Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
kinot-2

WJC And All That It Encompasses

214 posts in this topic

Hell of  a comeback win. Super nice to see that winner from the kid ridding the bench. Do feel sorry for the Russian kids. They left it all out there and were just as deserving.

GO CANADA.,,,,, that was a character GOLD MEDAL  WIN

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First WORLD CHAMPIONS of the decade.:6280:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the host country did an outstanding job. The game music seemed questionable but it really grew on me. I was humming along with that penalty tune. Too funny.:lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

First WORLD CHAMPIONS of the decade.:6280:

Many more to come, I hope. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HabsRuleForever said:

I think that should have been a penalty.

How did they justify that not being a penalty? I watched a local broadcast and the announcers were all confused as well. Happy for Canada but that's a really tough break for Russia.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, HabsRuleForever said:

I think that should have been a penalty.

Not sure if this is in reference to the game-winning goal, but I was a little unclear at how Canada's fourth counted. The player clearly contacts the goaltender before the puck enters the net. I don't recall there being any push from a Russian player either... I don't think a player should be able to contact the goaltender before scoring just because they're breaking in alone and lose their footing trying to deke.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Not sure if this is in reference to the game-winning goal, but I was a little unclear at how Canada's fourth counted. The player clearly contacts the goaltender before the puck enters the net. I don't recall there being any push from a Russian player either... I don't think a player should be able to contact the goaltender before scoring just because they're breaking in alone and lose their footing trying to deke.

Oh, I thought HRF was referring to the missed delay-of-game penalty when the puck hit the TV camera on that clearing attempt with less than 2 minutes to play. Watching the local broadcast, it seemed like the refs initially called it and then took it back, which otherwise would have lead to a 5-on-3 PP for Russia.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ChiLla said:

Oh, I thought HRF was referring to the missed delay-of-game penalty when the puck hit the TV camera on that clearing attempt with less than 2 minutes to play. Watching the local broadcast, it seemed like the refs initially called it and then took it back, which otherwise would have lead to a 5-on-3 PP for Russia.

Oh, I see, I see. I missed the end of the game so just watched the highlights later on. Happy to see that Canada won, but I would've been steamed if a goal like that had counted against Canada. The rules of goaltender interference are so unclear to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jennifer_rocket said:

Oh, I see, I see. I missed the end of the game so just watched the highlights later on. Happy to see that Canada won, but I would've been steamed if a goal like that had counted against Canada. The rules of goaltender interference are so unclear to me.

True, interference calls can go either way. You're right though, there's definitely contact before the puck crosses the line.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChiLla said:

Oh, I thought HRF was referring to the missed delay-of-game penalty when the puck hit the TV camera on that clearing attempt with less than 2 minutes to play. Watching the local broadcast, it seemed like the refs initially called it and then took it back, which otherwise would have lead to a 5-on-3 PP for Russia.

From the IIHF rules: RULE 67 – PUCK OUT OF PLAY i.  When the puck is shot or deflected outside the playing area (including into the players’ bench) or strikes any obstacles other than the boards or protective glass above the ice surface, game action will be stopped and the ensuing faceoff will take place at the nearest faceoff spot to where the puck was shot or deflected, unless otherwise set out in these rules.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, habs1952 said:

From the IIHF rules: RULE 67 – PUCK OUT OF PLAY i.  When the puck is shot or deflected outside the playing area (including into the players’ bench) or strikes any obstacles other than the boards or protective glass above the ice surface, game action will be stopped and the ensuing faceoff will take place at the nearest faceoff spot to where the puck was shot or deflected, unless otherwise set out in these rules.

Well, yes. Unless I'm reading this wrong, that's the puck out of play rule but it doesn't really answer the question whether a penalty should have been called for delaying the game, no?

EDIT: Ok, this is also from the IIFH rules: RULE 135 – DELAY OF GAME/SHOOTING OR THROWING THE PUCK OUT OF PLAY  v. A player who lifts the puck from the defending zone and hits the scoreclock or any structural object above the ice surface, causing a stoppage of play, will not be assessed a penalty.

 

Can a camera be considered a structural object? I don't know :lol:

 

Edited by ChiLla
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChiLla said:

Well, yes. Unless I'm reading this wrong, that's the puck out of play rule but it doesn't really answer the question whether a penalty should have been called for delaying the game, no?

 

I think the rule states if it hits an object such as the scoreboard or another stationary object outside of the playing surface, then a face off takes place at the nearest dot. I think that's how the refs interpreted the rules in this case, right or wrong. It's not as cut and dry as the NHL apparently. That's the way the  TSN people understood it. To me,,,, we dodged a bullet and the Russians were robbed. That's not to say they would have scored with all those extra men out there, and then scored another to win, but the refs took that opportunity from them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What wasn't made clear is if the puck stayed outside the glass and into the stands, or bounced back onto the ice surface. If it did bounce back in then maybe i can see the justification of the hitting an object rule.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

I think the rule states if it hits an object such as the scoreboard or another stationary object outside of the playing surface, then a face off takes place at the nearest dot. I think that's how the refs interpreted the rules in this case, right or wrong. It's not as cut and dry as the NHL apparently. That's the way the  TSN people understood it. To me,,,, we dodged a bullet and the Russians were robbed. That's not to say they would have scored with all those extra men out there, and then scored another to win, but the refs took that opportunity from them.

 

5 minutes ago, H_T_L said:

What wasn't made clear is if the puck stayed outside the glass and into the stands, or bounced back onto the ice surface. If it did bounce back in then maybe i can see the justification of the hitting an object rule.

Yeah, it's a little unclear for sure and there seems to be some room for interpretation. Agreed though, there's no way to know how the game would have ended but I'd be fuming mad if the Habs were on the receiving end of such a call in an important game (hypothetically speaking).

Edited by ChiLla
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.