Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2019 22:04:28 GMT -5
Toronto calls itself Canada's Team, yet can't win a playoff round.
TSN keeps declaring that the Leafs were the better team for the "first six games." Dominating in stretches doesn't mean you were the better team overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 23, 2019 23:24:01 GMT -5
My favorite team is Columbus now.  I was trying to think of who I might wish better luck on than any other team. I hesitate to say 'cheeer for', because I have no attachment to any remaining freaking US team. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2019 23:24:49 GMT -5
Wild third period in San Jose. FOUR straight powerplay goals. Did anyone see the penalty? Cody Eakin got a cross-checking major and a misconduct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 0:51:00 GMT -5
Sharks complete the comeback in OT.
TSN has six--SIX--videos about the Leafs on their front page right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 24, 2019 5:17:33 GMT -5
Wild third period in San Jose. FOUR straight powerplay goals. Did anyone see the penalty? Cody Eakin got a cross-checking major and a misconduct. That's the worst major penalty call I've ever seen. Eakin shoved the Sharks center during the face off scrum. While it was a cross-checking motion, I'd hardly call it one. His stick hit the crest. The Sharks center fell over backwards and made it look far more dramatic than it was. I don't know if Gallant used his timeout during that PK. If he didn't he should have. I give them credit for digging deep to tie it up in the last minute, but they never should have had to. |
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Apr 24, 2019 5:35:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Apr 24, 2019 7:08:00 GMT -5
Wild third period in San Jose. FOUR straight powerplay goals. Did anyone see the penalty? Cody Eakin got a cross-checking major and a misconduct. He hit him across the shoulders after a face off. He fell into another player & hit his head on the ice. There was some blood & the refs panicked - 5 & a game instead of a minor. Once again, NHL refs blow it but don't have to explain why they changed the course of a series.  |
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Apr 24, 2019 7:30:20 GMT -5
Wild third period in San Jose. FOUR straight powerplay goals. Did anyone see the penalty? Cody Eakin got a cross-checking major and a misconduct. He hit him across the shoulders after a face off. He fell into another player & hit his head on the ice. There was some blood & the refs panicked - 5 & a game instead of a minor. Imo, Vegas got screwed |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 24, 2019 7:57:01 GMT -5
Sharks complete the comeback in OT. TSN has six--SIX--videos about the Leafs on their front page right now. It gets better ... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 24, 2019 8:51:38 GMT -5
He hit him across the shoulders after a face off. He fell into another player & hit his head on the ice. There was some blood & the refs panicked - 5 & a game instead of a minor. Imo, Vegas got screwed Absolutely brutal call against Vegas. The way they've been letting things go in the playoffs I'm not even sure that warranted a two minute minor, never mind a five minute major. The Knights have every right to be incensed, and lord knows I would be if I were a fan of theirs. Heck, I'm still mad at the late call in that Buffalo game way back in November that cost us a game (and, as it turns out, a spot in the playoffs). Having said that, the Knights gave up FOUR power-play goals in that five minute span. Talk about imploding. Four power-play goals in five minutes is awful, any way you want to look at it. They completely lost their focus and it cost them. But yeah. Terrible call. EDIT: Jump to the one minute mark. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 24, 2019 9:50:26 GMT -5
Absolutely brutal call against Vegas. The way they've been letting things go in the playoffs I'm not even sure that warranted a two minute minor, never mind a five minute major. The Knights have every right to be incensed, and lord knows I would be if I were a fan of theirs. Heck, I'm still mad at the late call in that Buffalo game way back in November that cost us a game (and, as it turns out, a spot in the playoffs). Having said that, the Knights gave up FOUR power-play goals in that five minute span. Talk about imploding. Four power-play goals in five minutes is awful, any way you want to look at it. They completely lost their focus and it cost them. But yeah. Terrible call. EDIT: Jump to the one minute mark. At most, it's 2 minutes for interference and 2 minutes for diving to Pavelski. I think he tried to sell the call and inadvertently stumbled over his own feet and Stastny. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 9:50:34 GMT -5
I think because of how hard Pavelski hit the ice, and that there was blood, was cause for the five minute major. I'm not entirely sure I disagree there. Perhaps a double-minor (that way the Sharks only benefit from two PPG at most).
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 24, 2019 10:30:44 GMT -5
I think because of how hard Pavelski hit the ice, and that there was blood, was cause for the five minute major. I'm not entirely sure I disagree there. Perhaps a double-minor (that way the Sharks only benefit from two PPG at most). If I'm not mistaken, neither blood nor serious injury is mandatory for a major penalty. Nor is it required. I don't believe the rule book stipulates the requirement for a match penalty either. It was a knee-jerk reaction. The initial contact was not that severe and contact with Stastny is what precipitated the awkward landing on the ice. Gallant and his staff needed to call a TO after the second PP goal. Calm down the troops. Refocus. That was a very bad tactical error. The assessment by the on ice officials was atrocious. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 24, 2019 11:02:11 GMT -5
It was an over-reaction call by the refs. However, it should not have made the difference in the series.
Four PP goals in four minutes...with your season on the line...after failing to put the Sharks away in the previous elimination games??
It is like the Leafs trying to pin last night's collapse on Andersen. Where was the offense? You don't often win in the playoffs scoring just one goal and losing the previous elimination game at home.
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 24, 2019 11:04:07 GMT -5
I saw Onrait's tweet last night and got a good laugh at it. The sad part is that it is likely partially true.  |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 24, 2019 11:42:23 GMT -5
I saw Onrait's tweet last night and got a good laugh at it. The sad part is that it is likely partially true. I love how he has no issue poking the bear that is his employment lol. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 24, 2019 11:49:38 GMT -5
It was an over-reaction call by the refs. However, it should not have made the difference in the series. Four PP goals in four minutes...with your season on the line...after failing to put the Sharks away in the previous elimination games?? It is like the Leafs trying to pin last night's collapse on Andersen. Where was the offense? You don't often win in the playoffs scoring just one goal and losing the previous elimination game at home. I, for one, don't blame Andersen for last night. That goal that squeaked between leg and hand is indicative of goalies used to bigger gear and players now keying on those areas. Their offense dried up and Boston did an excellent job anticipating passes - especially stretch passes from the defense. That's coaching. Speaking of, Babcock losing again and Gallant not using the tools at his disposal to settle the troops do ring volumes. I think we can all see how, up 3-0, that call could unravel you. But there needs to be someone to say, "hey, let's take a moment here to breathe." The Sharks scored those first two PP goals in the first minute of the kill. That's when you call timeout. As for Babs, he continues to show that he's perhaps the most overrated coach in the sport imo - and the opinion of many Leafs fans. A tweet I saw today: "Matthews should be fresh as a daisy for game 8." He hardly played in the third. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2019 11:57:36 GMT -5
I guess I am in the minority on the penalty call … I thought the Knights got a gift, because here is what I saw.
Two guys line up for the faceoff, the puck is dropped, and Eakin accidentally hits Pavelski in the head with the butt of his stick. Doesn't matter if it was accidental, that's a penalty. Doesn't matter that Pavelski wears a full cage, it's a penalty. 2 mins - highsticking
Then, Pavelski kinda stops. It looks to me that he expects a penalty to be called. Eakin then shoves him with his stick into his chest in an obvious cross-checking motion. 2 mins - crosschecking
Pavelski loses his balance, goes up on one skate at the very instant that Stastny hits him. This would all be ok, if Stastny didn't put his arm around him and throw a defenseless player without the puck to the ice 2 mins interference, OR since he was injured 5 mins under the Interference Rule 56.4 - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major
penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player guilty of interfering with an opponent
You would think this would be the end of it. But no, no, no ...there is more. Then, Stastny tries to jump over a player that just violently struck his head on the ice and accidentally kicks him in the head. 2 mins - Kicking. Kicking has to be deliberate, so I don't think this would have been called, but it sure could have, if you think they already called something that wasn't there
So under the rules, a lot more could have been called then a single 5 min major … this could have easily been a 5 on 3 for 4 mins, with one of those penalties being a 5 min major.
In my opinion, the only thing they missed, was that it should have been Stastny ejected, not Eakin
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2019 12:07:59 GMT -5
Here is a site that shows a better angle of the faceoff. Pavelski faceoffYou can see the highstick, and Stastny take his hand off his stick when he sees Pavelski close to him. I agree they were both not on purpose, but they were both penalties |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2019 12:20:41 GMT -5
I think because of how hard Pavelski hit the ice, and that there was blood, was cause for the five minute major. I'm not entirely sure I disagree there. Perhaps a double-minor (that way the Sharks only benefit from two PPG at most). If I'm not mistaken, neither blood nor serious injury is mandatory for a major penalty. Nor is it required. I don't believe the rule book stipulates the requirement for a match penalty either. It was a knee-jerk reaction. The initial contact was not that severe and contact with Stastny is what precipitated the awkward landing on the ice. Gallant and his staff needed to call a TO after the second PP goal. Calm down the troops. Refocus. That was a very bad tactical error. The assessment by the on ice officials was atrocious. Yes the rulebook does … This is Interference 56.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed. But they called cross-checking Rule 59 – Cross-checking 59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent. 59.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent. 59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5). 59.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately
injured his opponent by cross-checking.
59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be
imposed on the offending player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 24, 2019 12:30:51 GMT -5
The way they've been letting things go in the playoffs I'm not even sure that warranted a two minute minor, never mind a five minute major. I've been trying to convey this point since I started with HabsRus ... changing the level of officiating in the playoffs makes the regular season a waste of time ... Wonder if Gerard Gallant chirping at the officials in Game 6 had something to do with it ... mind you, I'd be upset too, no doubt ... had it happened to the Habs I'd probably be calling for Gary Bettman's head and an apology from Justin Trudeau ... but at the same time, if I'm a Sharks fan I'd probably be miffed because Pavelski didn't even have the puck when Cody Eakin slammed him to the ice ... that's an interference penalty at the very least (questionable given the level of officiating, granted) and if the blood is the result of Pavelski's head hitting the ice then that could have been me handing out a major if I were the official ... wonder what kind of game might have ensued had I not made that call ... I thought the Sharks fed off of Pavelski's injury to kick it up a notch, while the Knights let the call get to them to the point where the game became a distraction ... There are a plethora of players who wouldn't otherwise have made it in the league if it weren't for expansion and it's no different with the officiating corps ... inconsistent officiating has become an acceptable part of the playoffs, or so it seems ... guess the Board of Governors are happy with things and that's what count$ ... it's all about the fan$, eh ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2019 12:34:01 GMT -5
Do you know what is not in the rule book, that really ticks me off … automatic 4mins when you make someone bleed with a highstick. You wont find that anywhere. The rule actually reads "Double-minor Penalty - When a player carries or holds any part of his stick above the shoulders of the opponent so that injury results, the Referee shall assess a double-minor penalty for all contact that
causes an injury, whether accidental or careless, in the opinion of the Referee."
I am not sure how "causes an injury" morphed into "an opponent bleeds" … cause a casual glance of the stick can draw blood and result in four minutes. But a stick that knocks out someone's teeth but no blood only gets 2 mins. How is losing teeth, not an injury??
Notice the 2:00min in the corner, and notice Logan Couture coming back to show him he was bleeding... the NHL rulebook is the worse applied piece of junk in sports history
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 24, 2019 13:42:27 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, neither blood nor serious injury is mandatory for a major penalty. Nor is it required. I don't believe the rule book stipulates the requirement for a match penalty either. It was a knee-jerk reaction. The initial contact was not that severe and contact with Stastny is what precipitated the awkward landing on the ice. Gallant and his staff needed to call a TO after the second PP goal. Calm down the troops. Refocus. That was a very bad tactical error. The assessment by the on ice officials was atrocious. Yes the rulebook does … This is Interference 56.5 Game Misconduct Penalty – When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed. But they called cross-checking Rule 59 – Cross-checking 59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent. 59.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent. 59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5). 59.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately
injured his opponent by cross-checking.
59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be
imposed on the offending player.
OK. As that's about as open to interpretation as the bible, I'll spin it this way. We've seen countless cross-checks to plays, in a myriad of situations, which are more flagrant, that go uncalled. Defenders cross-checking guys out of the front of the net area; to the back, arm, and sometimes chest. Guys use their sticks to shove players all the time. These don't get deemed as "cross-checks". I've also seen harder shoves and legit cross-checks where the recipient didn't fall. Eakin, in my view, shoved him. There was a delay in Pavelski's fall, as he was off balance at worst, or trying to sell it imo. I can't see anything where Stastny does anything to worsen the fall. It appears to me that Pavelski thought he'd have Stastny's body to help keep him from falling to the ice and he didn't. He lost control and fell through, landing on his side and cracking his head off the ice. It's likely that the helmet itself caused the cut. The punishment didn't fit the crime. |
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Apr 24, 2019 15:44:03 GMT -5
It is possible to argue that Stastny was simply hustling get out and cover the point and Pavelski picked (i.e. interfered) him. Hockey is debatable, but for me the cross-check was kind of meh. Sure it happened, but if Pavelski had not fallen prostrate on the ice with blood coming out of his head I am not really sure refs would not normally just shrug their shoulders and say that's just a bit of hockey chippiness nothing to see there really.
For me a five minute major was not appropriate given the cross-check's lack of violence. However, I would say the call did not sentence Vegas to a losss. Vegas did that on their own, inexplicably allowing four power-play goals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2019 15:52:23 GMT -5
OH I agree the NHL rule book is not worth the paper it's written on ....
But, was Pavelski injured? Yes.
Was it a result of a penalty? Yes (we can debate ad nauseum whether it was Eakin or Stastny, but the REF thought it was the cross check that threw him off balance)
Yes to both of the above is an automatic 5 and a game under the rule book.
But again, there was at least 4 penalties on that play. All clear as day, unless you are a Knights fan. Statsny clearly takes one hand off his stick, grabs Pavelski, and makes a deliberate motion with his arm to push Pavelski to the ice. I agree the cross check was probably "meh two minutes at best" but a Knight was going to get 5 mins for that play, they just got the wrong guy, which makes it look like a blown call
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 24, 2019 16:28:06 GMT -5
Leafs' fans getting a lot coddling from Ron and Don....they keep repeating that the Leafs outplayed the Bruins. isn't that special . . . |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 24, 2019 17:37:14 GMT -5
OH I agree the NHL rule book is not worth the paper it's written on .... But, was Pavelski injured? Yes. Was it a result of a penalty? Yes (we can debate ad nauseum whether it was Eakin or Stastny, but the REF thought it was the cross check that threw him off balance) Yes to both of the above is an automatic 5 and a game under the rule book. But again, there was at least 4 penalties on that play. All clear as day, unless you are a Knights fan. Statsny clearly takes one hand off his stick, grabs Pavelski, and makes a deliberate motion with his arm to push Pavelski to the ice. I agree the cross check was probably "meh two minutes at best" but a Knight was going to get 5 mins for that play, they just got the wrong guy, which makes it look like a blown call Injury doesn't always have something to do with resulting call. Otherwise 2 minute penalties that inadvertently result in concussion wouldn't be two minutes. If I trip a guy and he falls and cuts his lip, it's still a 2 minute penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2019 18:21:16 GMT -5
OH I agree the NHL rule book is not worth the paper it's written on .... But, was Pavelski injured? Yes. Was it a result of a penalty? Yes (we can debate ad nauseum whether it was Eakin or Stastny, but the REF thought it was the cross check that threw him off balance) Yes to both of the above is an automatic 5 and a game under the rule book. But again, there was at least 4 penalties on that play. All clear as day, unless you are a Knights fan. Statsny clearly takes one hand off his stick, grabs Pavelski, and makes a deliberate motion with his arm to push Pavelski to the ice. I agree the cross check was probably "meh two minutes at best" but a Knight was going to get 5 mins for that play, they just got the wrong guy, which makes it look like a blown call Injury doesn't always have something to do with resulting call. Otherwise 2 minute penalties that inadvertently result in concussion wouldn't be two minutes. If I trip a guy and he falls and cuts his lip, it's still a 2 minute penalty. Injury as a result of CROSS CHECKING, or INTERFERENCE is 5 and a game. Tripping doesn't have that provision. The call that was called does, and if you were of the opinion the cross check call was BS, then the obvious interference also carries 5 and a game for injury. Tripping has nothing to do with this call. Once again, I agree the rule book is not applied in all situations, and I'd submit NHL refs are the worst in all sports. But the call was by the book in this instance. There was an injury, it was as a result of a penalty that has the 5 and a game clause , (take your pick, cross checking that the ref thought it was, or interference like I think it was). |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 24, 2019 18:21:34 GMT -5
OH I agree the NHL rule book is not worth the paper it's written on .... But, was Pavelski injured? Yes. Was it a result of a penalty? Yes (we can debate ad nauseum whether it was Eakin or Stastny, but the REF thought it was the cross check that threw him off balance) Yes to both of the above is an automatic 5 and a game under the rule book. But again, there was at least 4 penalties on that play. All clear as day, unless you are a Knights fan. Statsny clearly takes one hand off his stick, grabs Pavelski, and makes a deliberate motion with his arm to push Pavelski to the ice. I agree the cross check was probably "meh two minutes at best" but a Knight was going to get 5 mins for that play, they just got the wrong guy, which makes it look like a blown call Injury doesn't always have something to do with resulting call. Otherwise 2 minute penalties that inadvertently result in concussion wouldn't be two minutes. If I trip a guy and he falls and cuts his lip, it's still a 2 minute penalty. Chara got nothing for almost killing Pacioretty. But if there'd been a little bit of blood...OMG. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2019 18:30:39 GMT -5
Injury doesn't always have something to do with resulting call. Otherwise 2 minute penalties that inadvertently result in concussion wouldn't be two minutes. If I trip a guy and he falls and cuts his lip, it's still a 2 minute penalty. Chara got nothing for almost killing Pacioretty. But if there'd been a little bit of blood...OMG. Wrong. But.... ... Perfect example. Hockey play gone wrong they said ... But Chara did get 5 mins and a game for INTERFERENCE on that play. |
|
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6F6VF25GCFF2HFJCOITRJSGNPE.jpg)
