News Flash: Flyers get screwed in Montreal.

[kexodusc]

.. High sticking is now considered anything above 4 feet, which is the height of the cross-bar. Replays from behind the net show the stick making contact with the puck above the cross-bar. No goal. Period.

Swish

Flyers have never bothered to play within the rules, so I'm not surprised their fans don't know them...there is no 4 foot rule and never has been - it's always been height of shoulder for high stick, and point of contact where the puck hits the stick for goals.
http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule61.html

Pay careful attention to (C)
"An apparent goal scored by an attacking player when any part of his stick makes contact with the puck above the height of the crossbar of the goal frame shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed".

You're allowed to swing your stick from overhead as long as the contact is made at or below the bar.
...and look at the replay again. No evidence that the stick was higher than the crossbar at the point the puck makes contact. It is therefore either at bar level or below. The best angle I've seen is behind the net - we see the top of the blade is above the bar during the swing motion, the bottom of the blade where the stick and puck make contact is clearly below. Even the Montreal hating brass in Toronto reviewed the call (for quite some time) and couldn't find any evidence the stick wasn't below the bar. Good call.

Yes, the Flyers got lucky on that call against the Caps, but the Flyers were called for the same type of penalty in an earlier game and the replay showed the same thing; the player was pushed into the goalie. The ruling was that the player didn't make and attempt to stop and, therefore, was partly responsible, so if it works one way, it should work the other.
Sorry dude, no sale.

I don't recall seeing a goal disputed/disallowed earlier in the series because of the incidental contact rule, and at any rate two wrongs don't make a right. But if a penalty call was made againt the Flyers as you mention in that earlier case, then the two plays are completley different - in Game 7 the defender was facing forward and had no chance to react to avoid the goalie - so no penalty on the defender could be called. It shouldn't have been a penalty anyway unless the ref deemed the hit to be interference on the defender (but he puck was approaching the goal so I can't see that - we let them battle), but the play should have been blown dead via the incidental contact rule. Now, if they called a penalty for the hit, I'd be equally disappointed in the call - it was a clean hit, but probably not interference because of the puck passing through the area.

Anyway, one resulted in a goal that directly influenced the result of the series, the other one did not and certainly never made headlines...

[Swish]

Flyers have never bothered to play within the rules, so I'm not surprised their fans don't know them...there is no 4 foot rule and never has been - it's always been height of shoulder for high stick, and point of contact where the puck hits the stick for goals.
http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule61.html

Pay careful attention to (C)
"An apparent goal scored by an attacking player when any part of his stick makes contact with the puck above the height of the crossbar of the goal frame shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed".

You're allowed to swing your stick from overhead as long as the contact is made at or below the bar.
...and look at the replay again. No evidence that the stick was higher than the crossbar at the point the puck makes contact. It is therefore either at bar level or below. The best angle I've seen is behind the net - we see the top of the blade is above the bar during the swing motion, the bottom of the blade where the stick and puck make contact is clearly below. Even the Montreal hating brass in Toronto reviewed the call (for quite some time) and couldn't find any evidence the stick wasn't below the bar. Good call..

Let's just say you misunderstood my comment. The cross bar is 4 feet in height, and I was only referring to high-sticking in regard to the goal that was allowed, not high-sticking in general, so you're not exactly wrong, and neither was I, and I agree that it's only if the stick makes contact above the crossbar, and from the replays I saw, it did. Believe what you want to believe. Otherwise, the should-height is the gauge in other parts of the ice.

I need your help with something though; what do you when you said "The Flyers have never played within the rules', I have no idea what you meant, so please give me some examples. Hard to believe that one team can play under a different set of rules, so please enlighten me.

Swish

[kexodusc]

Let's just say you misunderstood my comment. The cross bar is 4 feet in height, and I was only referring to high-sticking in regard to the goal that was allowed, not high-sticking in general, so you're not exactly wrong, and neither was I, and I agree that it's only if the stick makes contact above the crossbar, and from the replays I saw, it did. Believe what you want to believe. Otherwise, the should-height is the gauge in other parts of the ice.

I need your help with something though; what do you when you said "The Flyers have never played within the rules', I have no idea what you meant, so please give me some examples. Hard to believe that one team can play under a different set of rules, so please enlighten me.

Swish

See Boulerice, Downie, Cote, Hartnell, Jones for the 2008 answer to your question...

The Flyers got their nickname for their notorious toughness and willingness to break the rules. This is a philosophy that continues to exist in that organization. It's been effective in the past. Bobby Clarke is a legend in in Philadelphia (and even more so in Canada) for his willingness to break the rules when it would benefit the team in the long-run (see 72 Summit Series for more detail). I'm not criticizing the culture, I rather enjoy it. Just had a good chuckle when I "misunderstood" your comment about high sticking being defined by 4 feet (which upon review in the context of goal scoring, I admit you were correct). If you're a Flyers fan, don't insult me by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. Ask any hockey fan what team breaks the rules the most, and the majority will say the Flyers....

[Swish]

See Boulerice, Downie, Cote, Hartnell, Jones for the 2008 answer to your question...

The Flyers got their nickname for their notorious toughness and willingness to break the rules. This is a philosophy that continues to exist in that organization. It's been effective in the past. Bobby Clarke is a legend in in Philadelphia (and even more so in Canada) for his willingness to break the rules when it would benefit the team in the long-run (see 72 Summit Series for more detail). I'm not criticizing the culture, I rather enjoy it. Just had a good chuckle when I "misunderstood" your comment about high sticking being defined by 4 feet (which upon review in the context of goal scoring, I admit you were correct). If you're a Flyers fan, don't insult me by pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. Ask any hockey fan what team breaks the rules the most, and the majority will say the Flyers....

...a couple of them were not blatant or even intentional. Downie is a kid and screwed up, but allow him that one mistake. Hartnell is tough, not dirty, ditto Jones. There are plenty of dirty players in the league, and each team has at least one or two. The Flyers paid dearly for those mistakes, but they're history.

But don't say they 'never play by the rules'. If that's the case, any team that commits a penalty isn't playing by the rules. Only if they're not caught or penalized, kind of like Patriots taping other teams....uh oh, I think I just opened up some more old wounds.

Swish - have a fun day

[kexodusc]

...a couple of them were not blatant or even intentional. Downie is a kid and screwed up, but allow him that one mistake. Hartnell is tough, not dirty, ditto Jones. There are plenty of dirty players in the league, and each team has at least one or two. The Flyers paid dearly for those mistakes, but they're history.

But don't say they 'never play by the rules'. If that's the case, any team that commits a penalty isn't playing by the rules. Only if they're not caught or penalized, kind of like Patriots taping other teams....uh oh, I think I just opened up some more old wounds.

Swish - have a fun day

Semantics. The Flyers consistently rank near the top of the league in PIM's, top 5 or better almost every year, with the odd year where they might fall in the middle. Consistency is the message here though, it reflects the philosophy and strategy of the organization.
Now I'll be the first to admit breaking the rules can be an effective part of the game ( I even defended Hartnell, Cote, and even Chris SImon here at ar.com) and I certainly lead my team in PIM's most years...but the merits of rule breaking is another discussion, and we've spent enough time discussing a comment that was intended as a friendly rib at you, not a scathing criticism of the team.

[Duds]

you defended Chris Simon??

Semantics. The Flyers consistently rank near the top of the league in PIM's, top 5 or better almost every year, with the odd year where they might fall in the middle. Consistency is the message here though, it reflects the philosophy and strategy of the organization.
Now I'll be the first to admit breaking the rules can be an effective part of the game ( I even defended Hartnell, Cote, and even Chris SImon here at ar.com) and I certainly lead my team in PIM's most years...but the merits of rule breaking is another discussion, and we've spent enough time discussing a comment that was intended as a friendly rib at you, not a scathing criticism of the team.

[ForeverAutumn]

you defended Chris Simon??

He didn't defend Chris Simon so much as he defended the punishment. Unless he's referring to a different thread. Hockey Talk - Should the league take a stance...

[Swish]

Semantics. The Flyers consistently rank near the top of the league in PIM's, top 5 or better almost every year, with the odd year where they might fall in the middle. Consistency is the message here though, it reflects the philosophy and strategy of the organization.
Now I'll be the first to admit breaking the rules can be an effective part of the game ( I even defended Hartnell, Cote, and even Chris SImon here at ar.com) and I certainly lead my team in PIM's most years...but the merits of rule breaking is another discussion, and we've spent enough time discussing a comment that was intended as a friendly rib at you, not a scathing criticism of the team.

...and my whole point of this thread was to see how many rabid hockey fans would come out of the woodwork and give me a thorough roasting. It worked pretty well, dontcha think? I was really ticked at those calls though, especially the late penalty.

I was born and raised in Flyer country, so I'm a fan, good or bad. I do like hard-hitting hockey, although I never played more than pick-up stuff (just wasn't a popular participant sport when I was growing up), but I played the post in basketball and enjoyed the back-and-forth punishment that was part of the game. I was never a dirty player and don't condone it, but I stood my ground and got into my share of scrapes. All the widows have forgiven me by this time.

Swish

[kexodusc]

.Downie is a kid and screwed up, but allow him that one mistake.

Okay, Downie may be only 21 years old, but as someone who followed his junior career, it's not just one mistake. We're getting close to a baker's dozen, each under media scrutiny, each incident more reckless than the last. Sucker punching a guy in the back of the head a la Todd Bertuzzi (minus the follow through face plant), sucker-cross-checking his own teammate in the mouth because the teammate refused to partake in his poorly conceived man-sex hazing ritual, and too many hits from behind to count to name a few. The guy is going seriously hurt someone soon.