WSF (5) Los Angeles Kings vs (6) San Jose Sharks (Kings win 4-3).

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

it was close but i didn't catch a replay so it was straight out legit call then.

Live it looked like it was deflected I thought it was too, the officials either got lucky or made a really good call.

Man if I was a Sharks fan I'd be so choked right now, that close to tying the series.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by zamler

Puck was shot straight out, legit call.

Unbelievable game, I didn't think the Sharks could play that well, great game by them but still lost. Soul crushing.

Legit call but an unfortunate one. Sure it went straight out but Carter's stick had a lot to do with it.

A defenseman who is in the shooting motion but his stick gets altered and the angle changed doesn't mean he's purposely clearing the puck out of play. I wish the rule wasn't so automatic.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Dion

My question is can the Hawks handle the bigger and stronger Kings and thier physical style of play? I say no.

I guess we will see in a little over a week. Will be a fantastic series.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by kenk-la

That was an unbelievable finish to what was a great game, I hope the Sharks win the next one to make it a long series. I fully expect Don Cherry will complain about that rule altering a game the next time he is on air.

After all of the potential penalties both ways that were let go all game - it does feel a bit cheesy to have the game decided on an automatic puck over the glass penalty that didn't appear to be intentional.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

A defenseman who is in the shooting motion but his stick gets altered and the angle changed doesn't mean he's purposely clearing the puck out of play.

True, but the rule doesn't allow for a judgement by the ref when in the defending zone, shooting the puck out is an automatic 2 minutes. Should the rule be changed? Not sure.

[kenk-la]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

After all of the potential penalties both ways that were let go all game - it does feel a bit cheesy to have the game decided on an automatic puck over the glass penalty that didn't appear to be intentional.

Agreed. I think treating that play in a similar fashion to an icing would be better than a penalty, I just don't like the idea of a play like that costing a team a playoff game. Having said that, it happened and the Sharks needed to kill the penalties, they didn't, now they're in a hole.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by zamler

True, but the rule doesn't allow for a judgement by the ref when in the defending zone, shooting the puck out is an automatic 2 minutes. Should the rule be changed? Not sure.

I think it could be changed. The player is being penalized for purposely putting the puck out of play (to either relieve pressure or get a line change etc..). That is what I believe to be the reasoning behind the rule.

But when he's being pressured by a forechecker, he's not purposely doing anything, he's being pressured.

So really the penalty should only be called if there is no player near him.

[OILFAN #81]

Wow. San Jose definitely played well enough to win that game. I knew the 3-3 goal was going to happen on the 5 on 3. Didn't think the 4th one would too. Tough loss for San Jose.

[SkunkyJosh]

That finish was just unbelievable. Amazing serie, can't wait for the next one.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think it could be changed. The player is being penalized for purposely putting the puck out of play (to either relieve pressure or get a line change etc..). That is what I believe to be the reasoning behind the rule.

But when he's being pressured by a forechecker, he's not purposely doing anything, he's being pressured.

So really the penalty should only be called if there is no player near him.

That's a lot of grey area for the ref to have to deal with. We'll be having endless discussions about if the player shot the puck out intentionally. If the rule is changed where it is not a penalty like it used to be, then you can be sure we'll see players shooting pucks over the glass to stop play and get a line change.

The rule sucks but I don't see a better alternative.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Wow. San Jose definitely played well enough to win that game. I knew the 3-3 goal was going to happen on the 5 on 3. Didn't think the 4th one would too. Tough loss for San Jose.

The 3-3 goal came too early, I wanted the PP to go another 30 seconds. LA would pull the goalie for a 6-on-3

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by zamler

That's a lot of grey area for the ref to have to deal with. We'll be having endless discussions about if the player shot the puck out intentionally. If the rule is changed where it is not a penalty like it used to be, then you can be sure we'll see players shooting pucks over the glass to stop play and get a line change.

The rule sucks but I don't see a better alternative.

That's what refs are there for. We have endless discussions on all other infractions anyways so that nothing unusual. Everything else is grey.. heck even too many men in the ice which just involves counting players has a grey area of how close a player is to the bench and was he really in the playing area or not.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's what refs are there for. We have endless discussions on all other infractions anyways so that nothing unusual. Everything else is grey.. heck even too many men in the ice which just involves counting players has a grey area of how close a player is to the bench and was he really in the playing area or not.

Hockey is a weird game that way I think. It's much more fluid than virtually every other professional sport that the refs are given a lot of power since the rules can't cover everything. And it creates a speed/consistency issue since the penalties are hard to judge in real time and the human factor causes different refs to view different levels of violence and contact as different severity penalties.

[zamler]

Just don't agree GirlySports, changing the rule so a proximity player clause would apply, ugh that would be a big mess. The league has much greater concerns to sort out like head shots before they dither around with the delay of game rule.

Originally Posted by kirant

Hockey is a weird game that way I think. It's much more fluid than virtually every other professional sport that the refs are given a lot of power since the rules can't cover everything. And it creates a speed/consistency issue since the penalties are hard to judge in real time and the human factor causes different refs to view different levels of violence and contact as different severity penalties.

Very true, but in a 7 game series I think it evens out.

[dying4acup]

Before it was automatic, refs had the discretion to call a delay if it was deemed that a puck was intentionally cleared over the glass. It was called maybe 2-3 times a season.

I fear that puting discretion back the refs hands would lead to this call never being made, especially in crucial moments.

Before long, it would be happening, 5-10 times a game again.

I can't remember how frustrated I used to get seeing the puck out of play 3 times in a row in the final minute as a defensive strategy. Now, if the puck goes out the defensive player is nervous that there will be a call.

I like the rule exactly the way it is. Win or lose.

[Tsawwassen]

Penalties sure bit the Sharks. They are in a big hole and game 3 is their last chance to get back into this series.

[EVERLAST]

loved Darryls presser at the end of the game talking about losing his glasses on TSN ....man he's actually a pretty funny guy and I forgot that about him

[troutman]

Delay of game - instead of 2 min penalty, how about short-handed until next face-off?

That would still be enough of a deterrent.

[moon]

Originally Posted by zamler

True, but the rule doesn't allow for a judgement by the ref when in the defending zone, shooting the puck out is an automatic 2 minutes. Should the rule be changed? Not sure.

It should be changed but definitely not to the discretion of the ref. That would be worse than it is now.

I don't see why they just don't treat it like an icing. Face-off in your zone and not allowed to change the guys on the ice.

[GGG]

I would prefer it be handled like icing with no line change.

If it became a problem again then just cap the number of accidental clearing s st 2 or 4 and hand out penslties after that.

I just cant see putting the puck over the glass any different than icing. Would anyone ever advocate that icing should be a penalty