[PGT] Calgary plays Game 2 and loses by a score of 3-2 in regulation

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I would love some context around that tweet about Treliving breaking a chair.

When was it? After the game? After a non-call or call against the Flames? After a Ducks goal?

I'd like to think he was pissed over the typical NHL "pick and choose when it's an infraction and when it isn't" style of officiating myself.

My sources indicate that he was filming a new Boston Pizza commercial, starring as the "Locker-Room-Pep-Talk" Coach. Typical Hollywood nepotism...

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by stang

Outside perspective. I'd say the interference was chiasson pushing Gibson which pushed the puck into the net. Looks like interference to me.

Then the refs did you a favour by telling them it was interference and you didn't waste your challenge on something that wasn't going to work anyways. If you had to use it later you'd be glad you didn't waste it. Thanks refs for the heads up.

except that the puck crosses the line before Gibson is physically pushed into the net...

if you mean chiasson sweeping at the puck, that incidental contact as far as I am concerned: the puck is loose. Chiasson has as much right to bang at that puck when its loose as gibson does - Gibson has zero control... you see pucks caught up in goalie equipment all that time that gets knocked in and is still a goal.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Yeah Chiasson put the puck in the net, he didn't push Gibson in.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by stang

Outside perspective. I'd say the interference was chiasson pushing Gibson which pushed the puck into the net. Looks like interference to me.

Then the refs did you a favour by telling them it was interference and you didn't waste your challenge on something that wasn't going to work anyways. If you had to use it later you'd be glad you didn't waste it. Thanks refs for the heads up.

Wow, thank you for your thoughtful and unbiased troll job. Except two things, flames were told 1 month ago when Elliott was pushed in on a goal by LA that if you are going for a loose puck on a crease scramble, it's not interference. Also, this review followed ZERO process. Never seen such a strange mess of a review, it followed none of the guidelines or order to how things are typically reviewed, and therefore, is being explained away by a bunch of reasons that don't really add up but it's also now above reproach for reasons of "everyone's confused, oh well." So no, it's not a ####### favour. Maybe keep your outsider opinions for those who give a ####.

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by stang

Outside perspective. I'd say the interference was chiasson pushing Gibson which pushed the puck into the net. Looks like interference to me.

Then the refs did you a favour by telling them it was interference and you didn't waste your challenge on something that wasn't going to work anyways. If you had to use it later you'd be glad you didn't waste it. Thanks refs for the heads up.

Agree with this. Chiasson doesn't actually hit the puck, he hits Gibson's blocker which pushes the puck into the net. Usually no goal.

Still peeved at the holding the stick penalty though, even though the Ducks would have fluked one in at 5v5 instead anyways because Ponda. Joke.

[expo2428]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Wow, thank you for your thoughtful and unbiased troll job. Except two things, flames were told 1 month ago when Elliott was pushed in on a goal by LA that if you are going for a loose puck on a crease scramble, it's not interference. Also, this review followed ZERO process. Never seen such a strange mess of a review, it followed none of the guidelines or order to how things are typically reviewed, and therefore, is being explained away by a bunch of reasons that don't really add up but it's also now above reproach for reasons of "everyone's confused, oh well." So no, it's not a ####### favour. Maybe keep your outsider opinions for those who give a ####.

I gave a #### about his outsider opinion. Might just be me but I do respect reading what other people have to say. I don't think his post was malicious. Oh well maybe I'm different.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by expo2428

I gave a #### about his outsider opinion. Might just be me but I do respect reading what other people have to say. I don't think his post was malicious. Oh well maybe I'm different.

A gleeful oilers fan coming in and delighting in the flames getting jammed again and telling us we should be glad for the favour? I suppose I shouldn't generalise, I guess some people enjoy that.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

except that the puck crosses the line before Gibson is physically pushed into the net...

if you mean chiasson sweeping at the puck, that incidental contact as far as I am concerned: the puck is loose. Chiasson has as much right to bang at that puck when its loose as gibson does - Gibson has zero control... you see pucks caught up in goalie equipment all that time that gets knocked in and is still a goal.

Yeah, I don't think it's Chiasson's whack because it's still loose. If he had control then for sure. But that's not the case.

Has to be Bennett's skate.

It's probably the combination of the two that led them to assuming interference, given all the bodies in the area. Could be argued either way, IMO. Just think their explanation wasn't good enough. Telling GG the exact point of contact that was ruled interfering with the goaltender would've been acceptable. Not "the call on the ice was interference, so it is overruled". That kind of ambiguity and shrugging off of an important call is simply not doing your job correctly.

That's why I think either the supervisor needs to step in and speak to them about that, or they should be replaced. That was just unacceptable in playoffs. Oh, but more so changing the standards of what's a holding penalty conveniently minutes after a Duck player does the same thing Hamilton does.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I would love some context around that tweet about Treliving breaking a chair.

When was it? After the game? After a non-call or call against the Flames? After a Ducks goal?

I'd like to think he was pissed over the typical NHL "pick and choose when it's an infraction and when it isn't" style of officiating myself.

The tweet was placed at 10:30 PM Pacific time or 9:30 our time. It could be in response to the non goal call by the refs and the NHL.

[stang]

The holding the stick was pretty weak.

[expo2428]

Originally Posted by Major Major

A gleeful oilers fan coming in and delighting in the flames getting jammed again and telling us we should be glad for the favour? I suppose I shouldn't generalise, I guess some people enjoy that.

He said glad for the favour of the ref actually describing what they were calling. Which in a lot cases they don't, they just say no goal or goal. Read his post however you want though.

[stang]

Originally Posted by expo2428

He said glad for the favour of the ref actually describing what they were calling. Which in a lot cases they don't, they just say no goal or goal. Read his post however you want though.

Yup, I meant you got to know it wouldn't have been a good challenge without using it. Crappy situation but silver lining I guess.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by stang

The holding the stick was pretty weak.

Perry and Hamilton both should have got 2min or neither.
Perry interference or holding and Hamilton for holding stick.

The refs stuck it to the Flames with that call.

Perry clearly skated right at Hamilton then held him to try to create a 2 on 1.
It was garbage neither ref called Perry.

Either you call both penalties or let it go.

[Love]

Man rewatching Backs' shorty just gave me goosebumps. They'll take care of business at home.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by expo2428

He said glad for the favour of the ref actually describing what they were calling. Which in a lot cases they don't, they just say no goal or goal. Read his post however you want though.

Actually I understood his post quite clearly. It does no one any favors to make up a review process as you go when very clear guidelines exist. It does no one any favors to have decided the goal wasn't going to count and then coming up with reasons to support this initial call. And it does no one any favors to skate to the bench and tell a coach not to waste his timeout because they've already done a shady review and made up their minds this wasn't going to be a goal before it even happened. It's sketchy as anything I've seen in this league which continues to act more and more in a very slimy way. But again, if you feel blessed to have had that officiating last night and were appreciative of the review that happened, then feel free.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Yeah, I don't think it's Chiasson's whack because it's still loose. If he had control then for sure. But that's not the case.

Has to be Bennett's skate.

It's probably the combination of the two that led them to assuming interference, given all the bodies in the area. Could be argued either way, IMO. Just think their explanation wasn't good enough. Telling GG the exact point of contact that was ruled interfering with the goaltender would've been acceptable. Not "the call on the ice was interference, so it is overruled". That kind of ambiguity and shrugging off of an important call is simply not doing your job correctly.

That's why I think either the supervisor needs to step in and speak to them about that, or they should be replaced. That was just unacceptable in playoffs. Oh, but more so changing the standards of what's a holding penalty conveniently minutes after a Duck player does the same thing Hamilton does.

definitely possible... i just think that if that's the case, then Holzer should have gotten a penalty for pushing Bennett into the net...

i just hate the inconsistency of the NHL... its pretty ridiculous... and as GG noted, its not even inconsistency of game to game or crew to crew... yesterday, the inconsistency was from one period to the next.

absolutely unacceptable level of officiating

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Dion

The tweet was placed at 10:30 PM Pacific time or 9:30 our time. It could be in response to the non goal call by the refs and the NHL.

That would be 1130 Mountain, so right after the game

[midniteowl]

If Treliving is this angry, he should follow what Mad Mike did twenty some odd years back. When Mike Milbury was NYI GM, they were playing Toronto in the playoff at the time, and trailing in the series, the refs was calling the game one sided on the Leafs favor. He compiled a video of all the infractions committed by the Leafs players and not called by the refs and then he called a press conference, showing the video to the media and really ripped the referees a new one on national TV.

Oh he got fined royally, but the next game, all the calls went to the Islanders favor, and they won the game. I don't remember if they won the series but I remember distinctively about that press conference.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

If Treliving is this angry, he should follow what Mad Mike did twenty some odd years back. When Mike Milbury was NYI GM, they were playing Toronto in the playoff at the time, and trailing in the series, the refs was calling the game one sided on the Leafs favor. He compiled a video of all the infractions committed by the Leafs players and not called by the refs and then he called a press conference, showing the video to the media and really ripped the referees a new one on national TV.

Oh he got fined royally, but the next game, all the calls went to the Islanders favor, and they won the game. I don't remember if they won the series but I remember distinctively about that press conference.

I don't think that would be a good idea.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by midniteowl

If Treliving is this angry, he should follow what Mad Mike did twenty some odd years back. When Mike Milbury was NYI GM, they were playing Toronto in the playoff at the time, and trailing in the series, the refs was calling the game one sided on the Leafs favor. He compiled a video of all the infractions committed by the Leafs players and not called by the refs and then he called a press conference, showing the video to the media and really ripped the referees a new one on national TV.

Oh he got fined royally, but the next game, all the calls went to the Islanders favor, and they won the game. I don't remember if they won the series but I remember distinctively about that press conference.

Treliving is not the type to bring the media into this, but I imagine he'd be setting up a very long conference call with Don Van Massenhoven (IIRC the referee manager for the ANA-CGY series) over the quality of officiating and 'game managing' that is going on in the first two games.

If Glen is furious enough to mouth off on the officiating during the postgame presser and Treliving is rage-smashing chairs, something will be done to address the situation, but as much of it will be behind the scenes as the Flames can manage.