Victoria Islanders 5 - 1 BC Snipers

allen's busy so.,.,


Status: finished

Players and time on ice:

Victoria Islanders: Jables (09:35) Allen (12:29) Kabanov (15:00) Marquardt (07:56) SCOUT (15:00)
BC Snipers: Jurgen (15:00) Bouchard (15:00) Alvin (05:33) Mottau (10:00) Clown (09:15) Gomez (05:00)

Goalie saves:
·Victoria Islanders: 4
·BC Snipers: 10

Goals:
period time score players
1. 04:24 0-1 Bouchard (Jurgen )
2. 00:30 1-1 Marquardt
2. 04:01 2-1 Kabanov
3. 02:10 4-1 Marquardt (Kabanov , SCOUT )
3. 02:29 5-1 Kabanov (SCOUT )

cool

post gwg and stats faggot

I already said the fucking lag goal doesn't count.

Evo22 wrote:

I already said the fucking lag goal doesn't count.

If you are going to discount a goal that is legal under the current rules, then at least set up some sort of standard for doing so. But trust me... attempting to such a standard with any sort of objectivity is futile.

The reason we had it set up to play until the whistle is because it is impossible to come to a mutual agreement as to when "lag goals" count. There are a variety of factors that play into it, and it is inevitably going to be seen in rose colored glasses by any member of each team.

For instance, in the goal in question, our team had possession of the puck and were cycling in your zone when Jurgen apparently started lagging. If we had noticed and left the zone to ice, that still puts us at an unfair disadvantage, making your team's lagging a problem for us and a benefit for you guys.

When lagging has the potential to be beneficial, you will start to see the resurgence of fake lags and other shenanigans. The league starts to go downhill as more controversy boils up and more drama ensues.

Under the current rules, nobody has an advantage. Any team can have a player lagging, and the rule to play until the next whistle applies universally. If you had scored on the rush when Kyle was lagging, it would also be a legit goal.

I know that in this game it doesn't make too much of a difference since we would have won either way. However, it sets a precedent for future matches where such a contentious goal could make the difference between a win and a loss.

Here's my answer to all of those "points"

First off let me start with the fact that I was not there simply stating my opinion on it all.

IT typically is considered a guideline more or less to give back obvious lag goals because of the fact that the team with the disadvantage usually has no way of fixing the issue. Now all of a sudden this is seen as a humongous issue? If Jurgen actually did say that he was lagging in public then then correct thing to do (under these guidelines of course) would be to turn back and stop play until the lag can be fixed or the player can get off the ice.

Now we all know what the original rules state, or something similar to it. That if a player lags play doesn't stop until the next whistle. And yes Pimmer in a way I do agree that it is impossible to come to a mutual agreement on lag goals. The fact is the GM's put in place are there because they should be able to base it off honesty. If they know that a player lagged then it should be an immediate decision (such as in this case). And YES turning back and icing the puck when a player is lagging does hurt the attacking team, but not icing it could hurt the opposing team more. What's worse, restarting your offense, or giving up a goal?

When it comes down to immaturity taking over and people deciding to "fake lag" to stop the other team from scoring, it's usually quite easy to detect whether someone is fake lagging (or atleast it is with the people who would actually do that). Furthermore that type of immaturity has for the most part stopped because unless you have above average talent, GM's generally pass on immaturity if the skill level isn't a humongous difference (example: Boyce, Tylor for a few seasons, and yes I know I am saying that they were/are immature but I'm sure you can ask them and either they will admit it, or just by reading their responses).

In this case yes, you are perfectly correct Pimmer that with the current rules neither team has an advantage or disadvantage. But if we really were to make it that way I guess when people entered the draft they should also but down their usual ping and if any connection issues. I mean we might as well go the whole nine yards and make it so no GM is unaware of drafting a lagging player (this has nothing to do with this situation). I mean realistically though, in a real life sports game if you saw someone injured and knew for a fact that it wasn't something that they are just going to get up and walk away from, wouldn't you stop
play to make sure they were all right (this also going along with my point above).

For lack of a better way to put it, do the right thing. I mean if you consider this situation alone, it is quite obvious even to me, and I wasn't there, that Jurgen was lagging (not based on any information I have received). It goes back to honesty, why would Jurgen lie?

I mean your opinions may differ from mine, but in regular games that aren't league associated don't people typically give back lag goals or determine whether a player lagging could affect the play in any way. In this situation I say giving the goal was the proper thing to do, because if you were in fact cycling in the offensive zone and a defensive player lagged, that would cause for a disadvantage when the player lagging could have obviously helped his team.

Just my two cents

Ok, so the original rules for when a player is lagging is to play on until a whistle, and that's what the Islanders did. The goal counts, Islanders defeat the Snipers 5-1. Oh and Paul, you were right, those were some very good points, peopel could eventually take advantage of something like this and "fake" lag. My mistake I suppose, goal counts.

nate wrote:

Here's my answer to all of those "points"

Why the quotes?

Quote :

IT typically is considered a guideline more or less to give back obvious lag goals because of the fact that the team with the disadvantage usually has no way of fixing the issue. Now all of a sudden this is seen as a humongous issue? If Jurgen actually did say that he was lagging in public then then correct thing to do (under these guidelines of course) would be to turn back and stop play until the lag can be fixed or the player can get off the ice.

Many teams will give back goals that they see fit as lag goals, or ice when they notice a player on the opponent's team is lagging. If they do that, it is completely elective. The problem isn't whether a player is-or-is-not lagging. It is whether that lagging adds a dynamic to the game that puts teams in a disadvantage.

Say for instance, Sean and Gavin are on a 2 on 1 against Jordan Stangle. Jordan Stangle then starts lagging, leaving the play and crashing into the boards. The result is that Sean and Gavin score the easy one-timer.

Jordan Stangle IS NOT faking and let's assume that is proven. The problem is that Sean and Gavin were still on the 2 on 1 and had a quality scoring chance. If Sean and Gavin are expected to return the "lag goal" that puts them at an unfair disadvantage for something that should Jordan's team's problem.

Most examples aren't so extreme, but you can see how certain rules can put the wrong team at a disadvantage as a result of lagging. In our case, I'm not saying that Jurgen was necessarily faking. I'm just saying that if he is lagging, he and his team should be held accountable for it and not the opponents. Anything else would either be backwards
reasoning or subjective rulings that could lead to contention, dispute and prolonged, bitter arguments.

Quote :

Now we all know what the original rules state, or something similar to it. That if a player lags play doesn't stop until the next whistle. And yes Pimmer in a way I do agree that it is impossible to come to a mutual agreement on lag goals. The fact is the GM's put in place are there because they should be able to base it off honesty. If they know that a player lagged then it should be an immediate decision (such as in this case). And YES turning back and icing the puck when a player is lagging does hurt the attacking team, but not icing it could hurt the opposing team more. What's worse, restarting your offense, or giving up a goal?

That isn't the point. One team will certainly be held accountable for lagging, and that should be the lagging team. Under your assumption the advantageous and disadvantageous scenarios would be split 50/50 between the guilty party and their opponent.

And even if you believe that philosophy, in practice it is unrealistic and will just lead to more and more arguments. That 50/50 ratio is under the assumption that everyone on this server is a perfectly rational human being, and I know nobody here with that characteristic. Any inevitable deviation from ideal behavior WILL favor the lagging team.

Let's go back to the situation with Sean, Gavin and Jordan Stangle. Let's say that instead of Jordan lagging, iScout (who is on Sean and Gavin's team), is lagging behind the play. Sean and Gavin will not elect to pass up a good scoring chance to ice for their teammate who is not involved. The fact is: icing MOSTLY favors the defending team, who will likely contest the goal (under Evo's proposed standards) if anyone on their team is at a disadvantage.

Now let's say Sean and Gavin miss the opportunity and Jables scores on the breakaway resulted from iScout lagging out of the play (ye right). Sean and Gavin will contest the iScout was lagging and the goal should not count. The complex situations are so varied and so numerous that it would be nearly impossible to make a completely informed and objective decision. What's more, it would be even more impossible for that decision to be universally accepted to the point where there is no "debate" (more like name-calling and threats).

Quote :

When it comes down to immaturity taking over and people deciding to "fake lag" to stop the other team from scoring, it's usually quite easy to detect whether someone is fake lagging (or atleast it is with the people who would actually do that). Furthermore that type of immaturity has for the most part stopped because unless you have above average talent, GM's generally pass on immaturity if the skill level isn't a humongous difference (example: Boyce, Tylor for a few seasons, and yes I know I am saying that they were/are immature but I'm sure you can ask them and either they will admit it, or just by reading their responses).

Please inform us. What's more, if there is a standard of past "maturity" being a factor, then that just adds more flames to the subjectivity fire. Imagine trying to hold up the argument that "Boyce was probably fake lagging because he's immature" in a playoff game.

The fact is that fake lags if done right cannot be discerned from the real thing. If people can get away with doing them and they can help their team win, then it will become a problem once again.

Quote :

In this case yes, you are perfectly correct Pimmer that with the current rules neither team has an advantage or disadvantage. But if we really were to make it that way I guess when people entered the draft they should also but down their usual ping and if any connection issues. I mean we might as well go the whole nine yards and make it so no GM is unaware of drafting a lagging player (this has nothing to do with this situation). I mean realistically though, in a real life sports game if you saw someone injured and knew for a fact that it wasn't something that they are just going to get up and walk away from, wouldn't you stop
play to make sure they were all right (this also going along with my point above).

Ping and reliability has always been a factor in the draft. It's part of the GMs job to make sure that the players they draft are consistent.

And comparing real life injuries to lagging in internet hockey is just silly. The reason you would stop play IRL is because health takes precedent over the game. The biggest injury you can sustain on kiekko is carpal tunnel.

Quote :

For lack of a better way to put it, do the right thing. I mean if you consider this situation alone, it is quite obvious even to me, and I wasn't there, that Jurgen was lagging (not based on any information I have received). It goes back to honesty, why would Jurgen lie?

For sure, people should do the right thing. Who is the judge of that though? And whether Jurgen was lying or not is irrelevant.

Quote :

I mean your opinions may differ from mine, but in regular games that aren't league associated don't people typically give back lag goals or determine whether a player lagging could affect the play in any way. In this situation I say giving the goal was the proper thing to do, because if you were in fact cycling in the offensive zone and a defensive player lagged, that would cause for a disadvantage when the player lagging could have obviously helped his team.

Except that then it would change from them being at a disadvantage to us being at a disadvantage, because we would have to concede our position and scoring opportunity. Who should be the one hurt by Jurgen's lagging? Jurgen's team or his opponent's team?

Evo22 wrote:

Ok, so the original rules for when a player is lagging is to play on until a whistle, and that's what the Islanders did. The goal counts, Islanders defeat the Snipers 5-1. Oh and Paul, you were right, those were some very good points, peopel could eventually take advantage of something like this and "fake" lag. My mistake I suppose, goal counts.

Oh I was writing this before you posted. Ok, thanks Evo.

I agree with you but the only way I can think of to take the discussion of lag goals out of the player's hands would be to play the games in a public room and have a referee makes judgment calls.