[CP JIHAD] please vote! (Vancouver related)

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It's a boarding call....text book

The fact that there's been debate about it indicates that it wasn't a text book boarding call.

[CsInMyBlood]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Not me. Jihad away.

Ahhh ok, I guess it was becuase I hammered it 20+ times in a row. Sorry VFF.

BTW, what is this "score" Sutherland settled?

[ricardodw]

It was the third penalty that Vancouver could have been called in OT.

There was a interference tackle of a two on 2 rush and then the puck carrier got grabbed.

[Locke]

Thats the score that Sutherland needed settling?

So, Kelly Sutherland just doesnt like the Canucks? Maybe thats because the Canucks have made refs look like morons routinely for the last 4 years?

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

The fact that there's been debate about it indicates that it wasn't a text book boarding call.

Wrong, it just means some people don't understand the rule.

That hit is the very definition of boarding.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Wrong, it just means some people don't understand the rule.

That hit is the very definition of boarding.

Have a hard time believing that media folk who cover the game, day in and day out along with former players don't understand the rule, but puckluck2 is the voice of reason.

The play is up for interpretation. It's not a text book foul. Pick your side, but I ain't buying this being the definition of the penalty. Far from it.

[Locke]

I think we have to stop using the term 'textbook' in terms of that call.

We've all seen that NHL officiating is pretty subjective. A case could be made either way for that call.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Have a hard time believing that media folk who cover the game, day in and day out along with former players don't understand the rule, but puckluck2 is the voice of reason.

The play is up for interpretation. It's not a text book foul. Pick your side, but I ain't buying this being the definition of the penalty. Far from it.

Kerry Fraser is the voice of reason. You know that guy who has over 30 years experience?

I'm quite happy that I have him on my side while you have the whining Vancouver media on yours.

[CsInMyBlood]

Rule 41 - Boarding
41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.
Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player hitting or impacting the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be treated as “charging.”
41.2 Minor Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent.
41.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the impact with the boards, to a player guilty of boarding an opponent (see 41.5).
41.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by boarding.
41.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Kerry Fraser is the voice of reason. You know that guy who has over 30 years experience?

I'm quite happy that I have him on my side while you have the whining Vancouver media on yours.

I'm not debating the call. What don't you get about that? I'm just debating that it's not a "text book" call. Given the amount of discussion and debate(not only Vancouver media), it's pretty clear that it's not black and white.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

I'm not debating the call. What don't you get about that? I'm just debating that it's not a "text book" call. Given the amount of discussion and debate(not only Vancouver media), it's pretty clear that it's not black and white.

Who are some other media complaining other than the Vancouver media? From everything I've seen they all agree with the call unless they're from Vancouver or a Canuck fan.

And if that's not textbook boarding then I don't know if any play would be. That's as close as you can get.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think we have to stop using the term 'textbook' in terms of that call.

We've all seen that NHL officiating is pretty subjective. A case could be made either way for that call.

If I was to put together a reffing video, I would use this hit as an example of boarding. It's clear as day to me and was so with everyone I was watching the game with. I really don't understand how there can be a complaint about it at all.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

The fact that there's been debate about it indicates that it wasn't a text book boarding call.

That's a fallacy.

The fact that there are people who debate about whether the earth is flat does not change the fact that it is spherical.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Who are some other media complaining other than the Vancouver media? From everything I've seen they all agree with the call unless they're from Vancouver or a Canuck fan.

And if that's not textbook boarding then I don't know if any play would be. That's as close as you can get.

The first thing on TSN's panel last night was "was it a penalty?"

The play is debatable, you're either on side or the other. You can easily make an argument both ways.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

The fact that there's been debate about it indicates that it wasn't a text book boarding call.

There is a debate because people don't know the rules or think they are always right and refuse to read the rule and acknowledge they are wrong.

The rule is pretty clear and that hit was textbook boarding.

Could Call. Game 7 OT? Maybe not.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Have a hard time believing that media folk who cover the game, day in and day out along with former players don't understand the rule, but puckluck2 is the voice of reason.

The play is up for interpretation. It's not a text book foul. Pick your side, but I ain't buying this being the definition of the penalty. Far from it.

The rule as it is stated in the rulebook is the voice of reason.

Some media folk look bad today

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

The first thing on TSN's panel last night was "was it a penalty?"

The play is debatable, you're either on side or the other. You can easily make an argument both ways.

The first thing the TSN panel needs to do is entertain. Debating is entertaining.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

The rule as it is stated in the rulebook is the voice of reason.

Some media folk look bad today

But if one person doesn't think the impact into the board is violent(as stated in the rule book), then does that not make the play up for debate? The hit really wasn't all that violent. If Wingles gets up right away, no chance that gets called. The ref called the penalty based on the result, which is a real awful way of making these calls.

It's a close call, no doubt.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

But if one person doesn't think the impact into the board is violent(as stated in the rule book), then does that not make the play up for debate? The hit really wasn't all that violent. If Wingles gets up right away, no chance that gets called. The ref called the penalty based on the result, which is a real awful way of making these calls.

It's a close call, no doubt.

Guy went head first into the boards and he didn't even have the puck. It was a cheap shot from a sore loser.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Ahhh ok, I guess it was becuase I hammered it 20+ times in a row. Sorry VFF.

BTW, what is this "score" Sutherland settled?

One theory proposed was from this game in Calgary. AV starts screaming on the bench about an elbow call the refs missed and Sutherland gave AV a bench minor for abuse of officials. The Flames scored as that penalty expired and on to win the game.

After the game AV was showing up Sutherland in post-game comments, said he only yelled "That's an elbow", didn't use the F-word or anything, that he wasn't warned by Sutherland previously, etc, etc.

You watch the highlights and AV screamed a lot more than "That's an elbow" but it's not clear what he said. Reportedly people at the game said the penalty was deserved.

That's the gist, but to claim Sutherland had it in for AV for his post-game comments is a bit of a reach. Sekeres wouldn't reach that far...would he?