West - Round 2

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,369
This Blues - Stars game is already fun. I'm really looking forward to this series.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,494
The Island
And Game 2 in Dallas is headed for OT after Janmark and Benn score in the 3rd to come back from 3-1 down. St. Louis had 2 SOG in the 3rd.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,369
Fun OT so far.

Feels like the Blues bottom D pair never sees the ice. I barely hear any name except Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, Bouwmeester, and Parayko.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,369
Antoine Roussell seems like more trouble than he's worth to the Stars. Not a fan.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,369
And his penalty cost the Stars the game. Dumb dumb dumb.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,494
The Island
The West might be amazingly wide open. You can make a solid argument that any of the four teams left could make the Final and not really make any stretches.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,148
Westwood MA
Pulling for the Blues all the way, after never being able to catch a break for ages, they finally slayed the beast and beat the Hawks and moved on, hoping they get all the way to the finals, they were the West punching bag for a few years when they first came into the league, good for them and their fans.
 

TFP

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
20,369
Pulling for the Blues all the way, after never being able to catch a break for ages, they finally slayed the beast and beat the Hawks and moved on, hoping they get all the way to the finals, they were the West punching bag for a few years when they first came into the league, good for them and their fans.
I'm just having a hard time getting past Steve Ott. Other than that I love the Blues team (although I'm not a huge Hitchcock fan).
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,148
Westwood MA
I'm just having a hard time getting past Steve Ott. Other than that I love the Blues team (although I'm not a huge Hitchcock fan).
Understood about Ott and Hitchcock. I'd like to see the Blues get to the finals and win it; they were part of the first expansion from 6 to 12 teams and were a Stanley Cup Finals punching bag the first three years of their history, getting demolished in the finals 4 zip all three years, they are the oldest NHL team to have never won a Stanley Cup, so it would be a great story if they could finally win one.
 

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,774
Understood about Ott and Hitchcock. I'd like to see the Blues get to the finals and win it; they were part of the first expansion from 6 to 12 teams and were a Stanley Cup Finals punching bag the first three years of their history, getting demolished in the finals 4 zip all three years, they are the oldest NHL team to have never won a Stanley Cup, so it would be a great story if they could finally win one.
I'm pulling for the Blues too, I hope they get to the SCF finals and win it. Love their big 3 D men.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,071
Tuukka's refugee camp
They just can't hold leads. This is (I think) the third two goal lead they've blown out of 9 games so far. Given they've won two of the three but not a trend I would wish to continue. 2 shots in the third is not exactly going after the jugular.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,493
right here
Nice. Made the same reference here...
I think "Max Pacioretti Memorial Stanchion" would be a good addition to that map of the ice thing that was floating around awhile back.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
Offside review debacle in Nashville. Lavi is losing his mind. Worst rule in all of hockey.

Edit: refs got it right, but still so dumb that we go through this.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
28,946
Alamogordo
Holy shit, I'm not sure Eakin could have paused the game, walked up to the net, and placed it by hand any better than that. What a shot.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,900
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
Why they completed the review and said no goal due to goaltender interference is confusing. Rule 69.1 says that video review shall not be used to determine whether interference occurred. The only justifiable reason to review that play, if following the rule book, was to determine whether Pavelski touched the puck with his stick after gloving it down. Also, if they're not calling a penalty but disallowing the goal, it's due to incidental contact and not goaltender interference per the rule, but he said goaltender interference. The NHL needs to clean this up.

I looked at it in "super" slow motion (NBC's slow motion with DVR slow motion), and my mind tells me Pavelski caught the puck before it crossed the line, but the frame showing contact with the puck before crossing the line wasn't there, likely because the motion was too fast. Plus, it wasn't abundantly clear to me that Gustad's push was the sole reason Pavelski went into Rinne. Tough call (again, I think if the red thought incidental contact, he had to rule it so and deny any requests for review if he's following 69.1).
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,199
They are going to be tired. This will end shortly after the start of 2OT
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
There were 2 separate reviews.The first review was for how the puck entered the net. They said that was legal. NBCSN didn't show the ref saying this. Then they reviewed for goalie interference.

I thought the interference was the right call. Pavelski was headed in with a lot of steam, I think he was going into Rinne with or without the shove from Gaustad.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,900
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
There were 2 separate reviews.The first review was for how the puck entered the net. They said that was legal. NBCSN didn't show the ref saying this. Then they reviewed for goalie interference.

I thought the interference was the right call. Pavelski was headed in with a lot of steam, I think he was going into Rinne with or without the shove from Gaustad.
Ah, okay. Two reviews. Still - I have an issue here. To sound like a broken record because it pleases everyone who has to read it, Rule 69.1 states at the end of the first paragraph: "The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review." Therefore, the second the referee waived off the goal due to incidental contact (not goaltender interference, the minor penalty) initiated by Pavelski, the determination whether the Pavelski goal was good became moot. They had no goal to review.

A caveat I'll add here is that I know the GM meetings were supposed to include a discussion of potentially adding video review via coach's challenge for "goaltender interference" although I don't know what came of it. Whatever the case, the NHL really needs to clean up its definitions (goalie interference v. incidental contact v. contact with the goaltender - all terms used interchangeably in the rule book), allow referees to review their decisions without a coach's challenge, and be consistent in application.

Also, I think I changed my opinion on the cause of the incidental contact. Can't give Gaustad a pass and assume Pavelski wouldn't have stopped particularly because Pavelski was off balance due to reaching up for the puck, and he was further tripped up inadvertently by Weber just before falling into Renne. Really tough decision however one looks at it, and I'll probably change my mind again later.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
Ah, okay. Two reviews. Still - I have an issue here. To sound like a broken record because it pleases everyone who has to read it, Rule 69.1 states at the end of the first paragraph: "The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review." Therefore, the second the referee waived off the goal due to incidental contact (not goaltender interference, the minor penalty) initiated by Pavelski, the determination whether the Pavelski goal was good became moot. They had no goal to review.

A caveat I'll add here is that I know the GM meetings were supposed to include a discussion of potentially adding video review via coach's challenge for "goaltender interference" although I don't know what came of it. Whatever the case, the NHL really needs to clean up its definitions (goalie interference v. incidental contact v. contact with the goaltender - all terms used interchangeably in the rule book), allow referees to review their decisions without a coach's challenge, and be consistent in application.

Also, I think I changed my opinion on the cause of the incidental contact. Can't give Gaustad a pass and assume Pavelski wouldn't have stopped particularly because Pavelski was off balance due to reaching up for the puck, and he was further tripped up inadvertently by Weber just before falling into Renne. Really tough decision however one looks at it, and I'll probably change my mind again later.
Under that theory, the goal should have stood because the referee on-ice did NOT waive the goal off for incidental contact -- he waived it off for Pavelski playing it with his hand. Upon review, that aspect of the call was overturned because Pavelski touched the puck with his stick before the puck crossed the goal line.

Maybe the ref would have waived it off for incidental contact if he hadn't made the playing it with a hand call. But is that enough to trigger the "exclusively on-ice judgment" rule, if there was no actual on-ice ruling on that point?

On the bigger issue, I don't think the rule book needs to be cleared up. The rule itself is relatively clear and straightforward:

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
The problem is that the rule is applied so inconsistently that no one knows what it means. Here's a goal from the Sharks' previous series that was upheld based on the "pushed or shoved by a defending player" exception:

https://www.nhl.com/video/lewis-deflects-home-goal/t-280310610/c-43641403

I don't see much difference between what Burns does here and the combo cross-check/leg trip Pavelski received last night. But I'm a Sharks fan, so I'll admit to some bias.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,900
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
Under that theory, the goal should have stood because the referee on-ice did NOT waive the goal off for incidental contact -- he waived it off for Pavelski playing it with his hand. Upon review, that aspect of the call was overturned because Pavelski touched the puck with his stick before the puck crossed the goal line.

Maybe the ref would have waived it off for incidental contact if he hadn't made the playing it with a hand call. But is that enough to trigger the "exclusively on-ice judgment" rule, if there was no actual on-ice ruling on that point?

On the bigger issue, I don't think the rule book needs to be cleared up. The rule itself is relatively clear and straightforward:



The problem is that the rule is applied so inconsistently that no one knows what it means. Here's a goal from the Sharks' previous series that was upheld based on the "pushed or shoved by a defending player" exception:

https://www.nhl.com/video/lewis-deflects-home-goal/t-280310610/c-43641403

I don't see much difference between what Burns does here and the combo cross-check/leg trip Pavelski received last night. But I'm a Sharks fan, so I'll admit to some bias.
After the review, I clearly heard the words "no goal" and "goaltender interference" come out of his mouth. The NHL disallowed the goal due to incidental contact after video review - something that the rule does not allow. It doesn't matter why he went to the booth, because he shouldn't have been there reviewing something he's not permitted to review.

Again - it could be that the NHL changed its policy as a result of a rule change after a GM meeting.
 

McDrew

Set Adrift on Memory Bliss
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,059
Portland, OR
Tarasenko just got hauled down from behind, got no call, and said a lot of bad words to the ref on his way to the bench.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,148
Westwood MA
Where do they have the camera set up for this game, the parking lot?

Blues score again.............................yank this stooge, a 50 foot wrist shot, he's looked awful on all three goals, actually all four.
 

Greg29fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
20,478
NC
Lehtonen and Niemi's contracts are both terrible (and so are they). Not sure how Dallas gets around that.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,148
Westwood MA
According to Felger, you don't need a good goalie, just put some tall stooge out there and let him play on his knees all night long. He was banging that drum all day today.

Wrong again.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
4-0, Backes. Right after Elliott robbed Sceviour.

Dallas' time will come. They're still green. They need work on D and to figure out the goaltending situation.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,071
Tuukka's refugee camp
According to Felger, you don't need a good goalie, just put some tall stooge out there and let him play on his knees all night long. He was banging that drum all day today.

Wrong again.
Is the evidence he used Chicago or Pittsburg? Because then you just need to get two of the top 10 players in the league to do so. Which is easy.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,148
Westwood MA
Is the evidence he used Chicago or Pittsburg? Because then you just need to get two of the top 10 players in the league to do so. Which is easy.
First he was talking about the Bruins and how they are paying Rask too much, then he referenced Pittsburg and their rookie 3rd round draft pick who stood on his head vs the Capitals.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,494
The Island
I can't actually believe that they took Chicago and Dallas to Game 7s and won both. Unreal. Hopefully they can keep it going.
I'm starting to get a real vibe about the Blues, similar to the 2011 Bruins team: manager/front office running out of chances, strong down the middle/on D, unheralded goalie coming up big in the playoffs, overcoming a lot of demons on their way through. The perfect part is that the Penguins could play the part of the Canucks in that situation.
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
35,969
306, row 14
Preds win tonight, B's get 18th pick in June. Then we can trade for 15,16, 17 to two-up last year!

I should be rooting for the Preds and all but hard to pull for a team with Ribeiro and Neal.