Oct 31, 2015
Thumbs down to goal controversies and the salary cap
TSN's Dave Hodge gives a thumbs down to goal controversies that won't go away and roster call-ups and demotions for salary cap purposes.
By Dave Hodge
"Thumbs down" to the controversy that won't go away. Not even Thursday's stirring win over Montreal completely cooled the emotions of Edmonton fans who felt Connor McDavid and the Oilers were robbed of at least one point, and maybe two, when the "common sense" tying goal against Los Angeles last Sunday wasn't counted.
To quickly review the situation for those who have moved on, Jonathan Quick reached back across the goal-line and the puck shot by McDavid was somewhere in his catching glove. The "common sense" aspect of the Edmonton argument was that the puck was, in all likelihood, completely over the line, but the NHL stuck to its protocol that the puck needed to be visible to provide clear proof that a legal goal had been scored.
Well, here's my long-embraced solution for the next time this occurs (and I'll grant you it has never received widespread support); change the rule that says the puck needs to be completely across the line and award a goal if any part of the puck "breaks the plane", to use a football term.
Under any circumstances, it is easier to tell if a bit of the black puck has reached the white of the ice inside the net than it is to see ice between the puck and the goal line. Furthermore, and to the point of the Edmonton debate, it is far easier to conclude that McDavid's puck was at least partly across the line because Quick's glove was mostly across the line. A new rule would mean more goals would be scored. Everyone but goalies would like that. This idea is usually ridiculed by those who tell me hockey has always done it hockey's way and never mind what football does. Well, okay then. Kings 3, Oilers 2.
"Thumbs down" to the NHL salary cap. I could say that every day, and maybe I do, I just don't keep track. On that note, earlier this week, the Toronto Maple Leafs "recalled" forward Casey Bailey from the AHL Toronto Marlies and they "demoted" forward Byron Froese. The next day, they "recalled" Froese and "demoted" Bailey. This was of interest to precisely no one except the two players' accountants, because it was simply a transaction on paper that enabled the Leafs to gain a salary cap edge. Bailey did make and Froese did lose NHL money for a day, so there was that. Otherwise, the shuffle somehow made it easier for the Leafs to use the precise time that Bailey spent on the NHL roster to place the inactive Nathan Horton on LTIR (Long Term Injured Reserve), thus creating some $5 million in cap space. Don't ask me to explain. If I could, I wouldn't, because this stuff doesn't qualify in any way as news, and no time should be spent telling fans otherwise. If the Leafs are now better positioned to take on a salary by way of a trade, let them make the trade and that will be reported. How they're moving numbers around interests me as much as where they're placing new office furniture and how they're disposing of the old stuff.