• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
wingsfan_54

SJ 7 men on ice for GW OT goal

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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

How does it add salt to the wound if it was the right call?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake!   
Guest Hatethedrake!

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.

The Wings used to be able to beat their opponent and the refs. I recall this being the case whenever we face the Avs and Forsberg diving all over the place. Now we cannot overcome the bad refereeing. Ah heck I'm sick of all the excuses. We lost. We deserved to lose. Now we have to think about winning 1 game and go from there. Ah crap now I'm using cliches. I sound like one of those idiot radio guys. Only 7 on the ice? They should have gone for 10.

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.

The Couture goal went fivehole on Howard and went off his right knee and just inside the post when it would have otherwise missed the net completely. Unless you're saying he intended to bank it off his knee, that was a damn lucky shot and deflection. Had Howard dropped his left leg instead, that's not a goal. You don't get credit for a "very accurate shot" if it's just a dump on net from the corner that happens to go in, which is all it was.

The too many men thing? That wasn't a penalty. The play was down by the Wings' net and by the time the refs would have even noticed the penalty, the puck would already have been in the net. It's not reviewable IIRC, so it didn't matter if the whole team was jumping over the bench at that point. Game over in less than a tenth of a second, the two extra players were 75 feet away.

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.

Come on, that was a weak goal by Howard. The shot wasn't accurate - Couture just threw it on net from a horrible angle and Jimmy somehow let it through him. Two bad goals at the worst time last night from Jimmy. If anyone should take the heat for why this series isn't 2-1 today, it has to be Jimmy Howard.

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.

Huh? Everyone knows it was Crosby and Bettman who did 9/11. The Sharks are the ones reading our thoughts at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way this is a penalty in that situation. Had this happened off the Williams "shot" and the puck ricocheted out to the two guys coming out, then it's probably a call. Here ... No.

Williams sucks. I hope he gets benched even if Eaves is out. Play Meech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a borderline assessment, according to the precedent set by the league this playoffs it should have been called. But when has the league been consistent this postseason. If say marleau missed or howard saved that 2 on 1 and the puck continued does it change the outlook that this was an irrelevant play. When theres a technicality rule you can't really talk about circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly not penalty worthy. If anything could be called it would have been an illegal change and the faceoff would have been outside. This is all hindsight because the refs didn't miss the frickin net with every shot he took including the last one (Williams). The refs didn't let in the weak 4th goal (Howard). The refs didn't blow defensive coverage (Ericson and Rafalski).

There's plenty of blame to go around; frankly I don't think anyone escapes blame for this series... even the coaches.

The Wings have looked ill-prepared and slow. There's no fire, there's no heart, and there's no excuses. Win as a team, lose as a team... and they will certainly lose as a team

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.

The definitiion of being "involved" in the play or not is not part of the NHL Too Many Men on the Ice Rule. And yes, in this playoff year I have seen this whistled under similar conditions.

Here's the rule:

Rule 74 - Too Many Men on the Ice

74.1 Too Many Men on the Ice - Players and goalkeepers may be changed at any time during the play from the players’ bench provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall be within five feet (5') of his players’ bench and out of the play before the change is made.

Within 5 feet of the bench is the requirement in the NHL, not involvement in the play. Youth hockey requires involvement in the play.

Typically this is not called this way in the NHL. The play by Ericcson caused the odd man rush, stupid! The play by Rafalski allowed the pass acrossed, stupid! Rafalski should of had his stick in the passing lane!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SJ players changing aren't involved in the play in any way, shape or form, this thread is pathetic, stop with the pitiful excuses.

please close this thread

Edited by Yak19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no way was that too many men. awful play by williams and rafalski.

i did think that the 3rd goal looked offside at first viewing though. but howard should still have never let it in anyway.

Edited by UKWING

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