Nokelainen and Sauer ejected for fighting during another fight

[sjmay*]

It's not analogous. It would be analogous if another Boston player was within five feet of the bench and there was a line change, only that other player had yet to leave the ice.

You, and other fans, have created this analogy wherein the implication is that X player is virtually alone, if not on a breakaway, and some opposing player on the bench jumps on the ice with malice as their intent to disrupt the play. That's not what happened. Intent matters a great deal. So you omit two important components in the creation of this analogy:

1) there was no malice; it was a legitimate line change and had Blunden not made the hit, it would not have been too-many-men. He was justified in being on the ice, within five feet of the bench.

2) Dubinsky wasn't alone, on a breakaway, or anything. He had some space, sure, but it's not as though Blunden was preventing a scoring opportunity here.

Regardless of the 5 feet rule, etc, are you really asking officials to judge intent now? So, that high stick that hit him in the head and split is lip open, that's not a penalty because there was no malice?

Yes, I am taking it outside the too many men rule, but how do you know Blunden wasn't thinking, perfect, he has head down, I can jump on and absolutely destroy him?

 

[r1234]

Regardless of the 5 feet rule, etc, are you really asking officials to judge intent now? So, that high stick that hit him in the head and split is lip open, that's not a penalty because there was no malice?

Yes, I am taking it outside the too many men rule, but how do you know Blunden wasn't thinking, perfect, he has head down, I can jump on and absolutely destroy him?

I don't understand why you are trying to defend the refs.

They clearly made a mistake by calling two penalties on the Blunden hit. People have already posted the rule that explains why it should have only been one penalty.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

It was a dangerous play. If you condone that then fine, I'm not for a league that allows that kind of play though.

Carry on, I've added my two cents.

Even if you support giving a guy 2 penalties for one infraction, which I have never seen done before, it should be a double minor, a 5-4 for 4 minutes. A 5-3 here makes absolutely zero sense.

 

[nycbruins*]

I think 5-3 for 2 minutes was excessive, as much as I hate the Habs.

On a different not, hits aside, something needs to be done about these b.s line changes that everybody gets away with now. How many times is a guy hopelessly skating back into a play tired, gets 10 feet from the bench and another guy jumps out from the other side of the bench ahead of the play?

It's cheating, and it should be called as much as possible.

 

[Mike8]

Regardless of the 5 feet rule, etc, are you really asking officials to judge intent now? So, that high stick that hit him in the head and split is lip open, that's not a penalty because there was no malice?

Yes, I am taking it outside the too many men rule, but how do you know Blunden wasn't thinking, perfect, he has head down, I can jump on and absolutely destroy him?

Okay, we'll make this simple then: in your alleged analogy (which, again, is not analogous at all), Thornton would likely be subject to a 10-game suspension and the coach would likely be fined. The intent matters here, as do the circumstances under which the event occurred.

...

As for your above question about my expectation for officials to judge malice and intent: of course I expect them to. They're judging the tone of the game all the time. As I said earlier: Subban was given an unsportsmanlike penalty due to his intent more than the act itself. Just as intent to injure is penalised, unsportsmanlike calls are equally judgments of intent and malice. Obviously, it's not a stretch for officials to judge intent--it's already part of the rulebook.

Your analogy again about the head being split open is ... well, absurd. Your analogies do not work. The rulebook stipulates it is a penalty already, regardless of intent. If intent existed, then it is an additional penalty. Once again, you've taken the analogy in the 'wrong direction,' when the analogy (when appropriately examined) proves my point precisely: that intent can be judged.

 

[Natey]

I thought it was pretty obvious what I said, I was repeating the other poster who said that Dubinsky just got the puck, I had said I was under the impression that he was CARRYING the puck up the ice, but hey, who needs reading..

Yeah, you said the puck was a good 5 or 6 feet away unless you just had trouble explaining yourself. But keep flaming.

 

[sjmay*]

Okay, we'll make this simple then: in your alleged analogy (which, again, is not analogous at all), Thornton would likely be subject to a 10-game suspension and the coach would likely be fined. The intent matters here, as do the circumstances under which the event occurred.

...

As for your above question about my expectation for officials to judge malice and intent: of course I expect them to. They're judging the tone of the game all the time. As I said earlier: Subban was given an unsportsmanlike penalty due to his intent more than the act itself. Just as intent to injure is penalised, unsportsmanlike calls are equally judgments of intent and malice. Obviously, it's not a stretch for officials to judge intent--it's already part of the rulebook.

Your analogy again about the head being split open is ... well, absurd. Your analogies do not work. The rulebook stipulates it is a penalty already, regardless of intent. If intent existed, then it is an additional penalty. Once again, you've taken the analogy in the 'wrong direction,' when the analogy (when appropriately examined) proves my point precisely: that intent can be judged.

How would Thornton be subjected to the 10 game suspension rule, yet Blunden not be then?

Obviously Blunden's intent, was to throw the hit, which was a dangerous hit.

So if we are judging intent and malice, that much is obvious, unless you think that Blunden didn't know Dubinsky was there

 

[overlords]

Keep it civil in here, please. No need to attack either fan base if you disagree with certain posters.

 

[Mike8]

How would Thornton be subjected to the 10 game suspension rule, yet Blunden not be then?

Obviously Blunden's intent, was to throw the hit, which was a dangerous hit.

So if we are judging intent and malice, that much is obvious, unless you think that Blunden didn't know Dubinsky was there

I feel we're going around in circles, so I don't see much point in continuing this discussion, to be frank.

To answer your question: your 'analogy' had Thornton coming on the ice. It didn't have anyone leaving the ice. As such, his coming on the ice was not just a step or two too early as is the case with Blunden. Rather, his entry into the play was purely motivated and intended to hit an opposing player. Thus, the malice and intent exists to break the rules, whereas in the case of Blunden, where he was just a step or two early, but a linechange was clearly in effect.

And by the way, I find it difficult to converse when you throw out these analogies and fail to acknowledge how they're faulty. You try to mock me for saying intent can be judged, and then when I demonstrate to you that it is in fact judged, you neglect to acknowledge that was wrong of you. That adds to the circular discussion feeling, for sure.

 

[habs73]

As mostly Hab fans has been pointing out, the refs ###t the bed on the 5-3 call for the Rangers.

Here is Kerry Fraser's take on tsn website

"When a dust up like this happened to me on the ice I always did my best to subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory (keep it simple stupid) to get the game going as quickly and efficiently as possible. There's no sugarcoating this one.

This is my penalty assessment on the play after watching the entire episode:

MTL: 2-Minute Bench Minor Penalty - Too Many Men on the Ice
MTL: Mike Blunden - 5 Minutes Fighting
NYR: Ryan Callahan - 2 Minutes Instigating + 5 Minutes Fighting + 10 minutes misconduct
NYR: Brandon Dubinsky – 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Hal Gill - 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Petteri Nokelainen – 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)
NYR: Michael Sauer - 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)

Montreal would then place a man in the penalty box to serve the bench minor and New York would have the option to place a man in the box to serve Ryan Callahan's minor or the logical move would be to have Brandon Dubinsky serve his minor on the clock so as not to sacrifice another player in the box when cancelling out the coincident major and minor penalties. The teams would play 4 on 4 (Not 5 on 3...)

Clearly Montreal had Too Many Men on the ice when Mike Blunden came onto the ice and made body contact with Brandon Dubinsky while Blunden's retiring teammate was still physically on the ice. (Rule 74.1 - If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of "too many men on the ice" will be called.)

Dubinsky clearly had received the puck on the stretch pass and would be deemed in possession; therefore the check that was put on him by Blunden could not be deemed "interference". The contact was a perfectly administered body check (shoulder to chest) and would have been deemed legal save for the fact that Montreal had six skaters on the ice."

 

[sjmay*]

I feel we're going around in circles, so I don't see much point in continuing this discussion, to be frank.

To answer your question: your 'analogy' had Thornton coming on the ice. It didn't have anyone leaving the ice. As such, his coming on the ice was not just a step or two too early as is the case with Blunden. Rather, his entry into the play was purely motivated and intended to hit an opposing player. Thus, the malice and intent exists to break the rules, whereas in the case of Blunden, where he was just a step or two early, but a linechange was clearly in effect.

But as an official, you can't KNOW that, so what you see is Blunden coming off the ice, delivering a viscious check.

Let's say in my scenario that Thornton spies a guy at the neutral zone dot headed in the general direction of the bench, does that make it ok for him to put Subban in the hospital?

Blunden's pure intent and motivation was to hit Dubinsky, you know how we know this, HE HIT DUBINSKY.

It's extremely hard to believe you don't see the danger in allowing such hits to be allowed.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

As mostly Hab fans has been pointing out, the refs ###t the bed on the 5-3 call for the Rangers.

Here is Kerry Fraser's take on tsn website

"When a dust up like this happened to me on the ice I always did my best to subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory (keep it simple stupid) to get the game going as quickly and efficiently as possible. There's no sugarcoating this one.

This is my penalty assessment on the play after watching the entire episode:

MTL: 2-Minute Bench Minor Penalty - Too Many Men on the Ice
MTL: Mike Blunden - 5 Minutes Fighting
NYR: Ryan Callahan - 2 Minutes Instigating + 5 Minutes Fighting + 10 minutes misconduct
NYR: Brandon Dubinsky – 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Hal Gill - 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Petteri Nokelainen – 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)
NYR: Michael Sauer - 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)

Montreal would then place a man in the penalty box to serve the bench minor and New York would have the option to place a man in the box to serve Ryan Callahan's minor or the logical move would be to have Brandon Dubinsky serve his minor on the clock so as not to sacrifice another player in the box when cancelling out the coincident major and minor penalties. The teams would play 4 on 4 (Not 5 on 3...)

Clearly Montreal had Too Many Men on the ice when Mike Blunden came onto the ice and made body contact with Brandon Dubinsky while Blunden's retiring teammate was still physically on the ice. (Rule 74.1 - If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of "too many men on the ice" will be called.)

Dubinsky clearly had received the puck on the stretch pass and would be deemed in possession; therefore the check that was put on him by Blunden could not be deemed "interference". The contact was a perfectly administered body check (shoulder to chest) and would have been deemed legal save for the fact that Montreal had six skaters on the ice."

I agree with this 100%.

 

[Mike8]

But as an official, you can't KNOW that, so what you see is Blunden coming off the ice, delivering a viscious check.

Let's say in my scenario that Thornton spies a guy at the neutral zone dot headed in the general direction of the bench, does that make it ok for him to put Subban in the hospital?

Blunden's pure intent and motivation was to hit Dubinsky, you know how we know this, HE HIT DUBINSKY.

It's extremely hard to believe you don't see the danger in allowing such hits to be allowed.

Again, this is a circular discussion where you do not seem to understand what I am saying. I say that with no disrespect intended. As such, I feel it's best that we leave the discussion knowing that we do not agree and likely would not agree even if the discussion were to continue.

 

[KILLger]

As mostly Hab fans has been pointing out, the refs ###t the bed on the 5-3 call for the Rangers.

Here is Kerry Fraser's take on tsn website

"When a dust up like this happened to me on the ice I always did my best to subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory (keep it simple stupid) to get the game going as quickly and efficiently as possible. There's no sugarcoating this one.

This is my penalty assessment on the play after watching the entire episode:

MTL: 2-Minute Bench Minor Penalty - Too Many Men on the Ice
MTL: Mike Blunden - 5 Minutes Fighting
NYR: Ryan Callahan - 2 Minutes Instigating + 5 Minutes Fighting + 10 minutes misconduct
NYR: Brandon Dubinsky – 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Hal Gill - 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Petteri Nokelainen – 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)
NYR: Michael Sauer - 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)

Montreal would then place a man in the penalty box to serve the bench minor and New York would have the option to place a man in the box to serve Ryan Callahan's minor or the logical move would be to have Brandon Dubinsky serve his minor on the clock so as not to sacrifice another player in the box when cancelling out the coincident major and minor penalties. The teams would play 4 on 4 (Not 5 on 3...)

Clearly Montreal had Too Many Men on the ice when Mike Blunden came onto the ice and made body contact with Brandon Dubinsky while Blunden's retiring teammate was still physically on the ice. (Rule 74.1 - If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of "too many men on the ice" will be called.)

Dubinsky clearly had received the puck on the stretch pass and would be deemed in possession; therefore the check that was put on him by Blunden could not be deemed "interference". The contact was a perfectly administered body check (shoulder to chest) and would have been deemed legal save for the fact that Montreal had six skaters on the ice."

But but but... habs fan are whiners!

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=379919

 

[truebluegoalie]

As mostly Hab fans has been pointing out, the refs ###t the bed on the 5-3 call for the Rangers.

Here is Kerry Fraser's take on tsn website

"When a dust up like this happened to me on the ice I always did my best to subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory (keep it simple stupid) to get the game going as quickly and efficiently as possible. There's no sugarcoating this one.

This is my penalty assessment on the play after watching the entire episode:

MTL: 2-Minute Bench Minor Penalty - Too Many Men on the Ice
MTL: Mike Blunden - 5 Minutes Fighting
NYR: Ryan Callahan - 2 Minutes Instigating + 5 Minutes Fighting + 10 minutes misconduct
NYR: Brandon Dubinsky – 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Hal Gill - 2 Minutes Roughing
MTL: Petteri Nokelainen – 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)
NYR: Michael Sauer - 5 Minutes Fighting + Game Misconduct (secondary altercation)

Montreal would then place a man in the penalty box to serve the bench minor and New York would have the option to place a man in the box to serve Ryan Callahan's minor or the logical move would be to have Brandon Dubinsky serve his minor on the clock so as not to sacrifice another player in the box when cancelling out the coincident major and minor penalties. The teams would play 4 on 4 (Not 5 on 3...)

Clearly Montreal had Too Many Men on the ice when Mike Blunden came onto the ice and made body contact with Brandon Dubinsky while Blunden's retiring teammate was still physically on the ice. (Rule 74.1 - If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of "too many men on the ice" will be called.)

Dubinsky clearly had received the puck on the stretch pass and would be deemed in possession; therefore the check that was put on him by Blunden could not be deemed "interference". The contact was a perfectly administered body check (shoulder to chest) and would have been deemed legal save for the fact that Montreal had six skaters on the ice."

Interesting that you left out the second half of his analysis:

Take a breath here, Habs fans, as I attempt to make a plausible (or feeble) explanation as to why it might have been viewed otherwise on the ice by the ref(s). With the ragged line change the initial focus of the ref(s) might have been on the change and not on Dubinsky receiving the pass just prior to impact. Once impact was made the puck was clearly long gone from the immediate vicinity of the check. While this was the wrong assessment on a bang-bang play like this, a quick shift of visual focus of attention can result in a missed call. Blunden perhaps took the refs by surprise as much as he did Dubinsky. Plausible or feeble; you make the call!

To address another point in your questions, just because a penalty for Too Many Men is called it would not negate any other illegal act that took place on the play. For example if Blunden had slashed, punched, tripped, elbowed or fouled Dubinsky in some fashion he would be penalized accordingly and in addition to the Too Many Men penalty. If in fact Dubinsky did not have the puck or it was a reasonable distance from him then an interference penalty could conceivably be called. Not the case here, however.

In a perfect world an instigator penalty would have been assessed to Callahan for the distance he travelled to grab and start a fight with Blunden. The referee could then send a clear message that the initial infraction was being called (Too Many Men on the ice) and if restraint had been shown the non-offending team (Rangers) would go on the power play. Not the case here either as the wrong message was sent and the Rangers gained a two-man advantage.

The Rangers were able to score one power play goal with the two-man advantage.

That's the plain "No Sugar and K.I.S.S." answer.

End Fraser analysis and start mine:

And on another note fans need to drop the whole "refs are against us argument." well unless you are a pens fan, nothing to defend there. Go to the board of every team and you will see threads about that, we even had one on the rangers board early on in the season. How can the refs be against every team in the league? I keep reading in this thread about how the refs missed some tripping call here or there against the rangers, but no one mentions the Price tackle on Anisimov after Price misplayed the puck behind the net. Or Habs fans complain about the Subban penalty for snowing the goalie, when Dubi was called for the same thing in the Toronto game.

The fact is the officiating has been terrible since the lockout. There are a couple of reasons for that.

1. Refs are too easily influenced by the home building, captains, and star players who are so good they never fall down unless a player does something illegal to them (I'm looking at you Crosby).

2.Two ref system. How many times do you see a bad call made by the ref at the blueline when the ref down low is staring right at the play? That is unacceptable. Two refs dilutes the talent pool, just like 30 teams does. Refs call games and interpret rules differently. Two refs leads to inconsistency and confusion from shift to shift. I would like to see the NHL go back to the single ref system, although it will never happen.

 

[Ola]

He got hit as soon as he got the puck?? On the video that's been thrown around, I thought he was already carrying the puck, then the intererence call makes absolute sense as on the video, the puck is a good 5-6 feet ahead of him I believe when he is it, I had assumed all along that he was carrying the puck and was pushing it up and pushed it a bit too far..

Hehe, it was a reverse interference call. He hit a player with the puck, but he himself should not have been on the ice -- what do you call that?

He jumped to the ice just to nail a player while there already where 5 skaters for his team on the ice. Surely, you cannot be arguing that he should not have received a penalty? I don't care what the reff's labled it.

 

[Natey]

Hehe, it was a reverse interference call. He hit a player with the puck, but he himself should not have been on the ice -- what do you call that?

He jumped to the ice just to nail a player while there already where 5 skaters for his team on the ice. Surely, you cannot be arguing that he should not have received a penalty? I don't care what the reff's labled it.

What do you call it? A too many men on the ice penalty, that's what. Read the analysis by Kerry Fraser posted above, he clearly states that.

 

[Perrah]

Interesting that you left out the second half of his analysis:

Take a breath here, Habs fans, as I attempt to make a plausible (or feeble) explanation as to why it might have been viewed otherwise on the ice by the ref(s). With the ragged line change the initial focus of the ref(s) might have been on the change and not on Dubinsky receiving the pass just prior to impact. Once impact was made the puck was clearly long gone from the immediate vicinity of the check. While this was the wrong assessment on a bang-bang play like this, a quick shift of visual focus of attention can result in a missed call. Blunden perhaps took the refs by surprise as much as he did Dubinsky. Plausible or feeble; you make the call!

To address another point in your questions, just because a penalty for Too Many Men is called it would not negate any other illegal act that took place on the play. For example if Blunden had slashed, punched, tripped, elbowed or fouled Dubinsky in some fashion he would be penalized accordingly and in addition to the Too Many Men penalty. If in fact Dubinsky did not have the puck or it was a reasonable distance from him then an interference penalty could conceivably be called. Not the case here, however.

In a perfect world an instigator penalty would have been assessed to Callahan for the distance he travelled to grab and start a fight with Blunden. The referee could then send a clear message that the initial infraction was being called (Too Many Men on the ice) and if restraint had been shown the non-offending team (Rangers) would go on the power play. Not the case here either as the wrong message was sent and the Rangers gained a two-man advantage.

The Rangers were able to score one power play goal with the two-man advantage.

That's the plain "No Sugar and K.I.S.S." answer.

End Fraser analysis and start mine:

And on another note fans need to drop the whole "refs are against us argument." well unless you are a pens fan, nothing to defend there. Go to the board of every team and you will see threads about that, we even had one on the rangers board early on in the season. How can the refs be against every team in the league? I keep reading in this thread about how the refs missed some tripping call here or there against the rangers, but no one mentions the Price tackle on Anisimov after Price misplayed the puck behind the net. Or Habs fans complain about the Subban penalty for snowing the goalie, when Dubi was called for the same thing in the Toronto game.

The fact is the officiating has been terrible since the lockout. There are a couple of reasons for that.

1. Refs are too easily influenced by the home building, captains, and star players who are so good they never fall down unless a player does something illegal to them (I'm looking at you Crosby).

2.Two ref system. How many times do you see a bad call made by the ref at the blueline when the ref down low is staring right at the play? That is unacceptable. Two refs dilutes the talent pool, just like 30 teams does. Refs call games and interpret rules differently. Two refs leads to inconsistency and confusion from shift to shift. I would like to see the NHL go back to the single ref system, although it will never happen.

I dont see the problem with leaving that out. Fraser is just coming up with some sorry BS excuse for why the ref is a **** up and quite a few posts already attempt to justify that awful call with ridiculous analogies.

Hehe, it was a reverse interference call. He hit a player with the puck, but he himself should not have been on the ice -- what do you call that?

He jumped to the ice just to nail a player while there already where 5 skaters for his team on the ice. Surely, you cannot be arguing that he should not have received a penalty? I don't care what the reff's labled it.

Its called TMM but they called that and interference which it clearly isnt because the puck is in his feet. If cole is off the ice and that hit happens he doesnt get a penalty so how he gets interference is ridiculous and completely made up by the ref.

 

[truebluegoalie]

I dont see the problem with leaving that out. Fraser is just coming up with some sorry BS excuse for why the ref is a **** up and quite a few posts already attempt to justify that awful call with ridiculous analogies.



Its called TMM but they called that and interference which it clearly isnt because the puck is in his feet. If cole is off the ice and that hit happens he doesnt get a penalty so how he gets interference is ridiculous and completely made up by the ref.

Better fix that second quote because I didn't say that. And I am glad you don't see a problem with leaving the second part out, but if you are going to take Fraser's opinion as to why the call was wrong as gospel, then his entire argument should be considered, not just the part which favors your opinion. Not to mention the second part that was left out helps to possibly explain what the ref may have seen and why they called it that way.

 

[Perrah]

Better fix that second quote because I didn't say that. And I am glad you don't see a problem with leaving the second part out, but if you are going to take Fraser's opinion as to why the call was wrong as gospel, then his entire argument should be considered, not just the part which favors your opinion. Not to mention the second part that was left out helps to possibly explain what the ref may have seen and why they called it that way.

Fixed it my bad. The second part is just excuse making for a fellow referee and purely speculative of why he could have made up a penalty to call. The first part explains what he would have called it as a referee himself based on the play he and everyone else observed. There is no reason for the referee to call interference on that play as he says in the second part unless he wasnt watching the play and just saw dubinsky go down to which I would think he shouldnt be making calls on plays he doesnt see. No matter how you cut it the ref screwed the pooch.

 

[truebluegoalie]

Fixed it my bad. The second part is just excuse making for a fellow referee and purely speculative of why he could have made up a penalty to call. The first part explains what he would have called it as a referee himself based on the play he and everyone else observed. There is no reason for the referee to call interference on that play as he says in the second part unless he wasnt watching the play and just saw dubinsky go down to which I would think he shouldnt be making calls on plays he doesnt see. No matter how you cut it the ref screwed the pooch.

There is no doubt some calls were botched on the play. I disagree with you though and think Fraser's insight into why is important because his explanation is more likely the reason, instead of some grand conspiracy to screw the habs, unlike what most hab fans want to believe in this thread and on the TSN comments section of his column. It's too bad my post there didn't make it past the moderator. By leaving that second part out it further strengthens this false argument that the refs are out to get certain teams, the Canadiens in this example.

Honestly unless we hear from the refs why they called the interference we will never know and Fraser like the rest of us is just speculating, it could have been what he said or they could have misinterpreted the rule about interference from the bench. Without any kind of accountability this stuff will just continue to happen and every team will think their team is being unfairly targeted.

 

[Perrah]

There is no doubt some calls were botched on the play. I disagree with you though and think Fraser's insight into why is important because his explanation is more likely the reason, instead of some grand conspiracy to screw the habs, unlike what most hab fans want to believe in this thread and on the TSN comments section of his column. It's too bad my post there didn't make it past the moderator. By leaving that second part out it further strengthens this false argument that the refs are out to get certain teams, the Canadiens in this example.

Honestly unless we hear from the refs why they called the interference we will never know and Fraser like the rest of us is just speculating, it could have been what he said or they could have misinterpreted the rule about interference from the bench. Without any kind of accountability this stuff will just continue to happen and every team will think their team is being unfairly targeted.

I dont think the refs are out to get the canadiens but the ref did make a terrible call. Understanding why the ref made a terrible call doesnt change the fact that said referee made a terrible call. The only thing that would be accomplished by the ref saying why he made the call would be to know which way he ****ed up because by no rule in the NHL rulebook is there 2 penalties, it is pretty much that simple. Hopefully there will be some accountability for officials but I dont see that coming anytime soon.