Haven't gone through the whole thread so forgive me if this was covered but didn't Colorado lose a series because of a goal called back (or they gave one up on a PP because of) when Landeskog (I think it was him) didn't get off the ice fast enough on a line change? Think this was 2019.
Anyway, it was a nit picky call on a play that happens all the time like Bednar says. I recall the Avs being pretty unhappy at the time. They must be feeling pretty smug right now.
Yup. I still think this was an awful call...
It didn't quite cost them the game or series, but it certainly changed things. If allowed, it would have made it a 2-2 tie. Instead it stayed 2-1 and San Jose scored a few minutes later to go up 3-1 and held on to win 3-2.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
last night he is acting like its a missed call that will rock the league to its core, he will tell us more in the morning and we will all understand...he really needed more of a smoking gun today
Late change too many men...tough call but it happens all the time, his team got away with it too although maybe less egregious.
It wouldn't even make the top ten shafted list for the Flames
__________________
GFG
The Following User Says Thank You to dino7c For This Useful Post:
I disagree with the statement that the Colorado players weren't involved in the play.
Kadri jumping early gives him the edge to get the step on the d-man, which is why he scores.
Sure Mackinnon isn't directly involved at all, but I do think it's fair to state that Kadri being able to join the play early is why that goal happens.
Changes like that do happen every game, but it rarely ends in a puck in the pack of the net like it does here, so in this case I get why you'd be frustrated.
Byram is a red-herring as he is not the changed for player. It is the guy at the blue-line (MacKinnon) who was changing for Kadri.
I think it was Nichuskin who was about to change, then changed his mind because he saw the puck was coming up, but Kadri was already on and MacKinnon did eventually come off. He is the guy at the blue line.
When I see that I think that is definitely too many men. It looks like Nichuskin was going to go off and Kadri was going to replace him, they both stay on and MacKinnon eventually goes off the ice. I have seen it where a player has one skate on the ice and they call it.
If it was MacKinnon who Kadri was replacing on the ice he was already in full possession of the puck and gained a huge advantage accordingly. The fact it wasn't called isn't a shock because the refs don't want to impact the game but it technically is a pretty straight forward call.
When I see that I think that is definitely too many men. It looks like Nichuskin was going to go off and Kadri was going to replace him, they both stay on and MacKinnon eventually goes off the ice. I have seen it where a player has one skate on the ice and they call it.
If it was MacKinnon who Kadri was replacing on the ice he was already in full possession of the puck and gained a huge advantage accordingly. The fact it wasn't called isn't a shock because the refs don't want to impact the game but it technically is a pretty straight forward call.
So are calls like this supposed to be discretionary, or is there supposed to be a hard line drawn?
In the Colorado/SJ clip above, by the rule of law, I guess it was offside or too many men, but the player committing the infraction was clearly nowhere near the play with no intention of getting back in. I am not sure why he didn't get off the ice faster, but there must have been some kind of issue. If it is a discretionary call, then that is a prime example of one that should have been let go.
With the goal last night, I think there is a stronger case that the line change, with Kadri jumping on too quickly and MacKinnon biding his time getting off, affected the play and you could make a case for calling it, although considering all the other things the refs were letting go, it wasn't the most egregious thing.
I guess some consistency would be nice. If it is a letter of the law rule like the Col/SJ example, then call it like that every time.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 06-23-2022 at 02:40 PM.
So are calls like this supposed to be discretionary, or is there supposed to be a hard line drawn?
In the Colorado/SJ clip above, by the rule of law, I guess it was offside or too many men, but the player committing the infraction was clearly nowhere near the play with no intention of getting back in. I am not sure why he didn't get off the ice faster, but there must have been some kind of issue. If it is a discretionary call, then that is a prime example of one that should have been let go.
With the goal last night, I think there is a stronger case that the line change, with Kadri jumping on too quickly and MacKinnon biding his time getting off, affected the play and you could make a case for calling it, although considering all the other things the refs were letting go, it wasn't the most egregious thing.
I guess some consistency would be nice. If it is a letter of the law rule like the Col/SJ example, then call it like that every time.
The SJ/Colo one wasn't about too many men, it was considered offside, since Landeskog was in the zone.
Again, to everyone calling this a too many men. Are we okay with the fact that Tampa had 7 players physically on the ice earlier in that sequence? I'm not clear on why this is only on Colorado.
Again, to everyone calling this a too many men. Are we okay with the fact that Tampa had 7 players physically on the ice earlier in that sequence? I'm not clear on why this is only on Colorado.
Teams often have more than 6 players physically on the ice. It depends how many are deemed "in play".
Again, to everyone calling this a too many men. Are we okay with the fact that Tampa had 7 players physically on the ice earlier in that sequence? I'm not clear on why this is only on Colorado.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Cobra
Teams often have more than 6 players physically on the ice. It depends how many are deemed "in play".
Right, so it seems as though this is something that happens all the time and a complete non-issue. Tampa are only whining about it because in this particular instance it gives them a straw to grasp on a game-losing goal.
Its very 'Oilers' of them.
"We didn't lose, we were cheated/someone made a mistake/its a conspiracy!"
Its horse hockey!!
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Again, to everyone calling this a too many men. Are we okay with the fact that Tampa had 7 players physically on the ice earlier in that sequence? I'm not clear on why this is only on Colorado.
Yes I am ok with the TB change. 4 TB players were making a line change, in close proximity to the bench and did not play the puck and were not directly involved in the play. If one of those players had played the puck, TB should have been called for too many men.
Kahdri came on the ice early, skated over half way across the ice and played the puck before the person he was replacing reached the bench.
The issue I see is Kadri intentionally played the puck, which is a big indicator of being involved in the play and it is almost always called, if detected. Having 6,7,8, players on the ice happens often during a game. If one those players plays the puck intentionally, it’s a called. No one plays the puck, not called.
The Following User Says Thank You to Reggie28 For This Useful Post:
Again, to everyone calling this a too many men. Are we okay with the fact that Tampa had 7 players physically on the ice earlier in that sequence? I'm not clear on why this is only on Colorado.
Because Kadri played the puck and interfered with the play. Having more than 5 skaters happens, but not having one of the extra players playing the puck. In my opinion this absolutely was a missed call on the part of the officials. It happens occasionally but if that is called no one would bat an eye.
Right, so it seems as though this is something that happens all the time and a complete non-issue. Tampa are only whining about it because in this particular instance it gives them a straw to grasp on a game-losing goal.
Its very 'Oilers' of them.
"We didn't lose, we were cheated/someone made a mistake/its a conspiracy!"
Its horse hockey!!
Its more very 'Flames' of them as we are still whining 18 yrs. later over 2004!
The Following User Says Thank You to Scooter For This Useful Post:
