PLAYOFF DISCUSSION THREAD

[Claude_Verret]

:blink:

 

I should what?

 

Edit:

 

Wait, okay, I think I get it. I was just missing the ENVY reference

 

I still have an ECF Hurricanes tumbler glass. (the other one I broke to assault women and babies)

 

Our group actually gave all of ours to the Canes fans tailgating next to us after the game. If I told that to someone around here now I'd be called a liar as it's common knowledge among canes fans that ALL Sabres fans are a-holes. The aftermath of that game and how Sabres fans have subsequently been treated at the RBC was how my hatred for the canes began. Before that I couldn't summon any hatred for the Canes, I looked at them no differently than I do Pheonix or Tampa for example. Now they're right up there with Toronto, Boston and Philly.

 

I really do think there is going to be a repeat of ECF 2006 game one here this Saturday. It's memorial day weekend and VA, NC and SC are crawling with Pittsburgh transplants....

[Claude_Verret]

Looks like Cole is a go but Ruutu is out for game two.

 

Link

[X. Benedict]

I really do think there is going to be a repeat of ECF 2006 game one here this Saturday. It's memorial day weekend and VA, NC and SC are crawling with Pittsburgh transplants....

 

I imagine that is what will happen.

I would bet that Pittsburgh is going to have more than 30% of that crowd.

[Stoner]

ESPN dedicated a small highlights reel to playoff games that Brian Campbell has blown on each of his three teams during sportscenter. Ouch.

 

Three teams? Three playoffs?

[carpandean]

Three teams?

Buffalo, San Jose and Chicago.

 

 

Edit: looks like a good ol' shootout in Pittsburgh. Five goals (3-2) in the first 13 minutes!

Of course, having said that, it will probably be slow from here on out.

[Eleven]

Buffalo, San Jose and Chicago.

Edit: looks like a good ol' shootout in Pittsburgh. Five goals (3-2) in the first 13 minutes!

Of course, having said that, it will probably be slow from here on out.

 

Or not; Talbot just answered.

 

And hey, has CBC completely given up? The segment on canvas grocery bags is nice, but I'd really rather watch their hockey coverage. Stuck with VS.

[Stoner]

Buffalo, San Jose and Chicago.

 

 

Edit: looks like a good ol' shootout in Pittsburgh. Five goals (3-2) in the first 13 minutes!

Of course, having said that, it will probably be slow from here on out.

 

Ah. My brain didn't find its way to San Jose.

 

Was Soupy really singlehandedly responsible for three playoff losses?

[Corp000085]

MIROSLAV SATAN JUST DROPPED THE GLOVES!

 

 

Wow...

[Stoner]

How cool was the crowd chanting GINO GINO and Malkin scoring seconds later?

 

Nothing against Joe B. on Versus... it takes almost pure genius to call a game the way he does. Same for Doc. But, good God, your head hurts after about two minutes. You constantly have to try and figure out the references. Nothing is ever as it seems. He had some dude volleyballing the puck in the corner. And ladling the puck.

 

I'm surprised no one spatula-ed the sausage off the high pan to center griddle.

 

My playoff MVP so far: the mute button.

[SwampD]

How cool was the crowd chanting GINO GINO and Malkin scoring seconds later?

 

Nothing against Joe B. on Versus... it takes almost pure genius to call a game the way he does. Same for Doc. But, good God, your head hurts after about two minutes. You constantly have to try and figure out the references. Nothing is ever as it seems. He had some dude volleyballing the puck in the corner. And ladling the puck.

 

I'm surprised no one spatula-ed the sausage off the high pan to center griddle.

 

My playoff MVP so far: the mute button.

:lol: :lol:

[X. Benedict]

I'm surprised no one spatula-ed the sausage off the high pan to center griddle.

 

My playoff MVP so far: the mute button.

 

This is making me want breakfast.

 

MMMMM......Staal goes in for coffee......Fleury says NO!

[darksabre]

How cool was the crowd chanting GINO GINO and Malkin scoring seconds later?

 

Nothing against Joe B. on Versus... it takes almost pure genius to call a game the way he does. Same for Doc. But, good God, your head hurts after about two minutes. You constantly have to try and figure out the references. Nothing is ever as it seems. He had some dude volleyballing the puck in the corner. And ladling the puck.

 

I'm surprised no one spatula-ed the sausage off the high pan to center griddle.

 

My playoff MVP so far: the mute button.

 

Just awesome :lol:

[mrjsbu96]

i don't get what is wrong with that hit from Kronwall.......Havlat should have had the puck and he missed it. IT was right there and I don't see the elbow come up. Havlat had his head down, shoulder pads are body armor and hence a concussion, but I just don't see the elbow, or hit to the head....maybe he jumped in to a little, but he didn't even charge him...i thought that was just a perfect hit..

[Stoner]

i don't get what is wrong with that hit from Kronwall.......Havlat should have had the puck and he missed it. IT was right there and I don't see the elbow come up. Havlat had his head down, shoulder pads are body armor and hence a concussion, but I just don't see the elbow, or hit to the head....maybe he jumped in to a little, but he didn't even charge him...i thought that was just a perfect hit..

 

Was Havlat ever in possession? Had he touched the puck?

 

P.S.:

56.4 Major Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence, to a player or goalkeeper guilty of interfering with an opponent (see 56.5).

 

56.5 Game Misconduct Penalty ? When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

[SwampD]

Whether it was a penalty or not, whenever someone makes contact with someone else's head, I'm not too broken up if they have to leave the game.

[mrjsbu96]

There was absolutely no head contact......none......sorry, I don't see Kromwall jumping in to the check and if Havlat's head just happens to be high enough where it hits Kromwalls shoulder pads so be it.

 

As for PA's response, the only penalty I can possibly give there is Interference, if you want to debate that he did nto have complete possession yet. I"m not sure of your angle with the rule references, but if you begin to take away those hits, you take away the game. Havlat's head was done, pure and simple.

[SabresFan526]

There was absolutely no head contact......none......sorry, I don't see Kromwall jumping in to the check and if Havlat's head just happens to be high enough where it hits Kromwalls shoulder pads so be it.

 

As for PA's response, the only penalty I can possibly give there is Interference, if you want to debate that he did nto have complete possession yet. I"m not sure of your angle with the rule references, but if you begin to take away those hits, you take away the game. Havlat's head was done, pure and simple.

I'm kind of with you on this as well. If we use the Campbell precedent, then Cambell should have been given a charging, interference or some sort of penalty, a major and a game misconduct for the hit on Umberger. When you see the replay, the puck had just left Umberger's stick when Campbell makes contact. If we use that precedent, then Kronwall also should not have received any penalty. I would even argue that Havlatt was more in control of the puck at the time of the hit than Umberger was when Campbell hit him. So, if I look purely at the rules, I cannot justify giving Kronwall any penalty let alone a major and game misconduct.

However, if the intent of the NHL is to get rid of head shots altogether, then I have no real problem with assessing a major and game misconduct on Kronwall. It was a very violent hit that caused an injury. I would prefer the refs calling a different penalty such as roughing because interference or charging don't seem accurate since the hit is legally clean. And, if the intent of the NHL is to eliminate head shots, then that should be stated up front and enforced uniformly throughout the NHL. Meaning, if anyone ever hits a guy like Kronwall hit Havlatt or like Campbell hit Umberger or like Doug Weight hit Brandon Sutter, then every single time without fail that should be called a major and a game misconduct. But, if there is no uniform officiating and this is not called every single time the same way, then I have to agree with mrjsbu96 that this was a clean hit and there was no reason to call it this time. The NHL needs to make up their minds and determine if they are going legislate clean hits, unfortunately to the head, out of the game, and if they are, then they need to make that call ahead of time instead of in the moment of the game because that just destroys any consistency.

[Stoner]

There was absolutely no head contact......none......sorry, I don't see Kromwall jumping in to the check and if Havlat's head just happens to be high enough where it hits Kromwalls shoulder pads so be it.

 

As for PA's response, the only penalty I can possibly give there is Interference, if you want to debate that he did nto have complete possession yet. I"m not sure of your angle with the rule references, but if you begin to take away those hits, you take away the game. Havlat's head was done, pure and simple.

 

There was never any possession of the puck on Havlat's part. He wasn't fair game. The only penalty you can possibly give is the one they did give!

 

But it's only a fluke he didn't touch it. Redo the play 100 times and 99 times we're talking today about how the hit was perfectly legal. The problem (defined to me as another player knocked out cold) really isn't the rules, because you can't say a player in possession can't be checked. I guess you can tighten up charging. And penalize any blow to the head, including the chin, with ANY part of the checker's body, under any circumstance, even when the "victim" is short (Gerbe), clueless (Connolly) or just stupid (any olayers with his head down).

 

The bigger problem to me is the strategic use of extreme violence and the love a lot of us have for it. These guys are big, fast and ruthless. The hit had little to do with checking an opponent and a lot to do with taking him out, maybe for good. And people tend to like it. I'd suggest that anyone who celebrates a sporting play where someone else ends up unconscious should reexamine his or her life. Seriously.

 

Worst part of the play? The animals who skated in immediately after the hit, their skates poking at Havlat, practically stepping on the guy. Disgraceful. A lack of regard and respect? In hockey? Nah.

[Stoner]

I'm kind of with you on this as well. If we use the Campbell precedent, then Cambell should have been given a charging, interference or some sort of penalty, a major and a game misconduct for the hit on Umberger. When you see the replay, the puck had just left Umberger's stick when Campbell makes contact. If we use that precedent, then Kronwall also should not have received any penalty. I would even argue that Havlatt was more in control of the puck at the time of the hit than Umberger was when Campbell hit him. So, if I look purely at the rules, I cannot justify giving Kronwall any penalty let alone a major and game misconduct.

However, if the intent of the NHL is to get rid of head shots altogether, then I have no real problem with assessing a major and game misconduct on Kronwall. It was a very violent hit that caused an injury. I would prefer the refs calling a different penalty such as roughing because interference or charging don't seem accurate since the hit is legally clean. And, if the intent of the NHL is to eliminate head shots, then that should be stated up front and enforced uniformly throughout the NHL. Meaning, if anyone ever hits a guy like Kronwall hit Havlatt or like Campbell hit Umberger or like Doug Weight hit Brandon Sutter, then every single time without fail that should be called a major and a game misconduct. But, if there is no uniform officiating and this is not called every single time the same way, then I have to agree with mrjsbu96 that this was a clean hit and there was no reason to call it this time. The NHL needs to make up their minds and determine if they are going legislate clean hits, unfortunately to the head, out of the game, and if they are, then they need to make that call ahead of time instead of in the moment of the game because that just destroys any consistency.

 

See above. Havlat never had any possession of the puck. The puck had just gone off Umberger's stick, and under the rules, immediately after a player loses possession, he is fair game.

 

(NOTE 2) Possession of the Puck:

The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

[SabresFan526]

See above. Havlat never had any possession of the puck. The puck had just gone off Umberger's stick, and under the rules, immediately after a player loses possession, he is fair game.

 

(NOTE 2) Possession of the Puck:

The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

By the letter of the law, you are probably right. But how many times is that penalty called? For example, along the boards when the puck is or around players' skates and people are being checked along the boards, by rule that should be called interference, but it's never called. Specifically, I remember a similar play this year where Spacek got checked by a forechecking player when the puck was near his feet and he did not have possession of the puck with his stick and hence that should have been called an interference penalty. Only that happened to Spacek was he fell on his ass, but no injury. If you're going to call it once, then you have to call it every time. That's my only problem. These borderline calls are made so inconsistently. I don't know if the rule indicates in a player's skate as possession, but if that is the case, I would argue Havlatt had possession.

 

Like I said, I have no problem cracking down on Kronwall if the intent is to eliminate headshots even if the check itself is legal. But, if the penalty is a borderline penalty that never gets called in any other circumstance, then I'm not sure I buy that it's a penalty. All I am asking for is consistency and fair play across the board by the referees.

[Stoner]

By the letter of the law, you are probably right. But how many times is that penalty called? For example, along the boards when the puck is or around players' skates and people are being checked along the boards, by rule that should be called interference, but it's never called. Specifically, I remember a similar play this year where Spacek got checked by a forechecking player when the puck was near his feet and he did not have possession of the puck with his stick and hence that should have been called an interference penalty. Only that happened to Spacek was he fell on his ass, but no injury. If you're going to call it once, then you have to call it every time. That's my only problem. These borderline calls are made so inconsistently. I don't know if the rule indicates in a player's skate as possession, but if that is the case, I would argue Havlatt had possession.

 

Like I said, I have no problem cracking down on Kronwall if the intent is to eliminate headshots even if the check itself is legal. But, if the penalty is a borderline penalty that never gets called in any other circumstance, then I'm not sure I buy that it's a penalty. All I am asking for is consistency and fair play across the board by the referees.

 

I think in the NHL consistency is going to be very hard to come by. Each referee seems to be an island unto himself.

 

That's a good retort, your point about play along the boards. The degree of violence definitely played into the call.

 

No idea if a player's skate touching the puck counts as possession, or the puck hitting a player. The NHL really needs to tighten up some of these definitions. Once again, does anyone really know the meaning of the term "distance traveled" in regards to charging?

[Eleven]

Well, it looks like the Carolina fans can't fill their building again, and it looks like they're unfortunately stuck with yet another set of bad visiting fans who can't behave.

 

http://www.letsgocanes.com/forum/showthrea...0528&page=4

 

What a bunch of oversensitive babies.

[Stoner]

Well, it looks like the Carolina fans can't fill their building again, and it looks like they're unfortunately stuck with yet another set of bad visiting fans who can't behave.

 

http://www.letsgocanes.com/forum/showthrea...0528&page=4

 

What a bunch of oversensitive babies.

 

18,789? Not a sellout? 18,176 is listed as capacity for hockey on the arena web site.

[Eleven]

18,789? Not a sellout? 18,176 is listed as capacity for hockey on the arena web site.

 

Not what I meant. The building was full. It was not filled by Canes fans--read the comments I linked to.

 

So, basically, these tools can't fill their building, and then complain that the Penguin fans are chanting Cam Ward's name all night.

[darksabre]

The Caps block certain area codes from purchasing tickets?