flip12

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.

You already did...you don't remember? Also, did you not read the post you just quoted? All the answers are in there.

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.

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.

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

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.

Acciari dove. It was a perfect no call.

Thanks. It was too small to read on my phone.

What’s the blade pattern?

Is there a noticeably different feel in comparison with the standard grey printed liner? I thought that was also Clarino.

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. 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.

Who asked you for data? I asked you for an opinion based on a close reading of the test's writeup rather than a critique that basically amounts to "this data must be garbage because if it isn't then I can't believe the marketing that says this new and improved helmet design is really new and improved, because features!" That's not an argument that gets you very far. It should be clear that companies have their own interests first, which entails marketing everything as an improvement. Without data, how can we assess if there is any improvement or even a consistent level of performance? A pass/fail test doesn't help there. A lot of people in this thread have attacked the VT study's data without understanding what the data even is. People want to hate this effort but for reasons that aren't really accurate. That makes me wonder if there's retaliation because other interests are feeling threatened and we end up hearing propaganda that isn't an accurate depiction of what the STAR rating system is. It isn't without its flaws, but a lot of the supposed flaws are non-existent or were applicable to earlier iterations but have been improved on since the first STAR rating results; rotational impact being the biggie. I don't see @BenBreeg arguing that the STAR system is law, but rather that it's a step towards a better idea of the complicated assessment of risk when it comes to head injuries. That's the problem with research--it's not really as cut and clean as it's often presented in the pop press, and that pop aspect is meant to feed consumers the food for thought that they want. The 1-5 stars are a shrewd way to play it both ways, but I'll maintain that that has upsides and downsides. @stick9 you should go back and carefully reread what comments you're replying to because they are full of misapprehensions. @OldTrainerGuy, what's the downside of using a football headform? How is a football headform not suited for a hockey helmet? It would seem both would be abstract representations of average human heads and football helmets and hockey helmets are meant to actually protect the same actual heads in practice. Is there a response from HECC and CSA explaining their misgivings with STAR? I'm not sure if I missed it before, but what about the VT lab's analysis of rotational impact is seen as insufficient to test for rotational impact by the certification boards you're familiar with?

1. Sure, you can do that, go ahead. But that's completely different from what the VT STAR ratings are. They are peer-reviewed studies, which is all about test the degree of questionability of not only data, but everything involved in a study: background, procedure, results, theory, etc. 2. Peer-review acts as somewhat of a guard against junk science. Like concussions, there is no absolute guarantee of preventing junk science. The best we can do is develop standards and procedures that do the most to eliminate potential sources of error. In that sense, the VT lab has already been vetted in a certain arena (a quite powerful journal, as it happens), which does mean the data is good and valid to that degree. 3. I think I know what you're saying, but I have to substitute another word for likelihood to make it make sense. There is always a likelihood of sustaining a concussion. That is, there is always a non-zero probability that you will sustain a concussion going about your daily routine. Playing a contact sport increases that risk or likelihood. There is no way to prevent it. The facts of movement and having a brain entail the likelihood of sustaining a concussion. What I think makes the most sense is, 'VT _ that (helmets that achieve a 4 or 5 star rating according to) their rating system are not guaranteed to prevent concussions,' (indeed, the likelihood of there being cases of concussions in the better rated helmets is high if not absolutely a guarantee). 4. I can't answer that...if it was a question? At least not exhaustively. I think one angle of support for the VT study that I for one am happy to see I'm not alone in taking in this thread, is that I don't so much put faith in it as I see it as a positive development. I think it's great that there's an objective, transparent analysis of the degree of protection afforded by the most important piece of protective equipment in the sport. I'm surprised there aren't more people that welcome that transparency and look ahead to when further dialogue in the vein of the VT STAR system can help produce helmets that have scientifically analyzed and vetted design principles. This makes me wonder, are the helmet certification procedures and results available for similar analysis and commentary? If so, that's great, and I wish there would be more cross-comparisons between the VT lab's work and what the prior approaches have been. If not, then we need to have a conversation about what's more dangerous: people buying a helmet because they think they're protected by an oversimplified safety seal (my critique of the VT study, but I do understand marketing is a huge factor in research these days) that is the result of an objective analysis, or people buying the helmet they think looks the coolest and heck, it's certified so it must be good. I get not wanting to misguide buyers into helmets that don't fit (notice VT says "genetics" will be a significant factor in eventual concussion occurrence--head shape falls under that umbrella somewhat) based on them wanting to pick out the highest rated helmet regardless of anything else. But is it ok to have manufacturers keep pumping out ever more expensive helmets with an ever increasing list of features without the consumer getting some indication of whether or not those design improvements are actually working or not? @OldTrainerGuy what is a football head form? And how does VT's assessment of rotational impact forces fall short?

P28 has a big heel curve on it to. I thought the difference between P28 and Fisher Pro was smoother transitions from heel to toe, both in rocker and curve.

No amount of incredulity is going to disprove data that are presented with a rigorously described procedure. If you’re unsure what the data mean then show a critique of the tests based on a thorough reading of the paper.

No. Because your cynicism is spot on.

Some of Gretz’s gloves also had one or two white backhand rolls.

The triangle-perforated steel debuted on the Vapor 8, I believe. I had Vapor 8s with that steel and grey Tuuk Custom+'s. I think they stuck around and were also stock on Vapor 10s, like @BenBreeg mentioned, and Nike Ignite 1s. With the Vapor XX, the perforation pattern changed as @Monty22 pointed out, matching the form of the LightSpeed holder visually.

A lot of danglers used to use skinny heel blades (see M. Lemieux, D. Savard, Zhamnov, Kovalev, Viktor Kozlov, even young Datsyuk) which has me wondering if some perceived a difference in puck feel back when sticks or at least blades were wood. The physics of sticks has changed drastically since their time, though. I think when Datsyuk switched from his teardrop blade profile to a goalie blade profile and still managed to dangle the world’s best while reaping the defensive and puck challenge benefits, other players started to try it out with their own patterns. The night and day switch in stick materials and engineering that happened at the same time, or perhaps rather that Datsyuk was the first to prominently exploit, enabled the best of both worlds (good feel and lots of blade face for winning pucks) that max height blades can offer. Having said that, I’ve never had as much success intercepting passes as I have when I’ve played with Kovalev or Leino Pro patterns. They have skinny heels, but the max length seems to catch people off guard. Just my armchair theory on the historical change from skinny to fat heel blades.

Although @chippa13‘s line would go great in some metal lyrics!

Also, it’s curious it’s called a 5.5, because it’s lower than or equal to the lie on the P28 from heel to toe. For me it plays more like a 4. I had to extend my shaft length dialed into the PM9 the keep the puck from sliding out under the aggressive rocker that starts above the heel.

You could see the VH production process with the pieces covering the upper quarter panel being glued on in some of the videos of their factory. The only part of that assemblage that was stitched into the shell was at the edge, which you could more easily see from the inside. Having said that, even if parts are just glued on, there are vastly different kinds of glue, and while I'm not a composites expert by any means, what I've gathered about these thermoformable boots is there are several different glues for different applications with different activation temperatures. From what I recall, the colored parts of the exterior were applied after the shells were cured with the liners inside them. That makes me think it's not a good mix to try and remove those glued pieces after the fact, as the effect on the shell might well be undesired. Or the undo process could simply be delicate and therefore cost prohibitive compared to just getting a new skate. @GregHenn19, instead of the replacement approach, have you considered the additive approach? Just trace the form of the pieces you want adhered to the boot, cut them out and glue them on top. There might be a hint of added thickness depending on the material you chose, but at least you avoid the headache of the unglue/undo process, and you avoid any risk of damaging the skate from taking the surgical route. Just do the same way as they trace-cut-and-stick shot blockers are applied. Optionally stitch into the shell at the edge if you wish. As for skate weight watchers, I doubt this would do much to nudge the Trues into the "even heavier" category. Those looking for super light skates are already shopping elsewhere.

I get that. I’m just saying he is known for his skating prowess indirectly. It’s just like with fireworks: it’s quite cool and remarkable that they fly in their own right; everyone forgets about all that when they go “bang!” As a counter viewpoint though, wouldn’t it be impressive if the less than stellar skaters used niche tech at the highest level? The other ones are doing fine with what they’ve got. It’s the ones who need a little help that should guide the homeviewer towards potential improvements. Marleau and McDavid are classic examples of it’s not the skates but the skaters that make them go—they’ll be frickin’ fast in anything. What they’re wearing, then, might be correllated with speed but certainly wouldn’t be pinpointed as causing the same speed.

But his particular brand of physical presence is open ice hitting rather than simply being big and mean like Derian Hatcher or Chris Pronger, simply because Kronwall's not big and he actually is a good skater. It's just usually what happens when he skates into your space that catches viewers' attention. Still it's only by incredible skating that those open ice hits happen.

I'm pretty sure Ryan Murray uses Niedermayer clones. He's still a lefty, but that means if you were to order custom sticks at True, you could get one of his patterns there mirrored for you without a mold fee. Unless I've fallen behind, everything I've heard about True custom sticks has included the bit that they don't charge for a mold fee at a much lower order number than other companies. I'd also be up for ordering some blades in that pattern from BASE if there was interest in getting a Niedermayer Pro done up in their pattern request program they have. Then it'd be available to righties and lefties alike.