jaxfactor Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 As a Pens fan living in Florida, I must say I'm pretty pissed at the TV schedule. My team has 2 of the top 5 players and can only manage to get 2 games on Vs. Unless I go to a sports bar and watch or order the non-discounted NHL package I'm chit outta luck. Here's the Vs/NBC list of each series and how many games are scheduled to be aired on those networks: Montreal - Boston: 1 game on Vs Pitt- Ottawa: 2 games on Vs Was- Phil: 4 games Vs, 2 NBC NYR- NJ: 3 games Vs Det- Nash: 4 games Vs, 2 NBC San J- Calg: 4 games Vs Minn- Col: 4 games Vs Ana- Dal: 3 Games Vs Interesting note that the Was-Phil series has every game covered except a game 7 if nescessary. Understanding why the NHL wants people to see arguably the best player in the league in Ovechkin, but why no love for Crosby and Malkin? I would think they'd at least get 3 games on Vs, maybe 4. Detroit seems to get the love every year, but they are the President's Trophy winners more times than not. At least I'm not a Bruin's fan. Where the NHL f'ks up IMO is not allowing a person to sign up for their home team's Fox Sports feed. But that's more Directv. I have tried and they won't allow it unless you sign up for the whole Fox Sports package. Even then, unless you subscribe to the NHL Center Ice package, the games will be blacked out. This is highway robbery! A great idea IMO would be for the NHL to get together with Directv and make it possible to follow your team through the playoffs for say $50-$100. You know how much money they'd make? But let's be both stupid and greedy. Just my rant. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tford Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 (edited) Can you not get access to CBC and TSN on Direct TV? I get to see all of the game involving Canadian teams because of CBC coverage. Edited April 13, 2008 by Tford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted April 13, 2008 Author Share Posted April 13, 2008 Can you not get access to CBC and TSN on Direct TV? I get to see all of the game involving Canadian teams because of CBC coverage. Not unless you subscribe to the NHL Center Ice package. What kills me is they still want $200(4 payments of $49.95) just to see the playoffs. Who in their right mind is gonna pay full price when the reg. season is over? Years ago I had the big analog dish and could find wild feeds for free. Hell, even CBC was free. And they wonder why hockey is an afterthought here in the US. Wake up NHL and Directv! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 That sucks Jax...... I get FoxSports Pittsburgh, so, I'm covered. The Pens have looked fantastic, except for that 10-minute stint where they allowed Ottawa to tie Game 2. Crosby is obviously phenomenal, but, right now, no one is playing better than Malkin. His stick work with the puck is jaw-dropping at times. Go Pens !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted April 13, 2008 Author Share Posted April 13, 2008 That sucks Jax...... I get FoxSports Pittsburgh, so, I'm covered. The Pens have looked fantastic, except for that 10-minute stint where they allowed Ottawa to tie Game 2. Crosby is obviously phenomenal, but, right now, no one is playing better than Malkin. His stick work with the puck is jaw-dropping at times. Go Pens !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I saw game 1. Back in the old days with the big dish it was nice as you could find wild feeds. My old roommate was a pro at finding games. We paid for that dish together and when we parted ways, I told him he could keep it, providing he pays for the moving/ installation. He did and little did we know that digital was just around the corner. Looks like I'll have to go to a sports bar to watch tomorrow's game. But Mondays are hell at work and I'll probably be too damn tired. One thing's for sure. After the valiant comeback Ottawa made last game, they can't be taken lightly. They win game 3 and it's 2-1. So keep the pedal to the metal Pens and take game 3. I'll feel much more comfortable with a 3-0 lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 When do the playoffs start? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted April 13, 2008 Author Share Posted April 13, 2008 When do the playoffs start? Right after the Royals win the World Series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 This is off topic as there is little else I can add to the horrible way the NHL markets itself. But did you guys see Avery in front of Brodeur the other night???? Unbelievable, and yet not against any rules at the time. I read the NHL just changed that rule, or lack of rule, but that is one crazy dude. The Pens look pretty good from what I have seen. But as a Wings fan I have to beleive whoever comes out of the west should have the advantage as it is a much better conference. That is unless they get beat up getting there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tford Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 This is off topic as there is little else I can add to the horrible way the NHL markets itself. But did you guys see Avery in front of Brodeur the other night???? Unbelievable, and yet not against any rules at the time. I read the NHL just changed that rule, or lack of rule, but that is one crazy dude. The Pens look pretty good from what I have seen. But as a Wings fan I have to beleive whoever comes out of the west should have the advantage as it is a much better conference. That is unless they get beat up getting there. He only got away with that because the Rangers had a 2-man advantage. On a regular powerplay, he gets a solid cross-check in the back and ZERO referees (except that D-bag McGeough) will call that penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 He only got away with that because the Rangers had a 2-man advantage. On a regular powerplay, he gets a solid cross-check in the back and ZERO referees (except that D-bag McGeough) will call that penalty. My point is that it was within the rules and the crosscheck would not be. :blitz: it is not the refs job to change the rule book :/blitz: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tford Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 My point is that it was within the rules and the crosscheck would not be. :blitz: it is not the refs job to change the rule book :/blitz: I hear you. But what do you do about that? Call it Goalie Interference? Unsportsman-like conduct? Where would you draw the line between a normal screen and Avery's BS? Call me biased but I'd rather the ref put his whistle away and let the guy get mauled in front of the net. A bruised rib would probably lend itself to a quicker learning curve than a minor penalty would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted April 15, 2008 Author Share Posted April 15, 2008 Call me biased but I'd rather the ref put his whistle away and let the guy get mauled in front of the net. A bruised rib would probably lend itself to a quicker learning curve than a minor penalty would. +1 And the Pens just went up 3 games to 0 on Ottawa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuffbills Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I hear you. But what do you do about that? Call it Goalie Interference? Unsportsman-like conduct? Where would you draw the line between a normal screen and Avery's BS? Call me biased but I'd rather the ref put his whistle away and let the guy get mauled in front of the net. A bruised rib would probably lend itself to a quicker learning curve than a minor penalty would. He's not interfering with the goalie nor is he doing anything illegal. Avery isn't the first person to use that strategy in front of the net, so if he gets cross checked from behind, how is that not a penalty? Sure he's aggravating to the other teams, but that's his game and he does it well. Just because he may annoy people doesn't give them the green light to cross check him and get away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuffbills Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 He's not interfering with the goalie nor is he doing anything illegal. Avery isn't the first person to use that strategy in front of the net, so if he gets cross checked from behind, how is that not a penalty? Sure he's aggravating to the other teams, but that's his game and he does it well. Just because he may annoy people doesn't give them the green light to cross check him and get away with it. Just saw that they changed the ruling so they can now call it a penalty. I think that's pretty dumb for the league to do that because a guy can do the same thing with his back to the goalie. The fact that they can now call it a penalty because the player is facing the goalie is ridiculous. I think the league calls too many penalties already. Whatever happened to old time hockey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 And the Pens just went up 3 games to 0 on Ottawa. ...and looking good doing it !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Just saw that they changed the ruling so they can now call it a penalty. I think that's pretty dumb for the league to do that because a guy can do the same thing with his back to the goalie. The fact that they can now call it a penalty because the player is facing the goalie is ridiculous. I think the league calls too many penalties already. Whatever happened to old time hockey Not this this might have much bearing on the goalie screening issue, but get rid of the instigator rule and guys like Avery tend to go away pretty quickly. And just because there wasn't a rule against it doesn't make it right. There is a code in hockey that is basically a set of unwritten rules. While this mainly applies to enforcers, I would think that facing the goalie like that is one you shouldn't be doing, especially since the D-men can't clear out the front of the net anymore like they used to. Just my thoughts on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeductiveNun Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 And to drag this thread into the Western Conference for a while, the last 5 playoff games between Minnesota and Colorado have all gone to overtime, and all had finals of 3-2. Fortunately, the Wild have come out on top more often than not in those, but they have to start scoring before the 3rd period. Sheesh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameltosis Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Just saw that they changed the ruling so they can now call it a penalty. I think that's pretty dumb for the league to do that because a guy can do the same thing with his back to the goalie. The fact that they can now call it a penalty because the player is facing the goalie is ridiculous. I think the league calls too many penalties already. Whatever happened to old time hockey I think the distinction is that when facing goalie you are not trying to score, nor can you. Same as face guarding in the NFL. With you face to the play you can easily deflect the puck or get a rebound. Well, easily for them. I have never been able to deflect well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Not this this might have much bearing on the goalie screening issue, but get rid of the instigator rule and guys like Avery tend to go away pretty quickly. True enough. Regardless, someone on the Devils should have cross checked him so he'd be drinking out of a straw for the rest of the playoffs. I'm not one that condones cheap shots normally, but if you disrespect the game like Avery did, I'd be all for that little prick getting a nice spear in the nuts or something. And I'm glad they instituted the rule change immediately so it won't be done anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Just saw that they changed the ruling so they can now call it a penalty. I think that's pretty dumb for the league to do that because a guy can do the same thing with his back to the goalie. The fact that they can now call it a penalty because the player is facing the goalie is ridiculous. I think the league calls too many penalties already. Whatever happened to old time hockey That would have never happened in old time hockey. Somebody would have lit his ass up. But with the rules today and putting you team at a disadvantage in a playoff game he got to stand there and wave his arms like a little girl. Can't believe I used to root for that dilweed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 That would have never happened in old time hockey. Somebody would have lit his ass up. But with the rules today and putting you team at a disadvantage in a playoff game he got to stand there and wave his arms like a little girl. Can't believe I used to root for that dilweed. I was screaming at the TV when I saw it. If I was the coach I would have sent someone after him. Punch him in the face and take the roughing penalty, it would have set the tone and in the long run probably helped your team, especially from a comraderie\teamwork\momentum perspective. I have no problem with agitators, but that was a b*tch move by a little b*tch that disrespected the game imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Not this this might have much bearing on the goalie screening issue, but get rid of the instigator rule and guys like Avery tend to go away pretty quickly. And just because there wasn't a rule against it doesn't make it right. There is a code in hockey that is basically a set of unwritten rules. While this mainly applies to enforcers, I would think that facing the goalie like that is one you shouldn't be doing, especially since the D-men can't clear out the front of the net anymore like they used to. Just my thoughts on the matter. +1 Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I was screaming at the TV when I saw it. If I was the coach I would have sent someone after him. Punch him in the face and take the roughing penalty, it would have set the tone and in the long run probably helped your team, especially from a comraderie\teamwork\momentum perspective. I have no problem with agitators, but that was a b*tch move by a little b*tch that disrespected the game imo. Once again, well said. I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw it. That would have been worth the punishment to knock his a$$ out. That was disrespect to the game, plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 He only got away with that because the Rangers had a 2-man advantage. On a regular powerplay, he gets a solid cross-check in the back and ZERO referees (except that D-bag McGeough) will call that penalty. I thought only Flyers fans hated him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Pens with the Sweeeeeeeeep !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 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.