Quote:
Originally Posted by R0taryRocket
He spent more time talking about the lack of a penalty. How the refs should have blown the play dead because of the holding from Garland. Disregard that Edmonton had puck possession and already had an extra attacker on the ice. Sounded like he was looking for a full change to the rule book because … ?
Starts at 1:13
https://youtu.be/sXuOxZ8PgO4?si=trJ7xErryUzl8TS3&t=73 |
He conveniently ignores the fact that mcDiva initiated contact through the high slot to try to disrupt or knock Garland down so that he could continue unimpeded for a high event shot through the centre of the ice. McDiva would have assumed that he had the height and weight advantage so would win the physical battle. Once he realized that Garland was not going to let him go past, McDiva and Garland hold each other. That's it. that's the play.
Everything else is a temper tantrum with a blow to the head. I find it incredible (and of course would be too much contrition) that if everything was exactly opposite, Garland is likely suspended for 20 years with no chance of early parole.
this is where maturity comes in; it should have allowed for some element of self reflection however it's apparent that this requires a level of grownupness that has so far escaped both the player and alot of the fan base.