Quote:
Originally Posted by Domoic
Another classic Bennett --- had a goal disallowed in last nights game (bad call, IMO).
|
Beauty of a goal, too. The call was okay IMO, but it was a very specific event in a very ambiguous rule. I'd prefer if it was akin to shot-follow-through not being high sticking - Bennett's interference was a direct result of directing the puck to the net with his stick.
It would be pretty tough to amend the rule to account for that, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
2 assists (one quite nice). +1. But two penalties, each leading to an important goal (tying goals). So it feels like a minus night for Sam.
|
Net even at worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
All this Bennett love is overlooking one of the reasons why multiple coaches didn’t trust him - taking stupid penalties over and over and over again. Quenville will cut Bennett’s ice time if he doesn’t smarten up. And this is Sam Bennett, so the odds of him smartening up are low.
|
Sam played 21 mins; only Barkov and Nutivarra played more.
In the context of that game, his hit wasn't particularly egregious. There were nearly a dozen dangerous boarding from behind plays (only a few were called).
Sam's hit was the most flagrant because of his speed, but nowhere near as dangerous IMO. In game 1 of 7 where whistles were in pockets, it's not a terrible risk to take. Of course, any penalty with a 1 goal lead under 10 mins isn't ideal, but it ended up being a game with 5 lead changes. I doubt many FLA fans are in hysterics about Bennett triggering that particular momentum change.
His penalty in the 2nd was fair enough, though a little ticky-tack compared to a lot of no-calls. The goal against on that PP was really bad luck...Barkov won a D-zone faceoff cleanly to Forsling, whose stick broke on receiving it. Of course there is no guarantee they kill it off, but that's just a bad break.
Tons of nice plays tonight; a deke in traffic into the slot for a good shot was a particularly high-skill play.