is in the net then play is whistled dead, it’s not a good goal. Deemed the play was frozen. Our opponent takes a shot the whistle stops play and then it goes in the net after, it’s a good goal. Not deemed frozen. I don’t really care about the goal against, but when we score a good goal it needs to count. Absolutely ridiculous the amount of reviews that have gone against NYR.
didnt see the game, didnt even watch the video…just saw the title and came to say that for me NHL= WWE now…i had predicted that all Sweden game would go to overtime and was pretty damn close …im convinced the goal differential and the winning team is decided before the game
The Lingren hit ended up going to o penalty. And I dont think most Rangers fans would even care if they hadnt literally done the opposite to Cuylle's goal just days prior. Rangers have been 0-infinity in reviews. Its insane.
Refs have been horrible this year. At least for me it's probably 1 of the worst officiating year's. They don't even know what they're doing. Also I blame TO be in charge of the video room. Their horrible too.
I already dropped the comment but I want to add something The referee called penalty when Lindgren got hit after they went to the booth to see if it was a 5-minute major when they were done they said there was no penalty on the play at all so no devil went to the box.
That's where my question comes in about TO. Why are you switching a penalty called an ice to no penalty? If the ref calls it a penalty your job is just to see is it a 5 minute major a 4 minute or a 2 minute. But in your video review room you are literally saying there was no penalty on the play. Smh
I feel like the term incidental contact doesn’t get utilized enough by officials anymore. You have 10 grown men skating as hard as they can, and two grown men in giant pads people are bound to bump into each other. It’s called incidental contact. I understand the NHL is trying to get head contact out of the game as much as is possible similar to other sports. But I think if it’s incidental contact to the head, it should be a two minute minor and anything that looks remotely intentional automatic 5
The refs should be drug tested because of the calls that they make. Plus possible payola going on to keep the RANGERS from winning the Stanley Cup. 😮
The call last night on goodrow for high stick was non sense. Led to the gwg
We've had 12 play reviews this season, and 10 of the 12 have gone against the rangers. Something is not adding up
F L U S T R A T I O N
I know officiating is very difficult, but you would think that having 10 angles on video review would allow for better calls more often.
all the proof you need is the refs gifting the devils a goal when the puck wasn't even touching the red line when the whistle blew
I try to be fair with them but sometimes I just get so mad 😭
There is clearly something going on because for instance in the devils game there was no way that hit the McCloud(yes I am aware that I misspelled his name) on lindy was clearly a dirty hit he didn't hit Lindgren in the chest first. He clearly was hit in the head with an elbow and the devil player left his feet and the puck was no where near Lindgren when he was hit. Not to mention Lindgren was bleeding which should have meant the penalty should have be enforced even if it was reduced to a minor or double minor.
As long as the nhl's official stance is that the officials manage, not officiate, the games then the inconsistant calls that seem to plague more teams than others will continue