[OOT] April 23 with two game 7s!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This one game just proves how the NHL refuses to advance into the 21st century.

The high stick goal us impossible to tell without Hawkeye.

And the major penalty should be reviewed. If Toronto still says its a major then we accept that.

Do you really want that. How do you feel about Toronto’s performance on goalie interference or pass interference in the CFL or Flagrant fouls in the NBA? In my opinion video review in these incidents botches more calls than they fix.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by dino7c

They got it wrong...live it looked like a 5 min major, to me anyway. Its a high cross check and the guy is bleeding all over the ice. Its not like they just pulled something out of thin air.

Its certainly a bad break for Vegas but still a historically bad PP contributed big time.

Anyway, what a crazy night...1am WTF

nite all

It's actually a low cross check as he contacted Pavelski in the forearms which makes the call all that much worse. I think the officials just saw the player fall awkwardly and start bleeding and assumed it had to be this dirty cross check except that's not at all how he got injured and when officials assume anything they aren't doing their job properly.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I feel that officiating crew should not work again in these playoffs as it's unforgivable to make a panic call based on a player getting incidentally hurt. That was the worst 5 minute major I have ever seen in a playoff game. It barely warranted a 2 minute minor penalty let alone 5 and a game. Just a travesty and the biggest problem with the game by far is the quality of officiating as it's borderline CFL bad.

Well we've been talking about Furlat for how long on this board but he keeps getting the top jobs.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you really want that. How do you feel about Toronto’s performance on goalie interference or pass interference in the CFL or Flagrant fouls in the NBA? In my opinion video review in these incidents botches more calls than they fix.

I think they're fine. I dont have a problem with any of those. It would be correct more than incorrect.

[Robbob]

Wow, I turned it off after the 3rd Vegas goal. Did not expect to see the Sharks win this one. That hockey goddess is a cruel mistress.

[flamesfan1297]

I agree with another poster, that officiating crew should be done for the playoffs. Inexcusable to just guess on something you clearly didn't see.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Refs told Gallant on the ice the call was a crosscheck to the face.

They called a crosscheck to the face.

They botched the call. End of story.

It doesn't matter if he hit the face or not. Not even a little bit.

It's really quite simple:
1) Was there a crosscheck? Yes. Very, very obviously.
2) Did a player get injured because of the crosscheck? Yes. It was a bit coincidental, but without the crosscheck the injury doesn't happen.

Did the ref think it was a crosscheck to the face that somehow directly caused the injury? Possibly. But it's still the correct call IMO, and at the very least a defendable call.

Your point about a crosscheck to the face at worst means the refs only got it right by accident (and even that is stretching it a bit), which I don't think is the interesting part of what really was a pretty epic comeback.

It doesn't matter if the refs saw it exactly right, as long as they saw the key parts. Which are the crosscheck and the injury.

[GioforPM]

So weird: I think under the strict letter of the rule (crosscheck plus resulting injury) you can defend the call but only if you don't interpret the "resulting injury" to have to come from the initial contact, or even a fall to the ice or the boards right from the contact. It's an unfair rule in this situation - it turns a run of the mill crosscheck into a major just because of circumstance. I'd revamp that rule to require some more direct relationship between the infraction and the injury. And I wonder if it's called that way if the game was closer. The refs probably thought "it's safe to give 5 minutes - the outcome won't change".

That said, it was really bad PKing.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Itse

It doesn't matter if he hit the face or not. Not even a little bit.

It's really quite simple:
1) Was there a crosscheck? Yes. Very, very obviously.
2) Did a player get injured because of the crosscheck? Yes. It was a bit coincidental, but without the crosscheck the injury doesn't happen.

Did the ref think it was a crosscheck to the face that somehow directly caused the injury? Possibly. But it's still the correct call IMO, and at the very least a defendable call.

Your point about a crosscheck to the face at worst means the refs only got it right by accident (and even that is stretching it a bit), which I don't think is the interesting part of what really was a pretty epic comeback.

It doesn't matter if the refs saw it exactly right, as long as they saw the key parts. Which are the crosscheck and the injury.

No he he didn't.

Not even close.

It was a shove backwards that sent Pavelski off balance and then was contacted by Stastny which THEN sent him to the ice without being able to brace his fall. There is absolutely no way you can claim that what Eakins did was the reason Pavelski was injured...like zero.

So you ara correct it really is quite simple. The referees thought they saw something that did not happen and made an incorrect call because of it. That stuff happens, but please lets stop trying to justify a massive screw up at a key part of the game. It was a mistake.

That call was all sorts of incorrect. It was a stretch to call it crosschecking to begin with as that kind of push off happens all the time off faceoffs. Never mind intent to injure. This is hockey...contact is allowed and even with the stick across the chest to a degree.

[Toonage]

It was a bad call. Like, a really bad call.

But the Knights gave up 4 goals in less than 5 minutes.

They gave up a 3-1 series lead.

Thats one powerfully bad call.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Toonage

It was a bad call. Like, a really bad call.

But the Knights gave up 4 goals in less than 5 minutes.

They gave up a 3-1 series lead.

Thats one powerfully bad call.

While I somewhat agree that they could've finished it out in lesser games or whatever, I would be through the roof apoplectic about being given a 5 minute major with 10 minutes left in the 3rd period of a game 7 for a play the refs obviously did not see.

I think, to a man on this board, no one is suggesting a 5 minute major was the right call there. Call a penalty, sure, call 2 separate penalties (cross check/interference/roughing) but a major in the NHL is such a massive game changer.

It's all part and parcel which we've come to hate as hockey fans: stupid rules that no one understands that are not consistently enforced that have too much sway over the outcome of a hockey game.

When no one understands what constitutes a major penalty or goalie interference or a plethora of other calls, and in every night of the playoffs there is some egregious penalty call, there is a major, major problem.

I'm personally inclined towards calling 10 penalties a game if need be, but to penalize a team with a major penalty in a deciding game that is not worthy of a major penalty is an awful look for the league under increasing levels of scrutiny for how objectively bad they enforce their rules.

The NHL is a bush league. Not quite as bad as referees betting on games, but it's getting pretty close.

If I'm the Knights owner waking up this morning, my assistant has multiple phones on standby as I smash each one screaming at gary bettman about my billion dollar investment in his stupid league that can't call a penalty properly.

[transplant99]

"Furlatt said, 'It looks pretty bad.' If it looks pretty bad, then clearly you did not see it," Marchessault said. "It's a faceoff. It's a push. Probably 50 percent of the faceoffs, players -- if they lose -- they probably give a small cross-check, right? If you want to call the cross-check, fine, call it. It's a cross-check. But seriously, he falls bad. It's unfortunate. Don't get me wrong: I'm a huge fan of Joe Pavelski. And he went down, and I really hope he's OK and he comes back. But that call changes the whole outcome. It changes the whole future of us and the outcome this year. It's a joke. I would be embarrassed if I was them."

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/2...s-stole-game-7

[Toonage]

I'm not going to argue that wasn't a horrible call. It was. Indefensible.

But the Knights gave up 4 goals in less than 5 minutes. They were down by one man during that time.

That's an emotional collapse as much as anything.

But they still fought back and took it to OT.

All after being unable to finish the Sharks in 2 previous tries.

The call didn't ultimately sink Vegas. It just added a ton of water.

If that call went against the Flames you bet i would be out of my mind. I'd be beyond mad. But I'd also be pretty PO'd that my team let it do that much damage to them. I'd also be pretty PO'd that my team let it get to a Game 7

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Toonage

I'm not going to argue that wasn't a horrible call. It was. Indefensible.

But the Knights gave up 4 goals in less than 5 minutes. They were down by one man during that time.

That's an emotional collapse as much as anything.

But they still fought back and took it to OT.

All after being unable to finish the Sharks in 2 previous tries.

The call didn't ultimately sink Vegas. It just added a ton of water.

If that call went against the Flames you bet i would be out of my mind. I'd be beyond mad. But I'd also be pretty PO'd that my team let it do that much damage to them.

You can't just dismiss that it was the major itself that contributed to the goals. in an evenly matched series that finds itself in game 7, putting one team down a man for 5 ####ing minutes is going to drastically tilt the ice.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You can't just dismiss that it was the major itself that contributed to the goals. in an evenly matched series that finds itself in game 7, putting one team down a man for 5 ####ing minutes is going to drastically tilt the ice.

I'm not. Not at all.

I think my point is clear. It would be unfair for me to say they should have finished the job when they had the chance at home or kill the f'n penalty. They got a raw deal to put it mildly. But a 5 minute major isn't a death sentence. At least it shouldn't be. It absolutely tilted the ice in terms of emotion and momentum. But they let it get much worse. IMO

[GirlySports]

I dont care what the penalty looked like. You cant call what you didnt see. No arms went up.

Unless we have a review mechanism, the refs cant just call a penalty based on blood.

It would be like in WWE if the ref called something that happened behind his back.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by browna

My guess, as mentioned, is that major penalties can get video reviewed, starting next year.

They should look to how the NCAA handles targeting.

If you are going to call a major and kick the guy out of the game, go take a look at it on the tablet to make sure you got it right. For how infrequent major penalties are it won't be that disruptive to the games.