Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

WCSF Game 7 GDT: Red Wings 1 at Blackhawks 2 OT (CHI wins series, 4-3)



  • Please log in to reply
1124 replies to this topic

#1121 MTU_Huskies963

MTU_Huskies963

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,727 posts
  • Location:Houghton / lake Orion, MI

Posted 30 May 2013 - 03:52 PM

How many more breaks do you think the Wings needed? They got plenty. The disallowed goal in game 3, no call on hooking Saad on a break away and the coincidentals last night that shouldn't have been called. The Wings got plenty of breaks and still came up short. The better team won. 


I just answered the question. Are penalties considered breaks now? How many breaks did the hawks have? No penalty shot when abby had the stick knocked out of his hands, shaw clearly slew footing flip, franzen boarded and a goal scored. I won't deny the better team won, but don't justify not calling a dangerous play because one team appears to have more "breaks".

#1122 dropkickshanahans

dropkickshanahans

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 04:25 PM

I just answered the question. Are penalties considered breaks now? How many breaks did the hawks have? No penalty shot when abby had the stick knocked out of his hands, shaw clearly slew footing flip, franzen boarded and a goal scored. I won't deny the better team won, but don't justify not calling a dangerous play because one team appears to have more "breaks".

 

I haven't looked at the replay today and don't care to, but seeing the replay live after they scored I thought it was a clean hit on Nyquist's side, not on the numbers.



#1123 MTU_Huskies963

MTU_Huskies963

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,727 posts
  • Location:Houghton / lake Orion, MI

Posted 30 May 2013 - 05:07 PM

 
I haven't looked at the replay today and don't care to, but seeing the replay live after they scored I thought it was a clean hit on Nyquist's side, not on the numbers.


It was not a check from behind, it was boarding.

#1124 hudson

hudson

    Prospect

  • Member
  • 35 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 05:35 PM

It was not a check from behind, it was boarding.

I know it seems like boarding or charging or something every time one of your guys gets hit but THAT wasn't boarding in THAT situation. I don't think it was boarding in any situation. He had the puck, he had seen or should have seen Bolland, he hung on to it a little longer to make a play, Bolland hit him from the side, Bolland was gliding all the way from center ice to the boards....

 

 

He wasn't defenseless either..

 

Rule 41 - Boarding

41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact.



#1125 MTU_Huskies963

MTU_Huskies963

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,727 posts
  • Location:Houghton / lake Orion, MI

Posted 30 May 2013 - 06:15 PM

I know it seems like boarding or charging or something every time one of your guys gets hit but THAT wasn't boarding in THAT situation. I don't think it was boarding in any situation. He had the puck, he had seen or should have seen Bolland, he hung on to it a little longer to make a play, Bolland hit him from the side, Bolland was gliding all the way from center ice to the boards....

 

 

He wasn't defenseless either..

 

Rule 41 - Boarding

41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact.

 I guess all those people that get nailed from behind should not have held onto the puck too long, or should have known the player was there  :lol: . Nyquist is defenseless Bolland comes from his blind side and hits him into the board. When he lines up the hit Nyquists back is facing him ,so it's not like nyquist put himself in that position. At that point it's bolland's responsibility to let up. Was it the single reason the wings lost this game? nope. Should it have been called? yes.







Similar Topics Collapse


Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: gdt

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users