SCF: (A2) Boston Bruins vs. (C3) St. Louis Blues | Blues win 2019 Stanley Cup

[wildwood12]

I hope the Blues have something left in them to make this closer than what appears is happening.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 hour ago, Toyotasfan said:

If Krug was a bigger man he would be suspended for a premeditated , malicious intent to injure hit , plus get five and a game for charging. 

But it’s cute because he’s 5 foot nine. ( apparently)

Jacobs made sure that Parros understood that Krug was just venting some small man frustrations on Thomas, and that he hates Matchbox 20.

[-DLC-]

25 minutes ago, wildwood12 said:

I hope the Blues have something left in them to make this closer than what appears is happening.

I think we'll see a different game.

 

Boston was using their dirty tactics to distract...and it worked.  I saw Marchand "bump" Binnington and other little "jabs"...they were doing their usual rabbit punch taunts away from the play.

 

Blues shouldn't buy in...stay focused and composed.  Bruins are so cocky and swarmy...but ignore the antics and just keep playing.  Really want them knocked off their high horses (that Chara lifts Brad onto himself).

 

I really hate them.  

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I think we'll see a different game.

 

Boston was using their dirty tactics to distract...and it worked.  I saw Marchand "bump" Binnington and other little "jabs"...they were doing their usual rabbit punch taunts away from the play.

 

Blues shouldn't buy in...stay focused and composed.  Bruins are cocky and swarmy...but ignore the antics and just keep playing.

 

I really hate them.  

Honestly, Marchand just needs to be pummeled in a fight, and he'd shut right down. The issue is that he's such an immense coward that he'd never accept a fight with any Blues player (knowing that he'd get beaten down), so he just continues to be a talented forward with absolutely no spine whatsoever.

[peaches5]

Everyone glorifying the Krug hit and saying it wasn't charging as he left his feet after the contact. I can't remember the hit but I recall the league suspended a player earlier this year showing and saying that leaving your feet even after contact is still charging. Now apparently it's back to not being charging. I thought it was total nonsense that it would be called charging but seriously? Where the &^@# is the consistency? I literally have no idea what is legal or illegal anymore in hockey.

[alt kilgore]

12 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

Everyone glorifying the Krug hit and saying it wasn't charging as he left his feet after the contact. I can't remember the hit but I recall the league suspended a player earlier this year showing and saying that leaving your feet even after contact is still charging. Now apparently it's back to not being charging. I thought it was total nonsense that it would be called charging but seriously? Where the &^@# is the consistency? I literally have no idea what is legal or illegal anymore in hockey.

I was willing to give the refs the benefit of the doubt. I only saw the one replay.  But when I went back to find the actual rule it says:

 

Rule 42 of the NHL rulebook dictates that charging "shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance travelled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A 'charge' may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

 

It should have been a 2 minute penalty. Nothing more, but it meets the criteria for a charge. Especially considering their was recorded intent as he'd been manhandled onto the ice just before that. St. Louis is quickly learning, as we did, that all team are equal but some teams are more equal than others.

 

[peaches5]

45 minutes ago, kilgore said:

I was willing to give the refs the benefit of the doubt. I only saw the one replay.  But when I went back to find the actual rule it says:

 

Rule 42 of the NHL rulebook dictates that charging "shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance travelled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A 'charge' may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

 

It should have been a 2 minute penalty. Nothing more, but it meets the criteria for a charge. Especially considering their was recorded intent as he'd been manhandled onto the ice just before that. St. Louis is quickly learning, as we did, that all team are equal but some teams are more equal than others.

 

If Tom Wilson left his feet like that to hit someone he would have been given a 20 game suspension. The only way Krug can deliver this hit is if he leaves his feet which is technically a charge. Everyone thinks if you leave your feet after the contact it's no longer a charge but the rule says otherwise:

 

(Note) Charging is the action where a player takes more than two strides or travels an excessive distance to accelerate through a body check for the purpose of punishing the opponent. This includes skating or leaving one's feet (jumping) into the opponent to deliver a check, accelerating through a check for the purpose of punishing the opponent, or skating a great distance for the purpose of delivering a check with excessive force.

 

The NHL chooses when it wants to enforce charging. How many times did you hear that was a clean hit! Krug left his feet after contact! It doesn't matter. The rule states that is charging and we have seen suspensions that have directly highlighted that leaving the feet, although after contact, is still charging.  NHL.com is glorifying the hit and I am like this is penalty... This is not a clean hit.

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by peaches5

[PhillipBlunt]

8 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

If Tom Wilson left his feet like that to hit someone he would have been given a 20 game suspension. The only way Krug can deliver this hit is if he leaves his feet which is technically a charge. Everyone thinks if you leave your feet after the contact it's no longer a charge but the rule says otherwise:

 

(Note) Charging is the action where a player takes more than two strides or travels an excessive distance to accelerate through a body check for the purpose of punishing the opponent. This includes skating or leaving one's feet (jumping) into the opponent to deliver a check, accelerating through a check for the purpose of punishing the opponent, or skating a great distance for the purpose of delivering a check with excessive force.

 

The NHL chooses when it wants to enforce charging. How many times did you hear that was a clean hit! Krug left his feet after contact! It doesn't matter. The rule states that is charging and we have seen suspensions that have directly highlighted that leaving the feet, although after contact, is still charging.  NHL.com is glorifying the hit and I am like this is penalty... This is not a clean hit.

 

Boston is an original six team whose owner also sits on the Board of Directors and serves on it's Executive Committee. As well as holding the title of the NHL Chairman of the Board of Governors.

 

I'm sure he has Bettman on speed dial for when "issues" come up with one of his players. Small and feisty Bruins players are essentially untouchable.

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, peaches5 said:

Everyone glorifying the Krug hit and saying it wasn't charging as he left his feet after the contact. I can't remember the hit but I recall the league suspended a player earlier this year showing and saying that leaving your feet even after contact is still charging. Now apparently it's back to not being charging. I thought it was total nonsense that it would be called charging but seriously? Where the &^@# is the consistency? I literally have no idea what is legal or illegal anymore in hockey.

No, it is only charging if the feet leave the ice BEFORE contact that rule has never changed, that was a 100% clean hit. 

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

I was willing to give the refs the benefit of the doubt. I only saw the one replay.  But when I went back to find the actual rule it says:

 

Rule 42 of the NHL rulebook dictates that charging "shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance travelled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A 'charge' may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice."

 

It should have been a 2 minute penalty. Nothing more, but it meets the criteria for a charge. Especially considering their was recorded intent as he'd been manhandled onto the ice just before that. St. Louis is quickly learning, as we did, that all team are equal but some teams are more equal than others.

 

He coasted over 30 feet zero strides before reaching the blue line to the hit. Feet didn't leave the ice until after contact. That was a 100% legal hit. I would say the same if it happened to a Canuck. 

 

Reactions like this to a clean hit is what is softening the game. 

[Violator]

That was any other team it would of been a penalty at the minimum

[alt kilgore]

36 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

He coasted over 30 feet zero strides before reaching the blue line to the hit. Feet didn't leave the ice until after contact. That was a 100% legal hit. I would say the same if it happened to a Canuck. 

 

Reactions like this to a clean hit is what is softening the game. 

No way you can deny the force that his momentum from skating full speed down the length of the ice was the main force in the hit. And when his feet left the ice shouldn't matter as much as the fact that his feet DID  leave the ice in the act of the hit. ie.. his body was projecting upwards in the hit, not square to the body.

 

And its a different argument about whether having 'charging' in the rule books at all is 'softening' the game.  Or any other rule. But this was clearly charging by the book, where leaving ones feet is only one option for infraction,  and should have been called for two.  Take your yellow glasses off and stop shining Marchands skates for a minute and look at it honestly.

Edited May 28, 2019 by kilgore

[Pears]

3 hours ago, peaches5 said:

Everyone glorifying the Krug hit and saying it wasn't charging as he left his feet after the contact. I can't remember the hit but I recall the league suspended a player earlier this year showing and saying that leaving your feet even after contact is still charging. Now apparently it's back to not being charging. I thought it was total nonsense that it would be called charging but seriously? Where the &^@# is the consistency? I literally have no idea what is legal or illegal anymore in hockey.

All depends on which jersey you’re wearing and what time of year it is. 

[Pears]

1 hour ago, canuck73_3 said:

He coasted over 30 feet zero strides before reaching the blue line to the hit. Feet didn't leave the ice until after contact. That was a 100% legal hit. I would say the same if it happened to a Canuck. 

 

Reactions like this to a clean hit is what is softening the game. 

It would’ve been a fine hit if not for the fact Krug came from the other end of the ice to make the hit. 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Pears
typo

[peaches5]

1 hour ago, canuck73_3 said:

He coasted over 30 feet zero strides before reaching the blue line to the hit. Feet didn't leave the ice until after contact. That was a 100% legal hit. I would say the same if it happened to a Canuck. 

 

Reactions like this to a clean hit is what is softening the game. 

 

1 hour ago, canuck73_3 said:

No, it is only charging if the feet leave the ice BEFORE contact that rule has never changed, that was a 100% clean hit. 

 

That is not the rule. Leaving your feet and jumping into an opponent, which Krug clearly did, regardless of the jumping being before or after contact is charging. As I said the league clarified this before with a suspension when a player left his feet after contact. 

 

(Note) Charging is the action where a player takes more than two strides or travels an excessive distance to accelerate through a body check for the purpose of punishing the opponent. This includes skating or leaving one's feet (jumping) into the opponent to deliver a check, accelerating through a check for the purpose of punishing the opponent, or skating a great distance for the purpose of delivering a check with excessive force.

 

What Krug did is 100% charging. Not saying I like it but based on what the league has been calling and suspending for this was a penalty.

Edited May 28, 2019 by peaches5

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, peaches5 said:

 

 

That is not the rule. Leaving your feet and jumping into an opponent, which Krug clearly did, regardless of the jumping being before or after contact is charging. As I said the league clarified this before with a suspension when a player left his feet after contact. 

 

(Note) Charging is the action where a player takes more than two strides or travels an excessive distance to accelerate through a body check for the purpose of punishing the opponent. This includes skating or leaving one's feet (jumping) into the opponent to deliver a check, accelerating through a check for the purpose of punishing the opponent, or skating a great distance for the purpose of delivering a check with excessive force.

 

What Krug did is 100% charging. Not saying I like it but based on what the league has been calling and suspending for this was a penalty.

No it was not charging. Clean hit. Try watching the hit without your blinders on. He coasted from outside the blue line, hit occured at the face off circle, feet were planted on the ice at contact.  What Krug did was 100% clean.

 

Let it go and stop being so soft, this kinda crap is ruining the game, pretty soon we'll have touch hockey thanks to all this whining .

[canuck73_3]

2 hours ago, Pears said:

It would’ve been a fine hit if not for the fact Krug came from the other end of the ice to make the hit. 

So, he was supposed to not follow the play which went from the Bruins zone to the Blues? 

 

Sorry but you guys are 100% wrong on this one, he stopped his stride and was gliding from the other side of the blue line. Feet were planted on the ice when contact was made. As for distance travelled, he was following the play which moved from their defensive zone to the offensive zone. Thomas was the puck carrier, no infraction took place. 

[canuck73_3]

[Ghostsof1915]

For example. If Motte did the same thing, he'd get a 20 year suspension. 

Because we're the big, bad, Canucks. 

 

[Pears]

11 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

No it was not charging. Clean hit. Try watching the hit without your blinders on. He coasted from outside the blue line, hit occured at the face off circle, feet were planted on the ice at contact.  What Krug did was 100% clean.

 

Let it go and stop being so soft, this kinda crap is ruining the game, pretty soon we'll have touch hockey thanks to all this whining .

You’re clearly the one who has the blinders on since you’re in denial about the actual rules.