8.3 Blood A player who is bleeding or who has visible blood on his equipment or body shall be ruled off the ice at the next stoppage of play. Such player shall not be permitted to return to play until the bleeding has been stopped and the cut or abrasion covered (if necessary). It is required that any affected equipment and/or uniform be properly decontaminated or exchanged.
Why was shaw allowed to be on the ice for the final minutes? The cut was not covered, and the cut continued to bleed.
Chicago has been getting away with murder these playoffs. Still amazed that the slew foot by shaw did not get any attention from the league. I seriously think the reaction of NBC plays a big part in if it get looks at or not.
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 . 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.
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".
The NHL in the offseason, needs to take a good look at how this game is offciated. Penalties need to be black or white again. I really don't remember refs beings this bad in the past. The players never adapted to the post lockout rules the refs have just decided when to call it a penalty. If the league really wanted to eliminate all this clutching and grabbing they would call it everytime it occurred. Then the players would truly have to adjust.