Sports Talk Discuss all things Sports Related

2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Old 04-24-19, 12:28 AM
  #101  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
andicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,497
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

That's the best game I've seen in the playoffs. I didn't really care who won, but was leaning toward SJ.
andicus is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 12:31 AM
  #102  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Santa Clara, California
Posts: 10,179
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Is Barclay Goodrow the first ever Barclay to be good at sport?

Regarding that cross check, I was surprised to see a major called. Once I saw the blood on the ice I thought maybe a double minor.

Edit: Hopefully Pavelski is ok. I fear with the way his head hit the ice that he has a concussion.
shizawn is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 09:57 AM
  #103  
DVD Talk Legend
 
LorenzoL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 20,558
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Another year and another first round exit by the Leafs from the Bruins.
LorenzoL is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 10:08 AM
  #104  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 4,252
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Wow, I almost missed the Sharks/Knights game. I was watching it till the 3rd Vegas goal, and thought there's no way the Sharks were coming back. So I started up Sunday's episode of Killing Eve (really good one, BTW), then just glanced at the NHL app during a commercial break. VGS 3 SJ 2. Holy shit! Better turn the game back on!! Got to see the rest of the insanity.
Paff is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 11:59 AM
  #105  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 6,512
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Originally Posted by shizawn View Post
Regarding that cross check, I was surprised to see a major called. Once I saw the blood on the ice I thought maybe a double minor.
The more I've looked at it, the more I waffle back and forth on the call. It was a weird confluence of events that transpired in a very short amount of time. The initial cross-check was obvious. If that action just results in Pavelski innocuously falling down, it's most certainly just a minor penalty. But the cross-check was hard enough that it put Pavelski in a very vulnerable position off his skates and falling. Almost immediately Stasny came in contact with him and clearly gave him an extra push that tilted him so his head hit the ice hard and gushing of blood ensued. Now I don't think Stasny in that moment of contact necessarily realized what a vulnerable position Pavelski was in, but players do have a responsibility to let up when a player is in a vulnerable position, especially a position that carries risk of a head injury (see the way boarding is called now, for example). Calling a cross-checking major on Eakin may not have been strictly the right call for that confluence of events. On the other hand, I think the refs would have been justified to call a minor on Eakin and another minor or even possibly a major on Stasny for pushing a player already off his skates dangerously into the ice. So I guess in my estimation the best possible scenario for the Knights would have been simultaneous minors - one each on Eakin and Stasny - and the worst possible scenario would have been a minor on Eakin and a major on Stasny. Just the major on Eakin is somewhere in the middle.

I do take issue with the notion that the call "stole" the game or the series from Vegas though. Controversial call or not, it was the Golden Knights players who couldn't close out the series after being up 3 games to 1 and it was the Golden Knights penalty killers who completely collapsed during the 5-minute power play for the Sharks that started with the Knights up 3-0. Even after all of that, they had chances to win it in overtime and couldn't do it. Championship teams have to rise to the occasion when circumstances don't go their way. As a Blues fan, I know all too well what it looks like when teams don't do that and blaming the circumstances instead ultimately blaming the team is a cop-out IMO.
kefrank is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 12:32 PM
  #106  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Damfino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 6,213
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Originally Posted by kefrank View Post
I do take issue with the notion that the call "stole" the game or the series from Vegas though. Controversial call or not, it was the Golden Knights players who couldn't close out the series after being up 3 games to 1 and it was the Golden Knights penalty killers who completely collapsed during the 5-minute power play for the Sharks that started with the Knights up 3-0. Even after all of that, they had chances to win it in overtime and couldn't do it. Championship teams have to rise to the occasion when circumstances don't go their way. As a Blues fan, I know all too well what it looks like when teams don't do that and blaming the circumstances instead ultimately blaming the team is a cop-out IMO.
This.

As a Knights season ticket holder, I can also add that game 7 shouldn’t even have been necessary. We out shot the Sharks 59-29 on Sunday and couldn’t close it out. I also have to remember that just making the playoffs in our first 2 years is an phenomenal accomplishment.

Also, as a former Kings fan, I waited over 40 years to win it all, so I can empathize with Blues fans.
Damfino is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 12:37 PM
  #107  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Decker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Vegas, Baby!
Posts: 42,472
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

I don't disagree that it should never have gotten to this point in the first place, or that a single Major penalty should NEVER result in four PP goals getting scored. They fell apart (could have really used Bellmare yesterday to anchor the PK unit). All that said, I DO think the call was a HUGE mistake and absolutely swung this game.

I am posting the entire article from The Athletic that just went up in a round table discussion of the call. It's a long one behind a pay wall so I will use spoilers

Spoiler:
Roundtable reaction: Did officials make the right call with Cody Eakin cross-check against Joe Pavelski?


By Scott Burnside 2h ago 300 A first​ round​ of off the​ charts​ drama that featured​ crazy​ upsets​ and dramatic shifts in fortune​ went​ to​ hit​ a new​​ level Tuesday night when Golden Knights center Cody Eakin cross-checked Sharks captain Joe Pavelski off a faceoff in the Vegas zone midway through the third period of Game 7.

At the time, Vegas led 3-0 and was trying to not choke away a 3-1 series lead entirely. Eakin’s cross-check caught Pavelski in the chest area. He lost his balance and ended up falling over the leg of Vegas forward Paul Stastny, who was trying to get a bead on where the puck went after the draw.

Pavelski could not brace himself after contact with Stastny and struck his head on the ice. It was horrific. Pavelski lay motionless as blood pooled near his head.

Officials who had not appeared to be calling a penalty on the play – replays show no arm raised indicating a penalty was forthcoming – huddled and assessed a major penalty for cross-checking that saw Eakin ejected and gave the Sharks a five-minute power play.

Series supervisor Don Van Massenhoven provided this explanation for the call: “The referees called a cross-checking penalty for an infraction that caused a significant injury. In their judgment, the infraction and its result merited a major penalty.”

The Sharks scored four times with the man advantage. Vegas tied the game at 4-4 in the final minute of regulation, but San Jose’s Barclay Goodrow sliced to the net in the waning minutes of the first overtime to seal the greatest comeback in Sharks history and send the Golden Knights home.

Immediately there were howls of protest from around the hockey world about what unfolded and how. Our roundtable examines the call.

Katie Strang: Hoo boy, I have a good feeling what we will be talking about ad nauseam heading into Round 2, huh? It’s a shame that the focal point of an incredible, unpredictable, wild first round of action will center around officiating, but here we are. And really it should be no surprise because, while the five-minute major penalty on Eakin was a turning point (and then talking point) of Game 7, officiating has been a storyline difficult to ignore throughout the first few weeks of play. Whether it’s been disallowed goals, missed slew foots or officials seemingly swallowing their whistles for whole games at a time, it’s a hot topic. And though each game and series has a different temperature, the one complaint I continue to hear is what can only be described as a maddening lack of consistency. No one knows what to expect. No one seems to know how to prepare, how to game plan, how to brace for what will be called and what will not. That’s how things devolve into a free-for-all, how players get hurt, and how an outcome of a game suddenly becomes wildly controversial. For me, the most egregious part of Tuesday night’s debacle was the explanation of the call from series supervisor Don Van Massenhoven, which was extremely vague and provided little to no clarity. There’s not much confidence right now in the standard of officiating and, after last night, that’s not likely to change any time soon.

Jesse Granger: The controversial call didn’t end the Golden Knights’ season. Vegas still had four chances to stop the Sharks’ power play unit that it stymied all series, and failed all four times. What the call did was give San Jose a chance, because prior to that call the Sharks didn’t have one.

To me, the biggest issue with the penalty is the mechanics of how it was called. Neither of the two referees on the ice, Eric Furlatt or Dan O’Halloran, raised their hand to signal a penalty as play went on. It wasn’t until long after the play, when they saw Joe Pavelski’s serious injury that they made the call.

Vegas’ Jonathan Marchessault said Furlatt told him “it looks pretty bad.” And coach Gerard Gallant said he was told by referees that Eakin cross-checked Pavelski in the face. Neither of which actually happened. Penalties should be called when the referees see them on the ice, not based on the aftermath of something they missed. They either guessed or looked at the video board. If they were able to look at replay to make the call, they’d see Eakin did cross-check Pavelski, but no more than the casual push following nearly every faceoff loss in the NHL, and far from a five-minute major.

Sean McIndoe: It was a bad call. And I’m convinced it’s one that doesn’t get made if the score is 0-0 or 1-0 instead of 3-0. The refs saw the horrific result of the play, and they did the one thing referees are never supposed to do: They guessed. And they got it wrong.

But bad calls happen. They’re part of sports. And the one thing I hope we don’t do now is overreact and start calling for replay review on penalty calls. That would be a disaster, much like offside and interference reviews already have been. I can’t fathom anyone watching the past few years of NHL hockey and thinking: “You know what we need is even more replay review.” But we’re going to hear that over the next few days.

It’s understandable that we see a call like that, or others we’ve had during the playoffs, and want to fix it. But you can’t. Bad calls, even terrible calls, will always be a part of sports. Spending even more time standing around analyzing fuzzy freeze frames that we’re still all going to disagree on anyways isn’t the answer.

Justin Bourne: While some have said Marchessault “went off” or “ranted” after the Sharks comeback, I thought his comments were honest, fair and largely correct. The officials ruled on the result of one play that unfolded the way it did in some part due to another play – Pavelski’s unfortunate second-tangling with another Knights player. The initial intent seemed to border on harmless. The play Eakin made is fairly common after a lost D-zone draw; he’s trying to get out to the point, so he shoves off to clear the lane. That play threw off the balance of the Sharks’ center – and the push was so abrupt as to maybe warrant a minor penalty – which then initiated the second-contact sequence that led to the unfortunate injury. I didn’t see anything malicious.

The Knights went on to give up four power play goals against, which is within their control, and they deserve ample blame for that failing. But if the correct call is made and the game goes back to 5-on-5 after goal one, the Knights win a whopping percentage of games in that scenario from there. This may lead to major penalties being reviewable, which leads to the subjective analysis of slo-mo plays, which removes context (just check Twitter!). It’s possible that, in some situations, this will lead to getting important calls correct. The details of how to properly roll that out need extensive consideration, though. It’s just unfortunate the discussion is spurred by this becoming relevant at such a key moment for the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Dom Luszczyszyn: The officiating in the first round was a mess across the board. Utterly inconsistent from game-to-game and series-to-series, where the rules are either “let them play” (BOS-TOR and WPG-STL had less than six penalties-per-60) or “we’re calling everything” (CGY-COL and SJS-VGK had more than 10 penalties-per-60). It’s nonsensical that the rulebook seems to be thrown out the window in the playoffs where there’s an invisible threshold that no one can determine where the line is and isn’t, varying in each series. That came to a head in Game 7 of the San Jose versus Vegas series where the officiating crew seemed to call the result of the play (serious injury) rather than the actual (a routine cross-check that so often goes un-called). Referees are so afraid to “have an effect on the game” that they are doing just that by not just enforcing the rules by the book.

Scott Burnside: A couple of things. First, being an NHL referee (or linesman) in the age of a million replays and 10 million Twitter critics sucks mightily. With that said, the NHL has long ignored the wide variance in how playoff games are called relative to the regular season. The league can pay lip service to how the standard is called regardless of the situation, but that is simply not true.

One senior team executive not involved in the Sharks-Golden Knight series suggested the inconsistency on what is called and not called, especially when it comes to skilled players being fouled in the playoffs “is a joke.” Another noted that officials should never call penalties based on the outcome.

Is the play in question a foul or not? If a player is injured and the play requires intervention from the Department of Player Safety for supplemental discipline, then that’s the mechanism for following up plays on the ice. In this case, the Eakin foul is at best a two-minute minor, one NHL coach said. But instead, officials reacted to the outcome of the play and what appeared to be a serious injury. Was that injury a direct result of a foul or an unfortunate accident that was a byproduct of the initial contact? I know McIndoe doesn’t like the idea of any more video review being introduced into the game and certainly the NHL seems no further ahead when it comes to reviewing what is (or isn’t) goaltender interference, but in this case, surely a quick look at the replay or a quick call from the situation room in Toronto might provide a call that more accurately reflected what happened on the ice.

Decker is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 12:59 PM
  #108  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Decker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Vegas, Baby!
Posts: 42,472
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

The bottom line here is that all of those panelists thought it was a bad call and the wrong call. What really gets to me is when the one guy says there is no way they make that call if it's a 1-0 game. I think that is true. The refs never even saw the penalty, they made the call based on what they saw afterwards. It was egregious. It was wrong.
Decker is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 01:08 PM
  #109  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 4,252
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Eakin didn't have to cross-check Pavelski.

Maybe the major was too severe, maybe it wasn't, but don't give the refs a chance to make that decision at all. You put your fate in their hands, you deal with the results.
Paff is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 01:19 PM
  #110  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Decker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Vegas, Baby!
Posts: 42,472
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

^ I've got no problems with calling it a cross-check. It was one. But it wasn't any worse than a dozen cross-checks in any game. It's not like all penalties are going to disappear from any hockey game ever. But the penalty, if it's going to be called, should be appropriate for the offense. I've been to maybe 30 to 40 games at T-Mobile since the start of the 2017-2018 seasons. I have only seen one Major penalty called and it was after a particularly brutal hit in an escalating series of penalties. It was NOTHING like what Eakin did.
Don't forget - no ref even SAW that penalty, or at least nobody signaled it at the time. They looked at the aftermath and assumed what the penalty must have looked like. They were swayed by the crowd reaction, assumed incorrectly, and in this case failed at their job (and swung the series as a result).
Decker is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 01:34 PM
  #111  
DVD Talk Legend
 
kenbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 20,905
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

The 2nd round schedule has been released - sort of. The West knows their schedule, but BOTH Eastern series depend on whether the Caps or Canes advance. So if Washington and Carolina could kindly wrap things up, the rest of the league would be grateful:

Boston vs Columbus
Game 1: Thursday 4/25 at Boston
Game 2: Saturday 4/27 at Boston
Game 3: Monday 4/29 (if WASHINGTON advances) or Tuesday 4/30 (if CAROLINA advances) at Columbus
Game 4: Thursday 5/2 at Columbus
Game 5: Saturday 5/4 at Boston
Game 6: Monday 5/6 at Columbus
Game 7: Wednesday 5/8 at Boston

Washington vs Brooklyn (If WASHINGTON advances)
Game 1: Friday 4/26 at Washington
Game 2: Sunday 4/28 at Washington
Game 3: Tuesday 4/30 at Brooklyn
Game 4: Friday 5/3 at Brooklyn
Game 5: Sunday 5/5 at Washington
Game 6: Tuesday 5/7 at Brooklyn
Game 7: Thursday 5/9 at Washington

Brooklyn vs Carolina (If CAROLINA advances)
Game 1: Friday 4/26 at Brooklyn
Game 2: Sunday 4/28 at Brooklyn
Game 3: Wednesday 5/1 at Carolina
Game 4: Friday 5/3 at Carolina
Game 5: Sunday 5/5 at Brooklyn
Game 6: Tuesday 5/7 at Carolina
Game 7: TBD (5/8 or 5/9) at Brooklyn

St Louis vs Dallas
Game 1: Thursday 4/25 at St Louis
Game 2: Saturday 4/27 at St Louis
Game 3: Monday 4/29 at Dallas
Game 4: Wednesday 5/1 at Dallas
Game 5: Friday 5/3 at St Louis
Game 6: Sunday 5/5 at Dallas
Game 7: Tuesday 5/7 at St Louis

San Jose vs Colorado
Game 1: Friday 4/26 at San Jose
Game 2: Sunday 4/28 at San Jose
Game 3: Tuesday 4/30 at Colorado
Game 4: Thursday 5/2 at Colorado
Game 5: Saturday 5/4 at San Jose
Game 6: Monday 5/6 at Colorado
Game 7: Wednesday 5/8 at San Jose

Last edited by kenbuzz; 04-24-19 at 03:31 PM.
kenbuzz is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 01:45 PM
  #112  
DVD Talk Legend
 
kenbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 20,905
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Not that it's likely, but if the Blues-Stars series ends in a 4-0 sweep, that team could have as many as NINE days off before playing a Sharks/Avalanche 7-game survivor.
kenbuzz is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 01:50 PM
  #113  
DVD Talk Legend
 
kenbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 20,905
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

And looking ahead, the relative seeds for the WCF and ECF appear to be:

W1: San Jose (101 points)
W2: St Louis (99, 42 ROWs)
W3: Dallas (93)
W4: Colorado (90)

San Jose would hold home ice advantage for the WCF vs the St Louis-Dallas winner, while Colorado would yield home ice to the St Louis-Dallas winner.

E1: Boston (107)
E2: Washington (104)*
E3: Brooklyn (103)
E4: Carolina (99, 44 ROWs)*
E5: Columbus (98)
* - elimination game tonight.

Boston would hold home ice vs Washington/Brooklyn/Carolina, while Columbus would yield it.

The ECF winner is likely to have home ice for the SCF, except:
- If Columbus plays San Jose or St Louis
- If Carolina plays San Jose
kenbuzz is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 02:22 PM
  #114  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,328
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Originally Posted by Damfino View Post
.

Also, as a former Kings fan,
Wait, are you a Vegas fan or Kings fan?
coli is online now  
Old 04-24-19, 03:32 PM
  #115  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Damfino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 6,213
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Originally Posted by coli View Post
Wait, are you a Vegas fan or Kings fan?
Kings fan until start of 17-18 season. Vegas fan since then.
Damfino is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 03:43 PM
  #116  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Damfino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 6,213
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Originally Posted by Decker View Post
I don't disagree that it should never have gotten to this point in the first place, or that a single Major penalty should NEVER result in four PP goals getting scored. They fell apart (could have really used Bellmare yesterday to anchor the PK unit). All that said, I DO think the call was a HUGE mistake and absolutely swung this game.

I am posting the entire article from The Athletic that just went up in a round table discussion of the call. It's a long one behind a pay wall so I will use spoilers

Spoiler:
Roundtable reaction: Did officials make the right call with Cody Eakin cross-check against Joe Pavelski?


By Scott Burnside 2h ago 300 A first​ round​ of off the​ charts​ drama that featured​ crazy​ upsets​ and dramatic shifts in fortune​ went​ to​ hit​ a new​​ level Tuesday night when Golden Knights center Cody Eakin cross-checked Sharks captain Joe Pavelski off a faceoff in the Vegas zone midway through the third period of Game 7.

At the time, Vegas led 3-0 and was trying to not choke away a 3-1 series lead entirely. Eakin’s cross-check caught Pavelski in the chest area. He lost his balance and ended up falling over the leg of Vegas forward Paul Stastny, who was trying to get a bead on where the puck went after the draw.

Pavelski could not brace himself after contact with Stastny and struck his head on the ice. It was horrific. Pavelski lay motionless as blood pooled near his head.

Officials who had not appeared to be calling a penalty on the play – replays show no arm raised indicating a penalty was forthcoming – huddled and assessed a major penalty for cross-checking that saw Eakin ejected and gave the Sharks a five-minute power play.

Series supervisor Don Van Massenhoven provided this explanation for the call: “The referees called a cross-checking penalty for an infraction that caused a significant injury. In their judgment, the infraction and its result merited a major penalty.”

The Sharks scored four times with the man advantage. Vegas tied the game at 4-4 in the final minute of regulation, but San Jose’s Barclay Goodrow sliced to the net in the waning minutes of the first overtime to seal the greatest comeback in Sharks history and send the Golden Knights home.

Immediately there were howls of protest from around the hockey world about what unfolded and how. Our roundtable examines the call.

Katie Strang: Hoo boy, I have a good feeling what we will be talking about ad nauseam heading into Round 2, huh? It’s a shame that the focal point of an incredible, unpredictable, wild first round of action will center around officiating, but here we are. And really it should be no surprise because, while the five-minute major penalty on Eakin was a turning point (and then talking point) of Game 7, officiating has been a storyline difficult to ignore throughout the first few weeks of play. Whether it’s been disallowed goals, missed slew foots or officials seemingly swallowing their whistles for whole games at a time, it’s a hot topic. And though each game and series has a different temperature, the one complaint I continue to hear is what can only be described as a maddening lack of consistency. No one knows what to expect. No one seems to know how to prepare, how to game plan, how to brace for what will be called and what will not. That’s how things devolve into a free-for-all, how players get hurt, and how an outcome of a game suddenly becomes wildly controversial. For me, the most egregious part of Tuesday night’s debacle was the explanation of the call from series supervisor Don Van Massenhoven, which was extremely vague and provided little to no clarity. There’s not much confidence right now in the standard of officiating and, after last night, that’s not likely to change any time soon.

Jesse Granger: The controversial call didn’t end the Golden Knights’ season. Vegas still had four chances to stop the Sharks’ power play unit that it stymied all series, and failed all four times. What the call did was give San Jose a chance, because prior to that call the Sharks didn’t have one.

To me, the biggest issue with the penalty is the mechanics of how it was called. Neither of the two referees on the ice, Eric Furlatt or Dan O’Halloran, raised their hand to signal a penalty as play went on. It wasn’t until long after the play, when they saw Joe Pavelski’s serious injury that they made the call.

Vegas’ Jonathan Marchessault said Furlatt told him “it looks pretty bad.” And coach Gerard Gallant said he was told by referees that Eakin cross-checked Pavelski in the face. Neither of which actually happened. Penalties should be called when the referees see them on the ice, not based on the aftermath of something they missed. They either guessed or looked at the video board. If they were able to look at replay to make the call, they’d see Eakin did cross-check Pavelski, but no more than the casual push following nearly every faceoff loss in the NHL, and far from a five-minute major.

Sean McIndoe: It was a bad call. And I’m convinced it’s one that doesn’t get made if the score is 0-0 or 1-0 instead of 3-0. The refs saw the horrific result of the play, and they did the one thing referees are never supposed to do: They guessed. And they got it wrong.

But bad calls happen. They’re part of sports. And the one thing I hope we don’t do now is overreact and start calling for replay review on penalty calls. That would be a disaster, much like offside and interference reviews already have been. I can’t fathom anyone watching the past few years of NHL hockey and thinking: “You know what we need is even more replay review.” But we’re going to hear that over the next few days.

It’s understandable that we see a call like that, or others we’ve had during the playoffs, and want to fix it. But you can’t. Bad calls, even terrible calls, will always be a part of sports. Spending even more time standing around analyzing fuzzy freeze frames that we’re still all going to disagree on anyways isn’t the answer.

Justin Bourne: While some have said Marchessault “went off” or “ranted” after the Sharks comeback, I thought his comments were honest, fair and largely correct. The officials ruled on the result of one play that unfolded the way it did in some part due to another play – Pavelski’s unfortunate second-tangling with another Knights player. The initial intent seemed to border on harmless. The play Eakin made is fairly common after a lost D-zone draw; he’s trying to get out to the point, so he shoves off to clear the lane. That play threw off the balance of the Sharks’ center – and the push was so abrupt as to maybe warrant a minor penalty – which then initiated the second-contact sequence that led to the unfortunate injury. I didn’t see anything malicious.

The Knights went on to give up four power play goals against, which is within their control, and they deserve ample blame for that failing. But if the correct call is made and the game goes back to 5-on-5 after goal one, the Knights win a whopping percentage of games in that scenario from there. This may lead to major penalties being reviewable, which leads to the subjective analysis of slo-mo plays, which removes context (just check Twitter!). It’s possible that, in some situations, this will lead to getting important calls correct. The details of how to properly roll that out need extensive consideration, though. It’s just unfortunate the discussion is spurred by this becoming relevant at such a key moment for the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Dom Luszczyszyn: The officiating in the first round was a mess across the board. Utterly inconsistent from game-to-game and series-to-series, where the rules are either “let them play” (BOS-TOR and WPG-STL had less than six penalties-per-60) or “we’re calling everything” (CGY-COL and SJS-VGK had more than 10 penalties-per-60). It’s nonsensical that the rulebook seems to be thrown out the window in the playoffs where there’s an invisible threshold that no one can determine where the line is and isn’t, varying in each series. That came to a head in Game 7 of the San Jose versus Vegas series where the officiating crew seemed to call the result of the play (serious injury) rather than the actual (a routine cross-check that so often goes un-called). Referees are so afraid to “have an effect on the game” that they are doing just that by not just enforcing the rules by the book.

Scott Burnside: A couple of things. First, being an NHL referee (or linesman) in the age of a million replays and 10 million Twitter critics sucks mightily. With that said, the NHL has long ignored the wide variance in how playoff games are called relative to the regular season. The league can pay lip service to how the standard is called regardless of the situation, but that is simply not true.

One senior team executive not involved in the Sharks-Golden Knight series suggested the inconsistency on what is called and not called, especially when it comes to skilled players being fouled in the playoffs “is a joke.” Another noted that officials should never call penalties based on the outcome.

Is the play in question a foul or not? If a player is injured and the play requires intervention from the Department of Player Safety for supplemental discipline, then that’s the mechanism for following up plays on the ice. In this case, the Eakin foul is at best a two-minute minor, one NHL coach said. But instead, officials reacted to the outcome of the play and what appeared to be a serious injury. Was that injury a direct result of a foul or an unfortunate accident that was a byproduct of the initial contact? I know McIndoe doesn’t like the idea of any more video review being introduced into the game and certainly the NHL seems no further ahead when it comes to reviewing what is (or isn’t) goaltender interference, but in this case, surely a quick look at the replay or a quick call from the situation room in Toronto might provide a call that more accurately reflected what happened on the ice.

I do agree it was a bad call. Thanks for the post.
Damfino is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 05:24 PM
  #117  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Decker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Vegas, Baby!
Posts: 42,472
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Originally Posted by Damfino View Post


Kings fan until start of 17-18 season. Vegas fan since then.
Me too. Kings fan 1988 (Gretzky trade) - 2016 (Vegas Franchise Awarded).
Decker is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 06:04 PM
  #118  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,328
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Originally Posted by Damfino View Post


Kings fan until start of 17-18 season. Vegas fan since then.
This is an interesting debate among fandom because Vegas never had a team. If you grew up and always been a Vegas resident, than I totally get shifting your fandom to the hometown expansion team. But if you grew up in LA (or somewhere else) and than moved to Vegas, than I think you always have stick with the Kings no matter what.
coli is online now  
Old 04-24-19, 06:20 PM
  #119  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Damfino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 6,213
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Originally Posted by coli View Post
This is an interesting debate among fandom because Vegas never had a team. If you grew up and always been a Vegas resident, than I totally get shifting your fandom to the hometown expansion team. But if you grew up in LA (or somewhere else) and than moved to Vegas, than I think you always have stick with the Kings no matter what.
I am from LA and I still support the Kings as my 2nd team, but as a hockey fan in Las Vegas I had to support the new team. I even put a deposit down for season tickets the first day of the drive even though I didn’t think it would happen at the time.

One thing I will never do is join in on that obnoxious “Beat L A” chant.
Damfino is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 10:31 PM
  #120  
DVD Talk Legend
 
astrochimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ontario Canada
Posts: 17,667
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Wow Canes!
astrochimp is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 10:37 PM
  #121  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Santa Clara, California
Posts: 10,179
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

And with that, all 4 division winners are eliminated in the first round.
shizawn is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 10:38 PM
  #122  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
andicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,497
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Another good game. Sorry (and surprised) to see the Caps knocked out, but as they won the cup last year, I'll get over it.
andicus is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 11:12 PM
  #123  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Decker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Vegas, Baby!
Posts: 42,472
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Originally Posted by coli View Post
This is an interesting debate among fandom because Vegas never had a team. If you grew up and always been a Vegas resident, than I totally get shifting your fandom to the hometown expansion team. But if you grew up in LA (or somewhere else) and than moved to Vegas, than I think you always have stick with the Kings no matter what.
Well, I went over this a few years ago with the Bill Simmons Fan Rules from 2002. For me, at least I felt I was allowed to switch NHL allegiances because of the highlighted explanation.
19. Once you choose a team, you're stuck with that team for the rest of your life ... unless one of the following conditions applies:
  • You grew up in a city that didn't field a team for a specific sport -- so you picked a random team -- and then either a.) your city landed a team, or b.) you moved to a city that fielded a team for that specific sport. For instance, one of my Connecticut buddies rooted for the Sixers during the Doctor J Era, then happened to be living in Orlando when the Magic came to town. Now he's a Magic fan. That's acceptable.
BTW : Look at that website layout. Looking slick, ESPN
Decker is offline  
Old 04-25-19, 08:18 AM
  #124  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,818
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

Goat3001's Fan Rules:

1 - Don't listen to anything Bill Simmons says.

2 - Life is short. Sports are entertainment. Root for whatever team you want to root for.

Glad to see the Hurricanes pull it out on the Caps - which gives the Islanders home ice. The Canes are tough but are coming off a brutal series while the Isles have been home for 10 days (!). Hopefully no rust and they capitalize right away and take games 1 and 2. If they can do that, they should wrap up the series in 6. If the Canes steal one in Brooklyn, I don't think the Isles win the series.
Goat3001 is offline  
Old 04-25-19, 10:38 AM
  #125  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 4,252
Re: 2019 NHL Stanley Cup Playoff Thread

I didn't watch the end of regulation or any of the overtimes of the Caps/Canes game, but from what I did see the Caps deserved to lose. They were totally coasting. When they had a two goal lead they started passing it around rather than attacking the net. And they had zero interest in taking the body on the Canes. Better team won.
Paff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.