Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

489 Excellent

About LTS

  • Rank
    I choose to believe.

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Somewhere Else
  • Interests
    Hockey, hockey, hockey

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well, they could call a major without a match, but you can't call a match without a major. Since they ejected him I was going straight to that and it had to be the criteria they were using as they did eject him. It's plausible. I'm part of an ice hockey referee group and this call was debated from a lot of angles. All in all, the general consensus is that there's no way you get to major penalty, let alone a match. They debated the optics of the bleeding and the potential ensuing escalation as well. The benches would each get a talking to after the penalty call was made and everyone would understand their view. If the Sharks persisted to seek out "justice" the officials would definitely start calling things tight in which case San Jose spend a lot of time short handed. If the game gets close and the escalation occurs then you usually just utter the phrase "The next time I'm sending one of you." In fact, I think I heard that mentioned on a broadcast recently. It's a common thing to say. In a tight game no one wants to be the guy who gives the opponent the power play. If you take both then they know it's a wash so it doesn't deter. ------------------------------- The Canes showed some serious fight. The Caps were just not "on" enough. And.. Justin Williams. Seriously.
  2. How are they not comparable? Both are related 100% to actions of officials blowing a call that lead to an extremely favorable outcome for the opposing team. And if the call were a minor penalty there would have been 1 PP goal scored and that would be that. There's no reasonable excuse for the refs call last night except that someone was thinking "Jesus christ, the captain is bleeding from the head on the ice and we missed something so we better call something." They didn't think there was a cross-check at all (let alone one to the face) as was indicated by no referee signalling a penalty. It stinks to high hell of 100% immediate revisionist history once the OUTCOME of the play was realized. Regardless of all of that. It's a blown call by an official that leads to an extremely favorable outcome for the opposing team. They are comparable. I've coached hockey. I've called timeout before and watched as nothing changed whatsoever. Keep in mind, you call the timeout and you've given the other team carte blanche to squeeze that blue line or interfere with the goaltender. One missed call by an official and a goal is scored and there's no chance for Vegas to review it. It's not like there wasn't some precedent for these officials to screw up a call, right? 😉
  3. Really too good not to share this.
  4. I'd rather have Laviolette... and I don't want Laviolette at all. I'd rather keep Housley. If they hire Martin all I will be able to think is, "Well, it wasn't Mike Yeo."
  5. I was in college and had a paper due the next day. It was a team assignment and my team was distributed around campus. We had agreed to finish up the paper after the game was over. After the 2nd OT we realized that we better just work on the paper. So, during the 3OT we worked on it and finished it up and returned home just in time to see the game end.
  6. The bad calls usually don't result in an ejection and a 5 minute power play. You have to PK, sure, but you there's no way you should be PK'ing a 5 minute call. Would you tell the Saints to suck it up because the refs screwed up pass interference? Rule 59 – Cross-checking 59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent. 59.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent. 59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5). 59.4 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 cross-checking. 59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player. 59.6 Fines and Suspensions - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall also be imposed. If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28). In order for the referees to be justified in calling a major penalty the penalty has to be a deliberate attempt to injure. (see: Kadri, Nazim). In this case, the cross-check is not to the head. The cross-check is a penalty. The unintentional consequence is that Pavelski loses his balance and as Stastny is attempting to get to the point to cover his man he attempts to move Pavelski out of his way without knowing that he's off balance (not that I think it would matter). Pavelski continues falling and due to the Stastny contact has less of a chance to brace himself. The situation is made worse in that Pavelski is attempting to back out of the face-off circle in order to open a shooting lane. As such, his weight is already moving in the direction he will fall. The bottom line is that the referees did not even raise their arms when the actual infraction occurred. As such, they did not believe a penalty had occurred. They can talk to the linesman who may say there was a cross-check but there's no reasonable way they can infer there was an intent to injure on that play. It's a bad call. It puts the Knights in a bad situation. Yes, it happens, but it does not absolve the referees from creating the situation in the first place. The best you can get to is "If Cody Eakin does not cross-check Pavelski, then the referees can't make the bad call." I'd go with that, but once that happened you are forced into what call is the right call. Initially, the officials believe no call was the right call. Pavelski did not get up, and the officials discussed the situation. The problem is that the rule hurdle for assessing a match penalty is that there must have been a deliberate attempt to injure. There clearly was no deliberate attempt and as such they cannot make a 5 minute major assessment. Cody Eakin creates the scenario by which the officials can make a bad call. The official create the scenario by which the Knights can give up as many goals as SJ can score. The Knights PK gives up the goals. There are varying levels of blame there, but none of them are innocent and each are 100% guilty of creating the scenario that allowed for the next event probability. --------------------- That said... I am tired today. That game was so damn compelling. Ultimately I was glad SJ scored because Stone should have been whistled for a hook/trip in the neutral zone just before the goal was scored. I get not wanting to make a call, but that was an egregious penalty that Stone committed.
  7. I'll take it. I'll take it. I don't like it, but one of them had to win.
  8. Let's slow the roll. Call people by their given names, initials, nicknames. There's no need to throw insults into the mix when describing people and their actions. Let their actions speak for themselves and if they are insulting actions then the insult will be obvious. There's certainly no need to engage in the use of derogatory language in some attempt to equate the actions of one person with the supposed incapability of a group of people. It's demeaning to everyone and makes you look foolish. For example: Hillary Rodham Clinton is her name. Also, HRC, Clinton, HIllary. Donald Trump is his name. Also, DJT, Trump, The Don, Donald, The President. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is her name. Also, AOC. It happens once in awhile, but if we let it go unchecked the conversation devolves into who can use the most colorful language rather than who can make the best point.
  9. The rule book defines what is illegal and as such everything else, I guess, is legal. However, McNabb was engaged in a battle for the puck as soon as the puck was near the player who was about to play it. It's not like pass interference in the NFL where you have to wait for the guy to touch the puck. It's in his "frame" so he's legal to be hit. It's certainly not clear cut as people might like it to be though. Yes, they might be a worse team without ROR, but from a standings and statistics point of view (record notwithstanding) they were fundamentally the same team as the year before without ROR. The difference was they started playing defense and got a great goaltender. Cue, Berube and Binnington. And ROR received the same credit here (other than the slump being the whole season). He was the first guy there, last to leave, blah blah blah. ROR is the same player there that he was in Buffalo. The Blues were largely the same team with or without ROR (the season prior to this season). ROR is a constant. The Blues improved because of goaltending and the Blues were better than the Sabres because of superior talent and clearly Berube was a good coach for the team. ROR was in St. Louis before Binnington and Berube and the team was awful. He was the leading scorer and the team was dead last in the league (just like Buffalo). He doesn't change the team. He's a very good player, but he's just one person. I'm not sure how much more obvious the point can be made. It's okay for ROR to be the same consistently good player, wherever he goes, and still NOT be the reason the Blues are in the playoffs and NOT have had any impact in Buffalo. Keep in mind, the Sabres did improve this year. And, if you want to say "but without the 10 game win streak" you can say that, but I will ask you to remove 10 of the Blues 12 game win streak and see where they end up. Streaks are streaks. This point should be done now. It won't be, but it should be.
  10. No. There's no definition that I am aware of the defines legal "battle for the puck". It's mentioned in the Interference section, but they don't define it (or I have not found it). There's no other mention of "battle for the puck" in the entire rule book either.
  11. As I posted, when the Blues had turned it around. ROR had no noticeable impact on the Blues and their turnaround. ROR was the same player, in Buffalo, in STL when in last place, and now. Dec. 1, Jordan Binnington made it to the league and from there on the Blues were a changed team. The conversation regarding ROR has grown out of control, regardless of which side of the trade people are on. It's like having a politics conversation at this point. ROR wasn't happy in Buffalo, he said that. ROR was traded, we know that. The Blues were the same team with ROR as they were without him the year before. He merely fit into the team to make up for those who were gone (Stastny, etc.). Yes.. this. That may be it. However, you are not required to touch the puck to be able to be legally hit. If you are making a play on the puck and you happen to choose to not touch it or happen to miss it you are still legally able to be hit.
  12. So you agree he's ten times worse? We don't have to worry about Hillary because she's not President.
  13. LTS

    GIPHY integration

    It's... the unfortunate byproduct of the Internet sensation with memes.
  • Create New...