Avery IS back on the Rangers

[Ovie17 0]

He lost the game? Is it His fault for the rangers not scoring in the 1st period? 2nd Period? Didnt think so.

[Chadd 916]

He lost the game? Is it His fault for the rangers not scoring in the 1st period? 2nd Period? Didnt think so.

Not that I disagree with you, but how many goals did he have?

[Ovie17 0]

None, But 17 other guys could have scored but they didnt.. so it was really the teams fault not his

[Chadd 916]

None, But 17 other guys could have scored but they didnt.. so it was really the teams fault not his

He is part of the team. The blame for the loss isn't all on him, but he didn't score either.

This is getting off topic though.

[Ovie17 0]

Yeah it is.. But he said He lost the game i just wanted to add its a team effort

[psh 25]

Taking a penalty during a TV time out in the last 5 minutes of a must win game is not Avery's fault? He virtually assured that the Rangers would lose the game.

Avery did not know that Thomas would retaliate, so he was taking one hell of a risk in doing what he did. As usual, he elevated his own personal insanities above his team. And this team took him back as a charity case after another team tossed him out on his tail. Avery shows gratitude in strange ways.

[NYR4NG3R5 0]

Technically there should have been NO penalties on it since the refs aren't technically supposed to be able to watch a replay and call a penalty on something they had missed before hand. That aside I'm in no way saying what Avery did wasn't deserving of a penalty. Avery knew what he was doing as was mention a few times before.

[gelowitz 0]

Technically there should have been NO penalties on it since the refs aren't technically supposed to be able to watch a replay and call a penalty on something they had missed before hand. That aside I'm in no way saying what Avery did wasn't deserving of a penalty. Avery knew what he was doing as was mention a few times before.

Was the penalty called before the next puck drop? When did they watch the replay? I didn't see them do it.

[NYR4NG3R5 0]

They watched it up on the big screen where everyone could see. Thats when they saw it and called the penalty. No ref saw Avery make the tap before it was shown on the big screen, I can assure you.

[s4gobabygo 0]

Taking a penalty during a TV time out in the last 5 minutes of a must win game is not Avery's fault? He virtually assured that the Rangers would lose the game.

to be perfectly fair, the result of the whole exchange was 2 minutes to each side, followed by what arguably was an aggravated penalty by Boston a few seconds later. if anything, he gave the rangers a good final opportunity to tie it up. i dont know how you can interpret that string of events as hurting the rangers' chance to tie the game...

[gelowitz 0]

They watched it up on the big screen where everyone could see. Thats when they saw it and called the penalty. No ref saw Avery make the tap before it was shown on the big screen, I can assure you.

Well now you are just assuming they did. No ref may have saw Avery hit Thomas but a linesman might have. And a penalty is a penalty, no matter if it is on the replay or not.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

They watched it up on the big screen where everyone could see. Thats when they saw it and called the penalty. No ref saw Avery make the tap before it was shown on the big screen, I can assure you.

were you in the building?

any game i've been to, the linesmen and refs do a good job of watching everyone until they go to their respective benches. there's always one official watching, if not standing between benches as well.

[psh 25]

Taking a penalty during a TV time out in the last 5 minutes of a must win game is not Avery's fault? He virtually assured that the Rangers would lose the game.

to be perfectly fair, the result of the whole exchange was 2 minutes to each side, followed by what arguably was an aggravated penalty by Boston a few seconds later. if anything, he gave the rangers a good final opportunity to tie it up. i dont know how you can interpret that string of events as hurting the rangers' chance to tie the game...

To be perfectly fair, you'd include my entire statement rather than just the one sentence above. I said that Avery had no way of knowing that Thomas would retaliate. Therefore, he was putting his team at tremendous risk by hitting Thomas during a TV time out. Unless he can predict the future like the amazing Kreskin, it's clear that he has no respect for his team, his opponents, or any real concern for the outcome of the game.

[chippa13 1844]

Taking a penalty during a TV time out in the last 5 minutes of a must win game is not Avery's fault? He virtually assured that the Rangers would lose the game.

to be perfectly fair, the result of the whole exchange was 2 minutes to each side, followed by what arguably was an aggravated penalty by Boston a few seconds later. if anything, he gave the rangers a good final opportunity to tie it up. i dont know how you can interpret that string of events as hurting the rangers' chance to tie the game...

You don't? What do you think was going through the heads of guys like Drury, Gomez, and Naslund as they watched the replay on the big screen? I guarantee they weren't thinking, "Let's get that next one, boys." Instead, it was probably along the lines of, "Not this shit again." The guy I feel the worst for, Sjostrom for taking a blocker in the mug for that horseshit.

[s4gobabygo 0]

i didn't quote the other part of your post, because i wasn't disagreeing with that part. i very much disagree that he "virtually assured" that the rangers would lose. that's just not right. i agree that there was RISK that it could have turned out badly. avery was betting that the retaliation would exceed the initial instigation, and he was right. He's made a career out of being right about that, and his reputation actually helps him in that respect. if anything, it helped their chances to tie the game.

the rangers' weak play throughout all 3 periods is what "virtually assured" that they would lose.

[irbenaid 0]

You don't? What do you think was going through the heads of guys like Drury, Gomez, and Naslund as they watched the replay on the big screen? I guarantee they weren't thinking, "Let's get that next one, boys." Instead, it was probably along the lines of, "Not this shit again." The guy I feel the worst for, Sjostrom for taking a blocker in the mug for that horseshit.

Maybe Gomez should worry more about not losing the puck once he gains the zone with all of those stupid passes he makes.

[psh 25]

i didn't quote the other part of your post, because i wasn't disagreeing with that part. i very much disagree that he "virtually assured" that the rangers would lose. that's just not right. i agree that there was RISK that it could have turned out badly. avery was betting that the retaliation would exceed the initial instigation, and he was right. He's made a career out of being right about that, and his reputation actually helps him in that respect. if anything, it helped their chances to tie the game.

the rangers' weak play throughout all 3 periods is what "virtually assured" that they would lose.

Fair enough. I do disagree, though. Interpreting what happened charitably, one would say Avery was (1) trying to fire up his lethargic team, and (2) betting on Thomas (or his team mates) to retaliate and be penalized. Maybe he did fire up the Rangers, but nothing fires up a team as much as rallying around their goaltender. So, it seems the best Avery could hope for there was a wash--he fires up his bench, but he fires up the Bruins equally. With respect to goading Thomas into a penalty, you could say Avery was correct there based on what happened. However, what does it get the Rangers? It gets them Avery in the box for 2 minutes and it gets them one Bruin, notably not Thomas but rather a player of their choosing, in the box. It seems to me the Bruins win in that trade. Now, maybe as you say Avery was betting on Thomas or one of his team mates to be penalized in excess of Avery's own two minutes. That seems very highly unlikely, especially given Avery's reputation. I just can't see a referee wanting to reward Avery's behavior in a situation like that. As long as a referee has any discretion in the matter, he is absolutely not going to reward Avery for whacking a defenseless player during a TV time out.

So, interpreted as charitably as possible, maybe Avery was gambling with his team's 8th seed on the line with 5 minutes to go. The gamble seemed to have the odds stacked against him--it was shooting the moon. It seems insane to me. Maybe the instinct to go all in with everything on the line is what separates real athletes from guys like me. I'm sure there is some aspect of that to this, but in the end, it just seems like Avery being mentally deficient at worst or deluded and narcisistic at best. There was a point at which I hoped he'd be a contributor and a guy to watch in the league. In the end, I think he's showing once again that he just can't change his stripes. He's a little more talented and a little higher paid version of Steve Downie. He can't be counted on when it matters.

[Darshu 0]

I'm not a huge fan of Avery but I _strongly_ disagree that he's anything like Steve Downie. Avery isn't a physically reckless player who plays dirty to injure other players. Even compared to the other "agitator" players like Jarkko Ruutu or Jordan Tootoo, Avery is relatively clean. He's a d-bag, for sure and he's got pretty poor judgement, but he respects the other guys on the ice enough not to hurt them.

[chippa13 1844]

I'm not a huge fan of Avery but I _strongly_ disagree that he's anything like Steve Downie. Avery isn't a physically reckless player who plays dirty to injure other players. Even compared to the other "agitator" players like Jarkko Ruutu or Jordan Tootoo, Avery is relatively clean. He's a d-bag, for sure and he's got pretty poor judgement, but he respects the other guys on the ice enough not to hurt them.

Milan Lucic would beg to differ. Folks are forgetting the blatant hit from behind Avery put on him when he was still with the Stars.

[Law Goalie 147]

Let's also not forget his Claude Lemieux-esque turtle acts.

[Steve_v3 289]

Milan Lucic would beg to differ. Folks are forgetting the blatant hit from behind Avery put on him when he was still with the Stars.

If the Bruins are fortunate to win the Cup this year you could argue Avery helped them. The Stars game chippa is refering to sparked the B's early on. Between Avery & Ott throwing cheap shots then that hit from behind on Lucic. Now if they get hot again the B's could thank Avery.

Let's also not forget his Claude Lemieux-esque turtle acts.

When he hit Lucic in that game he got jumped by Savard and Lucic and turtled up pretty quick.

In the Rangers game it was very convenient how just as Thomas was about to reach him he ducked out of the way.

I wonder how he knew he was coming.......

[Darshu 0]

Milan Lucic would beg to differ. Folks are forgetting the blatant hit from behind Avery put on him when he was still with the Stars.

Hey, I'm not saying he's not a sleazebag, but I think if you look at Avery's douchebaggery compared to Downie's, it's a different animal. I think Downie is in that Chris-Simon-gonna-kill-you class of players that really doesn't belong in the league whereas Avery is at the borderline of the Claude Lemieux agitator class.

[#96 0]

Why is nobody commenting about how the refs didn't see it, and only after they saw the play on the jumbotron and the fans yelling about Avery, did they make the call? Why is nobody commenting about how refs ARE NOT allowed to watch the playbacks and make reaction calls? Why is nobody commenting that linesman are not allowed to assist in calls like that, but they did? Last time I checked, linesmen are only allowed to be consulted in high sticking penalties where a player has been injured, not roughing calls.

Oh yeah, that's right, because it was a reputation call on Sean Avery. All you guys only support what I said earlier in this thread, that being, if Avery does anything questionable all the Anti-Avery people are going to come out of the woodwork and say, "See he's not fixed. He's not rehabilitated!" And thank you everyone, because you proved my point. The crescendos of assclown, scumbag, and bush league resonate loud and clear.

IMO, it wasn't a smart play. But c'mon, we've never seen a play like that before? A goalie putting his heavy-ass stick between a guys legs isn't worse? That crap happens all the time but nobody says a thing about it. How about Thomas punching Sjostrom in the face with his blocker? Not bush though, right? But Avery does something stupid, and now he's terrible and the Rangers are a horrible organization for bringing back a player that is, even statistically speaking, an impact player.

Take the blindfolds off, seriously it's annoying.

[Steve_v3 289]

Why is nobody commenting about how the refs didn't see it, and only after they saw the play on the jumbotron and the fans yelling about Avery, did they make the call? Why is nobody commenting about how refs ARE NOT allowed to watch the playbacks and make reaction calls? Why is nobody commenting that linesman are not allowed to assist in calls like that, but they did? Last time I checked, linesmen are only allowed to be consulted in high sticking penalties where a player has been injured, not roughing calls.

Oh yeah, that's right, because it was a reputation call on Sean Avery. All you guys only support what I said earlier in this thread, that being, if Avery does anything questionable all the Anti-Avery people are going to come out of the woodwork and say, "See he's not fixed. He's not rehabilitated!" And thank you everyone, because you proved my point. The crescendos of assclown, scumbag, and bush league resonate loud and clear.

IMO, it wasn't a smart play. But c'mon, we've never seen a play like that before? A goalie putting his heavy-ass stick between a guys legs isn't worse? That crap happens all the time but nobody says a thing about it. How about Thomas punching Sjostrom in the face with his blocker? Not bush though, right? But Avery does something stupid, and now he's terrible and the Rangers are a horrible organization for bringing back a player that is, even statistically speaking, an impact player.

Take the blindfolds off, seriously it's annoying.

He still did it though. I could care less whether the refs called penalties or not. Regardless if the refs saw it or not it doesn't change the fact he did tap Thomas on the back of the head. It wasn't a dirty play and wasn't a cheap shot but it was a really stupid thing to do. I can't imagine any player that enjoys having him as a teammate. Ask Sjostrom if he was happy taking that shot from Thomas because he was standing up for a teammate.

[s4gobabygo 0]

slightly off topic, but i really wonder if many NHLers ever read this forum? i'd love to learn that Avery is reading this thread!

anyway, psh, you make a very good point about the B's getting to pick a player to put in the bin. i hadn't considered that, or that they obviously get a boost from rallying around their keeper. i was really only referring to the sequence of penalties that were even, or arguably put the rangers on a power play. either way, he's nowhere near my favorite ranger, but some part of me applauds his ability to get under absolutely everyone's skin. there are aspects of his "player personality" that i wish were very different, though. taking the good with the bad, i'm still relatively happy to have him back. the rags have some serious fighting to do if they want to stay in he playoffs, and i hope he's a part of that.