Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

flip12

Members+
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    2691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    77

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by flip12

  1. Posted · Report reply

    On 6/10/2019 at 1:45 AM, althoma1 said:

    I really doubt someone would bounce their head off the ice just to try to sell a call even in the Stanley Cup Finals. I would expect someone embellishing to through themselves back, but break their fall with their arms so that they don't hit their head on the ice. 

    This is Marchand embellishing: 

    and here's embellishment by Kessler:

    With both of these dives you can see that the players go down easily, but not recklessly. They're not risking injury as it's a controlled dive where they brace themselves with at least one arm. Accari would have to have no regard for his own health and safety to go back that hard and land directly on his head. I'm saying this as a Habs fan who wants the Bruins to lose; the Bruins aren't angels (especially Marchand), but I'm not seeing the Accari play as a dive at all and while I don't ref anywhere near the NHL level, I do ref a lot of competitive hockey 

    IMHO, this should probably be its own thread. It lives a parallel existence to the proper Bruins/Blues thread...having said that:

    Thanks for the links. It's interesting to look at other dives for notes. I can see where these have more hallmarks to them that underline the embellishment. I do have a hard time accepting the argument that, if he were diving he wouldn't have hit his head. I don't think it actually makes sense, because it assumes that a player knows the full outcome of going down prior to initiating the dive and that's not a given. There are some cases where they do plan their landing (perhaps better), as your links show. But there are also incidents where they don't, like this one with Sam Reinhart ...

    At first it might seem ridiculous that someone might get hurt embellishing on a play, but that can happen. It's not always possible to know the outcome of a fall. You can have an idea you should go down to sell the penalty, but that doesn't mean you'll do it well, both in the sense of making it believable and making sure you don't do something stupid that gets you hurt. Something stupid like hurtling face first into the boards and forgetting about the dasher that juts out below the glass, or attempting to do a bicycle kick on ice and landing a bit too high on your back so you hit your head on the ice.

    I can't see how Acciari's right leg makes any sense if it's not a dive. It's not sliding forward, as though he loses his balance backward. It simply comes up, straight off the ice and at the same time he leans his back further into the fall. That's what makes his fall look like it has two phases. Once his right leg leaves the ice it looks patently false, to me. Though it even looks suspicious right from the start. MacKinnon on the other hand falls in one motion and spins out, which is the natural effect of losing balance on one leg while another one is still on the ice.

    All of the embellishment links in this thread seem to have those two phases where it's a jerky fall that has dead giveaways of bad acting. I can see where a fall on ice might have two phases if a player starts to fall but still has a chance to regain balance with the other foot, only to fall backward on the flat of the blade. Acciari's right skate doesn't shoot out at all like that, so even if he were going to fall his right leg would have only come off the ice at most a little bit (again see MacKinnon for example). Even if Acciari were going to fall anyway, he would have spun, as is natural when one's center of gravity is suddenly tilted off the axis of support, in this case, his right leg.

    For those who say, "No way, this wasn't diving." What the hell is happening with his right leg? Is it demonically possessed?

    On a general diving/embellishment note, has anyone seen a team awarded a power play where only the diver was assessed a penalty? Whenever I've seen diving called, it's only been offset by the other penalty. I'm wondering if NHL referees are discouraged from calling diving alone on a play.

     

  2. Posted · Report reply

    The players definitely picked their spots. Marchand was pretty blatant in interfering with O'Reilly right of the power play face off, but McAvoy was deliberately hands off when Tarasenko blew by him on the way to his one touch assist on goal 3. When it came to guys on the puck or chasing a loose puck, they laid off. Getting to the puck carrier was another matter.

    I hate to say it, too, but I've got to agree with @chippa13. The fix was in. Only it wasn't the refs going for St. Louis, but rather Marchand and Pasta who seemed to have been unable to resist the odds and put down a lot on the Blues winning or something. Pastrnak looked like someone had ordered his Fisher Pros as extra high P28s or something.

  3. Posted · Edited by flip12 · Report reply

    57 minutes ago, Buzz_LightBeer said:

    In two words, “Beer League.”

    But also some big leaguers use longer profiles just fine.

    I won't lie, I don't play anything better than beer league. But one example I can think of was Gaborik was on some monstrous combo like 13'/30' or something when I saw a pair of his used skates pop up on eBay.

  4. Posted · Report reply

    3 hours ago, caveman27 said:

    Interesting. Not sure how you guys with large radius profile are able to get deep turns and fast backwards starts going with a long radius. I have 8' single radius.

    I haven't experimented intentionally with my skates' profile until wanting to do it this upcoming fall. All I know is from trying out different stock radii from 9', 10', and 11' and 11' feels the best. The 11' is on pitched Cobras, so the pitch might be part of the positive experience on an 11' profile for me. I feel like every aspect of my skating is better on an 11'. My question is if that's the beginning of a sweet zone for me or if it's actually my sweet spot. There could be better for me out there.

    As to your question, how turns and starts are good on a longer radius, I guess it's what you're used to. I think for me personally it's because I played a lot of roller hockey before coming over to ice. As Justin Hoffman explained regarding the difference between roller and ice hockey skate setups, it explains why I like the forward pitch of Graf, and a longer radius seems to allow my most natural skating to come out. I can skate alright on a 9' or a 10', but I feel like I lose speed on every stride. Specifically with turning, I'm used to selectively balancing over a portion of my blade and shifting that loading position along the blade throughout the turn. If I'm on a shorter radius, say, less than 10', I start to lose that feel and instead start to tip forward and back, which really diminishes my shooting. It feels like golfing on the deck of a sailboat in choppy water.

    Starts aren't too bad. Roller skates are really heavy by comparison, especially the last pair I had, Mission Proto Vs. I can't toe start as easily on longer radii, but I feel like toe starts are overrated anyway. As long as you get good leaping strides to start out and your stride rate isn't significantly diminished by gliding a bit as you take your next push, that's actually a bit of a bonus.

    As with every element of equipment minutiae, to each their own; praised be the gods of personal preference, yet again.

     
    • Like 1

  6. Posted · Report reply

    18 hours ago, stick9 said:

    Let's for a second say Accari dove, which is just horse shit, but let's say he did. Why wasn't he called for embellishment? If the refs didn't want to disrupt the outcome, call both the trip and a dive. Either way you slice it, the refs blew it....or didn't blow it, the whistle that is.

    I have too many questions about how NHL refereeing works to answer that. In the case of trip and embellishment, does that result in 5-on-5 or 4-on-4? Is it worth it to make that happen so late in a 1-0 SCF game late in a tied series?

    If Acciari diving is horseshit, why did he look more like Pele than MacKinnon after Bozak made contact with him?

    My conjecture is, the refs are trained to try and spot embellishment. Sometimes it results in a call, other times it doesn't. I've never seen embellishment called and nothing else, so maybe the operating mode is, 'if you spot embellishment but there was no other penalty, let them play on.' In that case, Acciari being down in his zone is no different than if he were because he got hit with a shot and couldn't get up.

    I do agree that the refs didn't blow it, either the whistle or the call. I just can't believe Acciari legit Peleing from a half-speed Bozak bumping--not even kicking like Kadri did to MacKinnon--his knee.

  8. Posted · Report reply

    20 hours ago, chippa13 said:

    There hasn't been a single analyst that has agreed with your "embellishment" routine and didn't feel a trip should have been called. I watch the play in real time, slow motion, frame by frame, however you like and I see a trip. There is a saying that people who explain too much are doing so because they are trying to prove to themselves that they are right.

    I have neither the time or the interest to verify if there isn't a single analyst that said Acciari embellished. But I'll take your word for it. Thanks for doing that research. I don't care what analysts say or not. My opinions are my own, and I don't need them rubber stamped or adorned with shiny star stickers.

    There are lots of sayings. Lots of them contradict each other. They're not all right, obviously.

    Also, there's no way to know if Acciari dove or not, so there's no way to be right or wrong on this, definitively.

    The level of explanation isn't that involved, really. But if you think it's "too much," I guess I can see where the issue is.

    If you watch highlight reels of NHL slew foots and you still think Acciari didn't at least embellish, then I'd at least be surprised.

  9. Posted · Report reply

    5 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

    Acciari was essentially out of the play trying to get his bearings back. Once that happens guys have to try and make up for it and that leads to people getting out of position which leads to breakdowns and 2 on 1's developing. The remaining upright bodies played on but they were at a man disadvantage. Had Acciari been fully functional it would have been 5 on 5 and a whole different situation. But you're right, he dove, embellished, and caused the goal. 

    As for your comment about "content". I think I was clear in that I found your assertion that Acciari's fall was out of sync with the contact from Bozak hilarious and suggested you apply to a noted comedy sketch show about openings on their writing staff.

    The Blues weren't pressing until the Bruins got out of position. Perron is the one that pushes the puck in from the blueline. Bouwmeester's never even in the zone during the sequence, which is why there wasn't any active 5-on-4 advantage. Acciari going down leaves it 4 Bruins in the zone against the Blues' 4. Yes, a player going down and staying on the ice in your d-zone leads to edge case logic applying, but in this situation, it looks like that just gets applied terribly. It only takes a couple of seconds for that 4-on-4 to become a 2-on-1, but even watching it in live speed, you can see as they unravel.

    As to your commentary on my comment about content, I got what you were trying to say, but it's still meaningless. There's no content there. You just saying, 'your detailed explanation of the situation that's different from mine' is "hilarious" doesn't really contain anything. If you watch video of NHL slew foots, there are many more cases of guys spinning out or simply tipping over and falling on their backsides, even in cases where bigger players are coming in on them with more speed and less notice. Just look at that bicycle kick and tell me it's not suspicious. That's some (FIFA) World Cup quality diving, but thankfully the ref didn't bite.

  10. Posted · Report reply

    6 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

    The timing is all out of sync????? Call SNL, because with material like that you could put the show back on the map.

    Huh? This isn't the first time you respond with absolutely no content.

    3 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

    It wasn't that they stopped playing, they just had to deal with a change in possession and essentially being a player down with Acciari shaking the cobwebs after landing on his back. That created the 2 on 1 down low which ultimately resulted in the goal. 

    Well, Carlo, a defenseman, was pretty much standing a stick's length from the blue line when the puck got pushed back to Bozak and still had a chance to recover down low but instead got tangled up with O'Reilly. After Acciari went down, it ends up 4-on-4 in the zone. 3 out of the remaining 4 Bruins seem to lose their bearing, possibly because they were assuming a penalty would be called and forgot to continue to play. The 2-on-1 comes after several breakdowns: Carlo's fade and tangle, Kuraly's missed challenge on Perron where he brushes by Bozak, and Nordstrom's obliviousness to the hole created by the collapse of Carlo, Acciari and Kuraly being out of the play. It's not like Acciari went down and Bozak picked up the puck 2-on-1.

  11. Posted · Report reply

    What it looks like when I watch it is Acciari saw Bozak coming to put pressure and planned to go down if given the chance. Bozak bumps him leg to leg and he goes for it. It's hard to see how hard they collided, but I'm highly convinced he embellished. That bicycle kick was impressive, but completely gratuitous. The timing of his fall is all out of sync with the contact with Bozak.

    I'm not sure what spotter protocol is like. I'm not sure how conversations between players and the rest of the staff go in the case of a dive, or in just about any case, for that matter, so I can't reply to the suggestion that this wasn't a dive because if it were he wouldn't have been pulled by the spotter. I can't analyze the contents of a locked black box.

    It just looked like Acciari was fishing for a power play and didn't get it. Maybe it was a legit penalty and he overdid his sell and that convinced the ref that it probably didn't actually warrant a tripping call, I don't know. But it looks fishy as hell. Even I had Bozak's "c'mon you can't seriously call that" reaction when I saw it the first time, without the assistance of replay and slow motion.

  17. Posted · Edited by flip12 · Report reply

    1 hour ago, Nicholas G said:

    I have never had any adult in a senior skate use anything longer than an 11' radius die to the amount of power and length needed for each stride. 

    Skating on anything over a 13' will feel like you are using a bobsled. 13' will feel like a snowboard. 11' will give you stability and more top end speed but still feel like skis. If that makes sense. 

    I've only skied for a few minutes in my life (the loaner set I was using was so worn one ski wouldn't clamp tight enough to pull through 4" of powder and stay locked), but it reminded me of skating. I've never snowboarded, but the analogy is starting to fall apart in my head. With a snowboard, your feet are linked at a fixed distance from each other, right? I can't picture skating like that. Maybe I'm just not following...

    I much prefer a stock 11' on Graf to anything else I've tried--mostly 9' and 10', but I think I tried a pair of CCMs that were 7' because I felt like I had absolutely no glide, and no pivot length to launch into strides from.

    I think I'd be happy on an 11' again. I'm just wondering if I'm missing out not going longer. If I'm not mistaken, I think it's somewhat common for players in Sweden to skate on longer radii than 11', so the advice might just vary that much due to geography. I'll try to get some sense from the shop that can profile about what they'd recommend and why. I wish I had extra steel, so I could get an 11' just to have it and have an extra set or two to try out alternate profiles.

  18. Posted · Report reply

    1 hour ago, Nicholas G said:

    I actually like the 11' single radius profile and our store does quite a bit of them for players who prefer a single radius and dont want a combination radius. However with that being said, if you are open to a combination radius you might like a 10/20' or the Zuperior or Quad 2 profile. Here are some example profiles:

     

    R8h2iRO.jpg

    The place I’m looking at has those options available too, and they do seem intriguing with the longer radii in the back. For this round, I’m afraid I might need to minimize the steel loss, because I’m working with a single set of MLX holders and steel, so I don’t have the chance to try the ideal approach, rotating multiple sets with different profiles. If I can get a pair of Trues next year, I’ll definitely go with that try everything approach though. For now I’ve thought I’d keep it to the single radius options to keep it simple and avoid steel loss. With that in mind I thought I’d try the longest single radius and work down to 11’, since that should minimize the steel loss if I’m picturing it right. I just want to hear from others if trying something like a single 17’ is crazy before I go with it. 

  19. Posted · Report reply

    Hi all. I’m looking at getting my skate blades contoured before we get our ice back in August. Out of the common stock radii (9’, 10’, and 11’) I’m by far most comfortable on 11’. This makes sense to me because I played several years of roller hockey prior to switching to ice, and the longer radius feels more natural to my ingrained skating.

    My question is, what are people’s experiences with radii longer than 11’, because the place I can get my blades done offers 13’, 15’, and 17’, as well as some combo radii?

    From what I’ve read in the ProSharp Project reviews, no one has reviewed a radius longer than 11’ yet, and a search didn’t return any existing topics dedicated to this question yet.

  20. Posted · Report reply

    52 minutes ago, jdvn said:

    You can see the midsole when you remove the footbed. I know for a fact that the FT1 midsole is composite and the FT490 is nylon. I don’t see why there would be a nylon midsole on the FT2.

    How much of a performance benefit would you really notice between a composite/nylon midsole? There are a ton of NHL pro stock Bauer skates that have what looks to be nylon midsoles rather than composite like the retail versions. 

    Exactly. I was thinking what this thread needs is photos of each of these skates' midsoles so those of us at home can see what's actually in there, rather than more hyperlink speculation.

    It's also of interest to know where one is reading such information. There are lots of things available to read these days, along the entire range of accuracy possibilities.

  22. Posted · Report reply

    2 hours ago, dantheman said:

    Saw Matias Ekholm playing in world hockey championship. Noticed he had something on the top eyelets of his skates. Does anyone know what it is?

    https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/mattias-ekholm-of-the-nashville-predators-skates-against-the-wild-picture-id1056331366?s=2048x2048 

     

    1 hour ago, Bizz22 said:

    Lace extender for lace bite

     

    Also / or better range of motion. He's been wearing them pretty much constantly since mid-March 2016 what I saw in a quick GettyImages search. 55 Flex introduced this as a product, but the company didn't last long. If you search you'll find a few topics on 55 Flex and how to make your own. There's a company or two always selling their version on eBay.

    mattias-ekholm-of-the-nashville-predator

    That's the first image of him with them in, from March 14, 2016.

    PS... this segment should probably be moved to the Gear Sightings thread, as it has nothing to do with VH/True.

  23. Posted · Edited by flip12 · Report reply

    1 hour ago, Nastys said:

    Do you kown what difference between different line of the accel? 

    My dream is too find the supreme comp in my syze.. This one is too tight for me. But very very hard to find in 9 or 9.5 us. And maybe not top to play hockey in this day 

    I can't recall the naming scheme, but I think Air Accel Elite and Air Accel were the top two tiers in the lineup. You can see the subtle differences that giveaway where in the lineup a boot was. The best signs I know of are the "Made in Canada" on the tongue, versus "Made in Taiwan" on the lesser models, and especially the outsole type. If it's composite, it's one of the top two. If it's the composite with a channel, it's the Elite. Both of the top two look similar in the quarter panels: basically two pieces--the base and the plastic superstructure, without any additional facing bits--and with the groovy reinforcement stitching.

    What I'll never find is a Fedorov spec in my size, as his feet are a little smaller, but that would be awesome: one eyelet lower than standard, with a squared off tendon guard, rather than the usual pointed shape.

  25. Posted · Report reply

    Those are ******* amazing!!

    I've been on the hunt for white 10.5's. There are very few that are in that condition.

    Just have a look through eBay's completed listings for "Nike hockey skates" (see the link below...that's the search term I tend to use because a lot of the listings for Nike hockey stuff on eBay seems to be from people who don't really represent what they have very well). From what I've seen on there, these could sell anywhere from $150-$300. It seems like the size range from 8-9.5 has pretty good movement. It's somewhat dependent on the size you have.

    https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=nike+hockey+skate&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_Complete=1

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...