LTS

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.

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.

He won't be answering for awhile.

I'll take it. I'll take it. I don't like it, but one of them had to win.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So you agree he's ten times worse? We don't have to worry about Hillary because she's not President.

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

Booked. I will be in Sweden from Nov. 7 - 13. (Leaving the 6th in the US). I really, really wanted to travel to Kiruna and ultimately to Abisko. I might still pull the trigger, but I will be paying a hotel in Stockholm those nights as well. More likely, I travel closer to Stockholm and then try a return visit in the "near" future. Sigh.. if only I could go for a few more days.

It says only games 3 and 4 are on TV (on their site). Was so wrapped up in other things that I neglected to pick up $17 tickets to tonight's playoff game... oh well.. that's life. I can't get my wife to let me go on Sunday. Sigh.

Mike Sullivan? (I know what you are doing... it won't work.) ?

The Sabres won both games I attended this year.. Capitals (meetup) and Blues (during my week long hiatus for being too positive).

Okay.. I'll go with that. Although I thought both Lydman and Campbell had been injured at some point. Perhaps the timing is off. We'll go with 4 of the top 6.. and I'm still going with fluke. Laviolette's only run comes when his opponent his extremely hindered on defense and they still barely won and managed to face the Oilers who somehow finagled their way into the SCF despite being terrible. Either way, I'm wholly unimpressed with Laviolette. Also, he's from the New England area and I still recall his accent. EVery press conference would feel like I was listening to a Bruins game... and I can't have that.

So, your opponent losing all 6 starting D to injury is not a fluke? Hmm. I guess the Sabres fans are going to have to go back and give Carolina credit for that series then.

Gary Oldman is very underappreciated. I love his versatility.

He's signed there twice, so he's choosing the market. I can appreciate players like that. Plants his flag and says, I'm all in.

If so, perhaps you'll buy the Sabres and spare roughly 30% of Sabrespacers their apparent misery?

I don't follow his personal life, so if his SO has changed then we're talking about different people. A few years ago I was at lunch with an uncle of the SO and he talked about how Eichel would disappear and play with the kids during Thanksgiving, etc.

USA Hockey has really taken a serious upturn over the past 15 years. I really think they've done a great job with their ADM. Couple that with increased exposure and more kids in the US playing hockey and you are bound to see some success.

Ahh.. I've never paid attention to Tinder. The graphics weren't obvious to me I guess that there was a swipe right and left thing.

I'm not sold on Laviolette. The guy has led teams but his only Stanley Cup win was a fluke. Other than that he's been fired for NOT getting the job done despite having a talented roster. Think about it. Advocating for a guy, who despite Nashville's roster, could not win the Stanley Cup against Pittsburgh and would have just lost to Dallas.

I happen to be in the same boat. There are a lot of athletes who demonstrate their charities but it comes across more as self-promotion that just happens to be for a good cause. The athlete who gives their time without the promotion, to me, is to be more admired. In those situations it would appear that they are in it for the charity and not at all for themselves, at least from a self-promotion standpoint. It's not that any athlete working for a charity is bad, it's more of which is better. Although, given the way charities can be used as tax shelters, I do sometimes question how some athletes use them, especially those named after themselves.