[OOT] April 23 with two game 7s!

[browna]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Yeah this call will change things I think. Some sort of rule where you can challenge majors separate from other challenges. Not sure how it will work but they shouldn't be able just to make up calls based on an injury.

Nah, rule will be that Toronto automatically reviews a major or match penalty.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Interesting for sure...4 goals is the NHL record as far as I can tell

bad call or not its an epic choke job. What a time to tie an NHL record lol.

I found one playoff example.


In Game three of their 1998 series, the Blues scored four against the Kings on a five minute power play.#

The Kings were up 3-0 prior to the powerplay, too.

In the regular season the Islanders did it to Detroit last season.

[Jaybo]

Here's a tweet showing the actual rule.

.


I guess it depends if you feel that Eakins' cross check is what injured Pavelski or not.

There's no reference to "directly" or "indirectly" in the rule so in my mind, it becomes a question of how long after the actual infraction can it still be responsible for subsequent injuries. This one happened immediately as part of the same sequence but what if Eakins' cross-checks him and he hits the ice but isn't injured in the same way. But then Stastny who held back a bit in this timeline falls on the downed Pavelski five seconds later and injures him in the same way causing him to leave the game?

Does Eakins' get the same five and a game? Unlikely and I still think this penalty was as much a result of refs reacting to an (admittedly) serious injury after the fact (no arm up when it happened initially) and also, as I said in an earlier comment, taking into account that (in their minds anyhow) a five minute major is unlikely to swing a 3-0 game with ten minutes left.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is a single bad decision that, in and of itself, changed the outcome of a playoff series. That's unacceptable, but because it's the NHL, it will be accepted and publicly treated as if it's not a big deal, because the NHL treats its fans like none-too-bright children.

Based on what I was told by many people after the Saints got screwed in the NFC Championship Game, ''But the game went to OT and they still lost, so it doesn't matter, and stuff...

[GirlySports]

Meh. That's not the refs job.

They are not there to manage the game or ensure that its entertaining. They are supposed to call penalties, even if one team gets 7 more than the other.

This is where the NHL fails compared to any other sport.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by browna

Nah, rule will be that Toronto automatically reviews a major or match penalty.

That would be ok I guess. Whatever it is, I hope things change.

[TheScorpion]

To be somewhat fair, I see a cross-checking motion on the replay of that hit, and Pavelski was certainly injured. By the letter of the rule, I can see the rationale for making that call.

Doesn't mean the rule isn't dumb.

[Geeoff]

I'm loving the results of these OOT series. All the Canadian teams done. Vegas lands the big fish at the deadline and chokes away their series. A little bit of delicious Schadenfreude to wash down the bitter medicine of our round 1 series.

[jg13]

If Carolina wins tomorrow that means all regular season division winners are out and all wild card teams advance.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Based on what I was told by many people after the Saints got screwed in the NFC Championship Game, ''But the game went to OT and they still lost, so it doesn't matter, and stuff...

little different...it took a bad call and an NHL record tying (like all time record including regular season) bad PK to give the Sharks the lead

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

To be somewhat fair, I see a cross-checking motion on the replay of that hit, and Pavelski was certainly injured. By the letter of the rule, I can see the rationale for making that call.

Doesn't mean the rule isn't dumb.

The ref told Gallant he was cross checked in the face. He clearly lied. The ref in the corner watching the play never had his hand up to call a penalty.

They made up a call based on an injury and emotion. There was no penalty.

It's ok for the refs or league to admit they screwed up. For them to double down and say 'yeah, he cross checked him in the face' when we all have videos and can clearly see that wasn't even remotely the case is just wrong.

If you don't see a penalty, don't call one. They shouldn't 'think' they saw a cross check, see some blood, and decide it's a major.

If they didn't see it, they didn't see it. I'd rather have that than have them call a phantom call based on some blood on the ice.

[カナダ人です]

Originally Posted by dino7c

4 goals against in one 5 Min PP ties an NHL record...playoffs or regular season

Its a bad call, shouldn't have cost them the game

How many goals does Vegas concede in that 5-minutes if no penalty is called?

The fact they were killing a penalty was why San Jose scored those goals, poor PK or not.

Refs changed the game with that call.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

The ref told Gallant he was cross checked in the face. He clearly lied. The ref in the corner watching the play never had his hand up to call a penalty.

I didn't see this part of it. I only saw the call afterwards. If this did happen, well, then I agree with you. That's silly.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by timbit

Well, in the Flames series , the refs were a distant second when it came to putridness of execution and team performance.

I’d have to say it was the play of both the Avs and the Flames for the series. Referees didn’t impact the series whatsoever. Flames were outclassed in every aspect. Refs played no part in the Calgary loss/outcome. Certainly nothing like the call tonight against Vegas.

[crapshoot]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

To be somewhat fair, I see a cross-checking motion on the replay of that hit, and Pavelski was certainly injured. By the letter of the rule, I can see the rationale for making that call.

Doesn't mean the rule isn't dumb.

I agree with this. A good case can be made that the call is by the book, which is exactly how they explain it.

My initial reaction to seeing the cross check was that it looked pretty bad, and looking at it now I still think it does. I would therefore argue that Cody Eakin carries a lot of blame for pulling such a stupid move, because no matter how you look at it, the situation warrants at least a minor penalty in a situation where it is completely unneccesary. Even with a minor the Sharks would have been invited back into the game.

[dino7c]

In this very thread we were all freaking out about how dirty the play looked...live, before the replay.

There was a crosscheck, it was high, and there was a guy bleeding all over the ice who had to be helped off. Its not like the ref just called something out of thin air it certainly looked bad live in real time. The crosscheck was also thrown by a guy wearing a bird cage and I can tell you that doesn't sit well with the other team.

[crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The sheer dumb-ass rationalizations people can come up with to excuse this outcome are honestly infuriating. "They should have won it before game 7". "They shouldn't have allowed 4 goals on the penalty". These are not reasonable takes. Vegas had the series won. Those four goals would not have occurred but for a terrible decision by the referees. That is how causation works.

If I cut your brake lines, and rather than allowing your car to roll to a stop, you panic, hit the gas, drive into oncoming traffic and get hit by a semi, I don't get to say "it's your fault because you didn't manage the situation well". I cut your ####ing brake lines. It's my fault you're dead. If anyone is having trouble following, I am the referees in this analogy.

As for the comparison to the Flames series, there is no one call that you can say cost the Flames the series. They allowed over 50 shots in back to back games. They got trounced, including at 5 on 5. To the extent the Avs got the benefit of soft calls, they didn't need the help.

This is a single bad decision that, in and of itself, changed the outcome of a playoff series. That's unacceptable, but because it's the NHL, it will be accepted and publicly treated as if it's not a big deal, because the NHL treats its fans like none-too-bright children.

It's an interesting analogy, but I would rather argue that the decision to deliver the cross check itself is the correct equivalent to the cutting of the brake lines in the analogy, since that is what kicked of the whole sequence.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I didn't see this part of it. I only saw the call afterwards. If this did happen, well, then I agree with you. That's silly.

That's what Gallant said after the game. He said the ref told him that Eakin cross checked Pavelski in the face.

And as for the ref, in the video of the play you can see him in the corner looking right at the play, and did not put his hand in the air.

The call was made after the fact. Incorrectly.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

That's what Gallant said after the game. He said the ref told him that Eakin cross checked Pavelski in the face.

And as for the ref, in the video of the play you can see him in the corner looking right at the play, and did not put his hand in the air.

The call was made after the fact. Incorrectly.

you realize there is more than one ref right? There are four guys on the ice able to make that call

[theinfinitejar]

If that was 2 minute penalty every time the game would be 3 on 3 for 59 minutes.