[CP JIHAD] please vote! (Vancouver related)

[MelBridgeman]

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.

It's easy to debate when you have time to think about it, slow motion, different angles and replays.

The official made the call in a split second and I would rather see potentially dangerous plays like that called then not.

So i base my opinion off split second.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

Wait .....what?

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

It's easy to debate when you have time to think about it, slow motion, different angles and replays.

The official made the call in a split second and I would rather see potentially dangerous plays like that called then not.

So i base my opinion off split second.

Fair enough. I'd agree with that. I understand why he called it, you err on the side of caution these days.

[H2SO4(aq)]

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.

Wow. Scroll back up and read the posted definition of the rule. Then concede your point is invalid, and move on.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Wow. Scroll back up and read the posted definition of the rule. Then concede your point is invalid, and move on.

Scroll back and read what I've posted this entire thread. If you want to say it's a penalty, so be it. That's your opinion. I believe it wasn't. But the people who say it was a "text book" call are the ones I quibble with. There can be arguments made both ways.

[Trojan97]

nm

[BloodFetish]

Textbook, to me, would be a guy hit squarely in the back, right between the numbers, and directly into the boards from around 4 feet away.

The Sedin hit was boarding, but not textbook IMO.

But really who gives a crap? The Canucks are gone and now I have an excuse to clean up the floor near that annoying opinionated Canucks fan at work. Hmmm, what to use?

[Locke]

I dont care if they think its a bad call or that their team just sucks, but how the hell has the Vancouver media dragged Calgary into this?

Leave us out of it.

Point the blame at the Sedins who cant score goals in the playoffs.

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Scroll back and read what I've posted this entire thread. If you want to say it's a penalty, so be it. That's your opinion. I believe it wasn't. But the people who say it was a "text book" call are the ones I quibble with. There can be arguments made both ways.

What part of the hit doesn't fulfill the requirements for a boarding call though?

[sun]

Sounds like someone needs to start a Kelly Sutherland appreciation thread.

Kelly frickin' Sutherland!

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Trojan97

What part of the hit doesn't fulfill the requirements for a boarding call though?

The fact that

"There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26329)"

ensures that any boarding call can really be debatable, as this penalty more than probably almost any other (Roughing being the other) is totally at the discretion of that referee and can vary game to game, as the refs job is formost to ensure that players are playing safe and determining if an action was "safe" or not.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Trojan97

What part of the hit doesn't fulfill the requirements for a boarding call though?

DEFENCELESS POSITION

The player could have defended himself from the check and knew the check was coming therefore not boarding. Boarding is not just a hit that results in a violent impact into the boards. It needs to be on a player who is defenceless.

[BigRed]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wait .....what?

Hush, now. Everything's gonna be ok.

[BigRed]

Wingles was vulnerable, if not defenseless. He was pushed into the boards while in a vulnerable position, while not playing the puck. It's boarding, as described in the rules. If you don't like that then call it interference, which would have worked as well.

[Lanny'sDaMan]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont care if they think its a bad call or that their team just sucks, but how the hell has the Vancouver media dragged Calgary into this?

Leave us out of it.

Point the blame at the Sedins who cant score goals in the playoffs.

Any thing to help them sleep at night and deflect the blame. Cause there is no way that Burrow, the Sisters and Schnieder are to blame. Not a chance.

Green text should be implied

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by BigRed

Wingles was vulnerable, if not defenseless. He was pushed into the boards while in a vulnerable position, while not playing the puck. It's boarding, as described in the rules. If you don't like that then call it interference, which would have worked as well.

###. I also say text book boarding...can anyone argue it was not interference?

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by GGG

DEFENCELESS POSITION

The player could have defended himself from the check and knew the check was coming therefore not boarding. Boarding is not just a hit that results in a violent impact into the boards. It needs to be on a player who is defenceless.

Sedin was directly behind him from the time he entered the zone until the time he was hit. How was he supposed to defend himself?

[Du Hast]

I didn't think it was a penalty. Easy to understand that it got called though , as the result looked like a penalty. But really, I thought wingels was a willing participant in the contact , but he was moving quite abut faster , changing direction / or slightly off balance so got the raw end of it.

[Major Major]

I know it has been said a few times, but this whole penalty talk is unbelievable. Both sides who think they know that was a penalty for sure are out to lunch, it was debatable, grey area, iffy, whatever.

The only thing that happened in this series that matters is that one team was vastly outplayed. VASTLY. In every single part of the game too. That team showed themselves to be the only team out of 16 qualifiers not to show up, and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that their team is as playoff hardened as wet bread.

A coach change, or a roster 'shakeup' is not going to help this team. As far as I am concerned, the Nucks are no further ahead than the Flames or Oilers right now. Perhaps further behind considering maybe, just maybe, they will get better reffing next year. Give me a break.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Major Major

I know it has been said a few times, but this whole penalty talk is unbelievable. Both sides who think they know that was a penalty for sure are out to lunch, it was debatable, grey area, iffy, whatever.

The only thing that happened in this series that matters is that one team was vastly outplayed. VASTLY. In every single part of the game too. That team showed themselves to be the only team out of 16 qualifiers not to show up, and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that their team is as playoff hardened as wet bread.

A coach change, or a roster 'shakeup' is not going to help this team. As far as I am concerned, the Nucks are no further ahead than the Flames or Oilers right now. Perhaps further behind considering maybe, just maybe, they will get better reffing next year. Give me a break.

A couple interesting facts from this season:

Vancouver had 2 (two) more ROW wins than the Flames

And scored fewer goals