Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

NDF: (3) Winnipeg Jets vs. (4) Montreal Canadiens | Canadiens win series 4-0

Rate this topic


2021 Stanley Cup Playoffs | Round 2  

99 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, coho8888 said:

Was that Daniel's disallowed goal against the Kings during the playoffs?  I remember that well. It was clearly not a kicking motion as Daniel's skate never even left the ice.  Directing the puck in with your skate was allowed at the time but I think the league ruled no goal upon replay because they argued that the player propelled the puck into the net with his skate?  i.e. it didn't just glance off or hit the players skate.

 

 

Just to make things worse, the on-ice call was a goal and it was overturned by a former LA King, Mike Murphy who was senior VP at the time:

 

Quote

 

NHL Rule 78.5(ii) states a goal shall be disallowed "when the puck has been kicked using a distinct kicking motion." A "distinct kicking motion" is defined by Rule 38.4(iv) as "one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net." Rule 49.2 clarifies, however, that "a puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal".

Absent evidence of a "distinct kicking motion", Murphy was invited to speak with Ron Maclean on HNIC and share the reasoning behind his decision to overturn the on-ice ruling and disallow Sedin's goal.

 

The interview appeared to further confuse an already perplexed panel.

Maclean: Tell us exactly how you came to your conclusion.

Murphy: ... It [the puck] had to be propelled some way. We felt it was the skate and not a distinct kicking motion but with a kicking motion that made it move back the other way. It wasn't a deflection. It wasn't a redirect. It was a kick. So that's the decision we came up with.

Maclean: If he's just making a stop ... and it [the puck] hits his skate and changes direction, is that a kicking motion?

Murphy: No ... We'll let that stand as a goal. We felt that wasn't the case here. He knew what he was doing.

 

http://www.puckreport.com/2012/04/today-in-nhl-history-sedins-disallowed.html
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

Apparently, Jake Evans is out indefinitely with a concussion. Not surprising, but how much will that factor into the suspension?

it might take it from 2 games to 3 or 4? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Squamfan said:

 

 

 

its a sad thing that you never see stuff like this again because all these idiots SJW who never played sports have an opinions. What happened to keep your head up and don't admire your pass. This generation of players are lucky Stevens and Kronwall are not playin

 

What?

 

You know that a whole lot of research has been done on the long-term effects of concussions over the past 20-30 years, right? 

 

Players are bigger, faster and stronger now. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Just to make things worse, the on-ice call was a goal and it was overturned by a former LA King, Mike Murphy who was senior VP at the time:

 

http://www.puckreport.com/2012/04/today-in-nhl-history-sedins-disallowed.html

That comment right there blew away the credibility of the league when making the call.  You look at the facts and the evidence presented to you.  You cannot use speculation on what the player is "thinking" as part of your reasoning on the call.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, coho8888 said:

That comment right there blew away the credibility of the league when making the call.  You look at the facts and the evidence presented to you.  You cannot use speculation on what the player is "thinking" as part of your reasoning on the call.

Which bring me back to my original point about the Sheifele hit and all this speculation that he intended to injure Evans. It's possible, but I don't see how the DoPS can make that assumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

Which bring me back to my original point about the Sheifele hit and all this speculation that he intended to injure Evans. It's possible, but I don't see how the DoPS can make that assumption.

No you are correct in that the DOPS cannot factor Jennifer's reasoning into this as what happened in the past scrums should have no bearing on their decision.  

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I'll say this; Its true that Evans did nothing to protect himself on the play. He was in a vulnerable position, and the way he landed did make it worse. 

 

But simply put; Schiefele intended to take a run at Evans going into the contact, and b/c of that the result is on him. 

The thing is how do you defend a wraparound?  By preventing the player getting to the front of the net.  That's what Scheifele was trying to do, he was just a split second late.  Would you rather him just let Evans have a goal for free or poke the puck into his own net while putting himself in a vulnerable position?  Honestly I see no other choice for Scheifele and that's after looking at the replays and thinking about them for awhile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

it might take it from 2 games to 3 or 4? 

Should not be worth more than a major imo.  It was a hockey play that ended poorly.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rindiculous said:

Should not be worth more than a major imo.  It was a hockey play that ended poorly.

maybe, but you still need to be responsible for your actions. We see that with unintentional stick incidents all the time. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rindiculous said:

Should not be worth more than a major imo.  It was a hockey play that ended poorly.

A charge is not a hockey play 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that is a charge. Granted Mark came from one end of the ice to another, he stopped skating at the top of the circle and Evans was at the goal line. I don't see much difference between this and chipping the puck deep from the blue line and creaming the d-man in the corner. That's 1/3 of the length of the ice right there. The difference here being Mark was at or very near full speed when he destroyed Evans and came from his own end. I've seen it first hand where one player will come from a "considerable distance" and keep his feet moving the entire time prior to the hit which would be a charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This hit has to be one of the most polarizing ones I’ve seen in a while.

 

I get what Scheifele is trying to do there: no free passes, certainly no free empty netters. 
However it’s pretty hard to differentiate between if he was doing all that skating to try and stop Evans from scoring or to just blow him up like ended up happening. 
 

What seems even more crazy to me is if he doesn’t stop skating there’s a chance he gets a play on the puck and either prevents the goal or has a completely clean even more devastating hit but he glides into the contact after seeming to give up on the puck entirely. I could see the Wheel of Justice landing anywhere from 1-5 games on this one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@canuck73_3 @debluvscanucks

@Rubik
Just curious, but what is your take on the Krug hit that he charged from his own end of ice, without a helmet, did not go for the puck and as a dman was headed DEEP into the zone on one mission and that was to absolutely kill someone? https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/full-marks-officials-non-call-torey-krug-massive-hit/

Edited by knucklehead91
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me feels a '93 vibe of Hunter on P Turgeon. Which ended in a massive suspension for DH..25 games, or something? Early 90's references seem to have often surfaced this PO's.

 

Cherry turned that one into some raison d'etre for league-sanctioned goonery to prevail. Begs the question, how many decades of progress did THAT garish neanderthal delay?

 

Should we all heave a sigh of relief, that the comic relief & heady analysis is provided by KB3 these daze?

 

But seriously folks..in 3 or 4 decades of high tech times & advanced medicine, has this league learned a F***in' thing? Or is that hell-bent, dark side, secret lust for blood(& nasty race car crashes) a % of the Profits that'll always be the domain of this rigged league?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Part of me feels a '93 vibe of Hunter on P Turgeon. Which ended in a massive suspension for DH..25 games, or something? Early 90's references seem to have often surfaced this PO's.

 

Cherry turned that one into some raison d'etre for league-sanctioned goonery to prevail. Begs the question, how many decades of progress did THAT garish neanderthal delay?

 

Should we all heave a sigh of relief, that the comic relief & heady analysis is provided by KB3 these daze?

 

But seriously folks..in 3 or 4 decades of high tech times & advanced medicine, has this league learned a F***in' thing? Or is that hell-bent, dark side, secret lust for blood(& nasty race car crashes) a % of the Profits that'll always be the domain of this rigged league?

Well, the big difference there is that Hunter's hit on Turgeon was about a month late...

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Well, the big difference there is that Hunter's hit on Turgeon was about a month late...

& when suggested to Curtains-Don, how would he respond?

 

Didn't say the plays were even close to identical. But I partly question whether we've progressed at all in how we view/report or rule(DOPES) on these things?

 

I was pretty busy back when that happened, partly preparing to leave Canada. I've been away from that 24/7 raging, Cdn donut shop & media-debate for decades. Maybe that's why it's a period I'll often look back on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -Vintage Canuck- changed the title to NDF: (3) Winnipeg Jets vs. (4) Montreal Canadiens | Canadiens win series 4-0
  • -Vintage Canuck- unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...