• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
wingsfan_54

SJ 7 men on ice for GW OT goal

Rate this topic

44 posts in this topic

In the overtime last night, SJ had 7 men on the ice with possession of the puck. Here is the proof. 16-6 calls against Detroit last 2 games and they can't call this 1 on SJ either. I swear Bettman and the nhl is against the wings. f*** sakes.

post-8931-12730725643969_thumb.jpeg

Edited by wingsfan_54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two from the back are going to the bench. The two in front of them just came on the ice and are not in the play. To me, that's not too many men.

Edited by Jasper84
Wings_Fan_In_Exile likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two from the back are going to the bench. The two in front of them just came off and are not in the play. To me, that's not too many men.

This is what I was going to say.

They perhaps could have been a little quicker in getting off, but it's probably not worthy of a call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two from the back are going to the bench. The two in front of them just came off and are not in the play. To me, that's not too many men.

The penalty is a technicality it doesn't matter where they are. If San Jose has posession and is making forward progress with the puck, and there's more than 6 (including goalie) guys on the ice, it's a penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they still ahd possession of the puck, and they're all the way back at the Det bench, so it shoul dstill be a penalty. had Detroit done this, ppl woul dbe crying foul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they still ahd possession of the puck, and they're all the way back at the Det bench, so it shoul dstill be a penalty. had Detroit done this, ppl woul dbe crying foul

I'm sorry, but have you ever watched a hockey game bofore? The way that this line change went is consistant with the way that the Wings, sharks and every single other NHL team change lines and have been permitted to change lines since I can remember. This is not a case of too many men. You're grasping at straws.

Wings_Fan_In_Exile likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a die hard fan and watch all their games thanks :-). Read the rules stated. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26485. There have been 25, i repeat TWENTY FIVE to many men calls in the playoffs already this year, so no it's not permitted. You mjust be within 5 feet of the bench, hell they're half way to the Detroit bench let alone the SJ bench, so yes it is a penalty. SJ had possession of the puck. So maybe you should wake up and start reading the rules before casting down on others.

I'm sorry, but have you ever watched a hockey game bofore? The way that this line change went is consistant with the way that the Wings, sharks and every single other NHL team change lines and have been permitted to change lines since I can remember. This is not a case of too many men. You're grasping at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where the HELL were the dumas Refz and there mesuring sticks?!?!?!?! :thumbdown::angry::ranting: :ranting: *** buttman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a die hard fan and watch all their games thanks :-). Read the rules stated. http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26485. There have been 25, i repeat TWENTY FIVE to many men calls in the playoffs already this year, so no it's not permitted. You mjust be within 5 feet of the bench, hell they're half way to the Detroit bench let alone the SJ bench, so yes it is a penalty. SJ had possession of the puck. So maybe you should wake up and start reading the rules before casting down on others.

I am aware of the text of the rule, including the "at the discretion of the referee" part. That is there to make the game safer. Players are routinely permitted to coast to the bench from distances greater than 5 feet because if they were at a sprint for a line change in the area of the benches, players would get hurt. Too Many Men is called when there are too many men on the ice with the intent of influencing the play. That is not the case here and that's why it wasn't called. This is how it always is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where the HELL were the dumas Refz and there mesuring sticks?!?!?!?! :thumbdown::angry::ranting: :ranting: *** buttman

Did you ever notice how they don't even make Crosby leave the ice at all, he can just take the occasional breather at center ice there are 5 Penguins in the play, then he jumps back into the play to cherry pick? That's how he scores all his goals. They always zoom in on the offensive zones so you really can't tell on TV. Bettman and Obama ordered it to be that way.

Wings_Fan_In_Exile likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where the HELL were the dumas Refz and there mesuring sticks?!?!?!?! :thumbdown::angry::ranting: :ranting: *** buttman

:hehe:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the overtime last night, SJ had 7 men on the ice with possession of the puck. Here is the proof. 16-6 calls against Detroit last 2 games and they can't call this 1 on SJ either. I swear Bettman and the nhl is against the wings. f*** sakes.

As pitiful as the officiating has been this series and this game as well, teams do this all the time and it doesn't justify a penalty. The Wings themselves blew this game, not external forces.

Wings_Fan_In_Exile likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really never call that unless the puck is near / touched by one of the extra players.

I'd rather complain about Rafalski not taking away the pass in this situation. It might as well have been a 2 on 0.

Wings_Fan_In_Exile likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We probably have plenty of collective gripes that are worthy of throwing at the officials, but this just isn't one of them.

I'm more mad at our six-million dollar man on defense forgetting the fundamentals of playing a 2-on-1. You have to make Thornton shoot there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a penalty, some people are looking for a reason to blame someone other than the Wings for the loss. Blame the horrible third period where we just sat back on our heels or blame two softies Jimmy let in. The fact of the matter is this team has played a ton of games over the last 4 years. We are older, tired, and hurt and we are playing a team that, wait for it, is better than us this season!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that looks like too many me-- oh wait *puts hand up to earpiece* .. breaking news, San Jose Sharks and Gary Bettman responsible for 9/11. ******* terrorists.

Edited by Shoreline
Drake_Marcus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four guys you circled are not and were not at any time involved in the play. If anything it was such a bad line change that the Sharks had "too few men on the ice" Clearly not the kind of call you make with the puck 75ft away from the players in question. I doubt you'll find a single hockey expert of personality (TV or radio) outside of Detroit who would think that was a penalty.

BTW, I think you guys are being a little hard on Howard. Yes, the last goal was due to him "cheating" off the expected pass, but it was a nice, very accurate shot by Couture, give the kid some credit. On the Thornton goal, actually the puck was headed straight for Howard's logo, but ticked off the shaft of Datysuk's stick which made it change directions. At least that is what it looked like on the Bay Area feed replay. Definitely not Howard's fault.

Edited by hockeynut
Konnan511 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a legit line change. We got beat fair and square with this one. Quit trying to come up with excuses man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, it looks like an illegal substitution. A no call was the right call, but it just adds salt to the wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0