Quote:
Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN
Did the Sens high stick or elbow or throw the puck over the glass and they didn't get called? I don't recall anything like that.
Quibble about a hook or hold here and there, sure, but you know what, the Flames probably had a hook or hold that didn't get called as well.
The Flames took obvious penalties that really had to be called and that caused the massive discrepancy.
|
I can name a few obvious ones:
1. Obvious interference against Kirkland, intentionally pushing him not once, but twice, into the goaltender (which is why the call on the ice should have been overturned, and the Flames should not have been shorthanded).
2. Coronato, well after the puck was gone, having both arms wrapped up and being skated, head and knee first, into the boards and unable to protect himself. Could have easily been 5.
3. Coleman being hit even though it was another Flame who had touched the puck.
4. Multiple cases of embellishment.
5. Hamonic with hand on the puck in the crease, then pulling it under himself. Under the literal wording of the rule, should have been an automatic goal, but at a very minimum it was delay of game.
Plus lots of other instances of hooking, holding, interference, slashing, and crosschecking, for which the Flames were penalized on every opportunity, but the Sens were not.
Generally speaking, minor penalties will reflect the flow of play, possession, and scoring opportunities in the game. A 9-2 edge in power plays is exceedingly rare, and should reflect extraordinarily lopsided 5v5 play.