|
Post by Disp on Apr 20, 2015 9:13:26 GMT -5
I'm with you on that hit. The hit that really disturbed me and is clearly suspedable was the cross check to PK's head. How the refs missed it i don't know. But how the league won't suspend for a clear hit to the head of a targeted opponent is ridiculous. As I recall, Cameroon said if you don't suspend pk then we will give him our lumber and we will take the 5 minute major. So that's what they do and the refs don't even call the major. Apparently the league didn't get the Cameroon memo we all did. That was a goon hit. How about sending this to the league I zoomed in, micro-fracture. Pretty sure he's mouthing the word "kill" as well. Threats issued.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Apr 20, 2015 9:56:50 GMT -5
Weise, describing the feelings about his OT goal... I can relate to how he felt playing road hockey when I was a kid.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 20, 2015 10:12:18 GMT -5
From what I've heard on the TSN690 radio post-game show, there's already been word from the NHL that nothing extra will come from the Karlsson hit. Did you tune them in today, CH ... what are they saying about last night's game ... 49 SOG directed at Anderson ... and Pacioretty had a bad game to boot ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Apr 20, 2015 10:23:39 GMT -5
I told my Sens friends here at work that the Habs would sweep Ottawa, and that Anderson would start game 3.....I should have bought a lottery ticket.
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Apr 20, 2015 10:34:04 GMT -5
Except for the first periods we've really dominated them.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 20, 2015 10:45:05 GMT -5
Except for the first periods we've really dominated them. Yeah. Last night, from the 2nd period on the shots were 40-22. Sens have some real passengers - Hoffman & Ryan for instance have done nothing.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Apr 20, 2015 10:45:06 GMT -5
The most important thing to remember about winning game three is that there is a game four....
PUT THEM AWAY.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 11:07:18 GMT -5
The most important thing to remember about winning game three is that there is a game four.... PUT THEM AWAY. Couple of heartbreaking losses for them. We'll see if they play loose for Game 4, or dejected.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 20, 2015 11:11:47 GMT -5
What I didn't like about the Karlsson hit (and I'd definitely be seeking retribution) is that he and Nathan had that scuffle before then. The replay that CBC showed that went back about 5 seconds before the hit. clearly shows Karlsson looking for exactly what happens. He anticipates what to do if Beaulieu gets the puck and then he times it perfectly to hit him just as he receives the puck. And he's a long ways off when you see that sequence start. That's not a good hockey play, that's predatory. And since the NHL is not going to do anything about it, the team has to. For such a nice guy, that was a very calculated, nasty thing to do. Perhaps you walk into a slapshot with no intention of hitting the net. There may be more creative things that a team can do. Perhaps just threaten to do everything to him and then do nothing. See if you can get him off his game. Whatever, but something that hurts would make me feel better. Thought it was Karlsson's best game as a Senator ... certainly his best game as captain ... thought it was a head shot the first time I saw it ... I felt Karlsson got preferential treatment on that hit ... now, had it been PK dishing it out I suspect there would have been a different form of preferential treatment ... just the same, if we thought they put the whistles away for this one just wait for Game 4 ... Cheers. It was definitely Karlsson's best game. He was flying. Eller was the only Hab who kept up with him on one rush and that was barely. And I also think the hit on Beaulieu was 'clean' and within the rules and that Nathan will learn to survey his surroundings. I'd still look to get back, though. Karlsson did exactly that, in response to the scrum he had earlier with Beaulieu and was waiting for an opportunity. I just don't think you can let that pass. I don't think it happened as part of the normal flow of a game. I honestly believe Karlsson was looking for such a situation given how soon before Beaulieu took the pass that he switched directions and started going forward. It's probably part of our system and well scouted. They're both young. Lots of time and games to turn this into Hatfield and McCoy.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 20, 2015 11:13:42 GMT -5
I told my Sens friends here at work that the Habs would sweep Ottawa, and that Anderson would start game 3.....I should have bought a lottery ticket. I hope you're right, but as an eternal skeptic, there's still another game to win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 11:15:50 GMT -5
The league rarely cares about their young players, ask Gallagher. They sure don't care about Subban ... Cheers. Agree, he has yet to earn the star treatment. Perhaps because he complains and dives, but he's curbed that aspect of his personality, so hopeful he'll start getting the calls. I don't get why the cross check to his head isn't news, although I believe if he rolls around on the ice he earns us a pp and possible suspension. This is Gary's "new NHL". We have to live with it.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 20, 2015 11:16:10 GMT -5
Thought it was Karlsson's best game as a Senator ... certainly his best game as captain ... thought it was a head shot the first time I saw it ... I felt Karlsson got preferential treatment on that hit ... now, had it been PK dishing it out I suspect there would have been a different form of preferential treatment ... just the same, if we thought they put the whistles away for this one just wait for Game 4 ... Cheers. It was definitely Karlsson's best game. He was flying. Eller was the only Hab who kept up with him on one rush and that was barely. And I also think the hit on Beaulieu was 'clean' and within the rules and that Nathan will learn to survey his surroundings. I'd still look to get back, though. Karlsson did exactly that, in response to the scrum he had earlier with Beaulieu and was waiting for an opportunity. I just don't think you can let that pass. I don't think it happened as part of the normal flow of a game. I honestly believe Karlsson was looking for such a situation given how soon before Beaulieu took the pass that he switched directions and started going forward. It's probably part of our system and well scouted. They're both young. Lots of time and games to turn this into Hatfield and McCoy. I honestly can't remember the wording, but I remember the TSN panel talking about head shots ... it didn't necessarily have to do with a direct hit to the head, it only had to do with the head being involved and that made it suspendable ... I'd probably be a lot more adamant about it had we lost ... as it is now, I just want to bury the Senators and their media ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 20, 2015 11:19:30 GMT -5
This is Gary's "new NHL". We have to live with it. This edition of the Habs seems to be adjusting well to it ... at least they're a lot better prepared for it than previous teams in Montreal ... earlier teams would have folded up by now ... Cheers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 11:21:06 GMT -5
This is Gary's "new NHL". We have to live with it. This edition of the Habs seems to be adjusting well to it ... at least they're a lot better prepared for it than previous teams in Montreal ... earlier teams would have folded up by now ... Cheers. Going into the playoffs, I was afraid of the Sens beating us up. Well, they are, but our guys are staying composed.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 20, 2015 11:56:03 GMT -5
This is Gary's "new NHL". We have to live with it. This edition of the Habs seems to be adjusting well to it ... at least they're a lot better prepared for it than previous teams in Montreal ... earlier teams would have folded up by now ... Cheers. I get this feeling as well. I think the way the Sens reacted to the slash in game one is how previous editions of the Canadiens might have. It took their focus away from playing the game. I expect game 4 to have a similar plot. Weather the storm, as they slow down take over. The Sens have showed that they can come out of the gate, but can't maintain the pace they set.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 20, 2015 12:26:55 GMT -5
They sure don't care about Subban ... Cheers. I don't get why the cross check to his head isn't news, although I believe if he rolls around on the ice he earns us a pp and possible suspension. do you mean PK would get a penalty and a suspension for diving?
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Apr 20, 2015 12:31:20 GMT -5
Somebody posted the following and it made me chuckle
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 14:19:58 GMT -5
I don't get why the cross check to his head isn't news, although I believe if he rolls around on the ice he earns us a pp and possible suspension. do you mean PK would get a penalty and a suspension for diving? You may have gotten me there. But seriously I think if PK acts like he was shot in that play like Stone did it would have drawn the penalty. Unfortunately they somehow missed it, and I respect PK for continuing to play through it.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 20, 2015 14:52:30 GMT -5
do you mean PK would get a penalty and a suspension for diving? You may have gotten me there. But seriously I think if PK acts like he was shot in that play like Stone did it would have drawn the penalty. Unfortunately they somehow missed it, and I respect PK for continuing to play through it. I was only half joking, unfortunately (see: Cherry's comments). So much talk about diving. Habs have to play through even more than other teams do. He and Gally need to just play, not stare down the refs, not whine and moan, and eventually "earn" the right to have penalties called. Stupid, but that's the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 20, 2015 14:53:53 GMT -5
how about sending this to the league PK's lucky that he didn't get called for interference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 15:23:16 GMT -5
You may have gotten me there. But seriously I think if PK acts like he was shot in that play like Stone did it would have drawn the penalty. Unfortunately they somehow missed it, and I respect PK for continuing to play through it. I was only half joking, unfortunately (see: Cherry's comments). So much talk about diving. Habs have to play through even more than other teams do. He and Gally need to just play, not stare down the refs, not whine and moan, and eventually "earn" the right to have penalties called. Stupid, but that's the way it is. Agree!
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 20, 2015 15:58:06 GMT -5
38.4 Situations Subject to Video Review - The following situations are subject to review by the Video Goal Judge: (i) Puck crossing the goal line. (ii) Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged. (iii) Puck in the net prior to, or after expiration of time at the end of the period. (iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge / League Office Video Room determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. However, a puck that enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player’s skate or that deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping, shall be ruled a good goal. See also 49.2. (v) Puck deflected directly into the net off an Official. (vi) Puck struck with a high-stick, above the height of the crossbar, by an attacking player prior to entering the goal. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick in relation to the crossbar. If the puck makes contact with the portion of the stick that is at or below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed. (vii) To establish the correct time on the official game clock, provided the game time is visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitors. (viii) The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play). Sorry to prolong this discussion, Skilly, but I think the part I've highlighted above introduces ambiguity in determining what is or isn't reviewable. 38.4 (viii) refers to the video review process being permitted to ensure all potential goals are "good hockey goals" (parenthesis is in the rule book). The problem I have is that there is no definition in the rule book as to what is meant by "good hockey goals" so in fact one could interpret the rule to mean every potential goal is reviewable without limit to what is being reviewed. I'm not the only person who has this view, either. Here's a quote from SB Nation: The current rule as written means that literally anything involving a goal can be reviewed. When people, including the NHL and yours truly, say that "the play is not reviewable" on plays like the Matt Duchene offsides goal or the Niklas Kronwall net-gate, it shows that no one really knows what's in the rulebook. Either the practice needs to change to reflect what's actually written, or the wording of the rule needs to change to clarify what's reviewable and what's not because obviously video review is not being used to determine the legitimacy of "all" potential goals.The full article can be found here: Getting to Know the NHL Rulebook: Video Goal Judge I've always heard it said that video review can only be used for plays were the puck crosses the crease immediately after the infraction they are reviewing. I agree with you, because I'm a golf official. In golf, the exact wording is important ... But in hockey they still leave a lot of focus on intent of the rule. For instance, in the rule it states "pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed in the net". ... Prior is really vague. But I've seen it on broadcasts where it hits the net and play continues. If someone scores after that and before the next whistle, you could argue that is "prior", but I've heard commentators and officials say that the intent of that rule is the puck coming off the net and going in on a shot directly, or coming off the net and hitting the goalie and going in. The situations in the rule-book are only meant to be reviewed if a goal directly results .... and not as a means of rolling play back from whistle to whistle. If so, EVERY onside/offside play would be reviewed prior to awarding a goal. They are always close
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 16:35:40 GMT -5
I'd say a close offside is worth overturning because let's face it, it wasn't the inches a guy may have been offside that caused the goal. However I'd love to see them review anything leading up to a goal on the rush. If Prust touches that with his glove it most definitely should be called back. It's the right thing to do, but I don't the the NHL cares about the right thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 20, 2015 20:34:19 GMT -5
Obviously not there yet, but we can hope and this is pretty epic too lol.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Apr 21, 2015 6:54:25 GMT -5
The fight in the stands after the OT win
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 21, 2015 7:09:05 GMT -5
Doesn't matter the jersey, there are far too many that can't hold their liquor or their tempers.
I always remember this guy.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Apr 21, 2015 8:11:34 GMT -5
Doesn't matter the jersey, there are far too many that can't hold their liquor or their tempers. I always remember this guy. That was classic, boy was he pissed I saw Captain Kirk on the bench, I believe he ran the PP for JM. Boy could we use him now.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 21, 2015 10:30:26 GMT -5
I reiterate ... we havent won anything yet. And coming back from down 3-0 is not as rare as it once was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 10:57:47 GMT -5
I reiterate ... we havent won anything yet. And coming back from down 3-0 is not as rare as it once was. How often has a much lower seed come back down 0-3, it's all over but the crying.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 21, 2015 12:02:00 GMT -5
I reiterate ... we havent won anything yet. And coming back from down 3-0 is not as rare as it once was. How often has a much lower seed come back down 0-3, it's all over but the crying. I'm waiting for the fat lady to sing her last note before I start celebrating.
|
|