Post-Game Talk: Bruins tame Cats 3-1

[PatriceBergeronFan]

This right here. Sometimes we gotta take the black and gold glasses off, that was a 2 min penalty and if our guy got suspended for it we would not be happy.

That's trying too hard to remove the bias.

 

[bruinsfan1968]

Refs discretion.

Lame excuse!

 

[Dr Hook]

Not even in the same ballpark.

The crosscheck in the face of Poitras was in the same ballpark- it was deliberate and designed to injure. It's indefensible and should be suspendable. Unless you are going to argue that those types of things arent much risk to player safety?

Also, I meant to respond to our earlier conversation, but #thanksgiving got in the way . I agree with you, hockey is a hard sport to ref, and the stripes are not going to catch everything. I am also, for the record, not one that blames every loss on bad reffing/anti-Bruin bias because I see that shit happen to every single team in the league on almost a nightly basis. The league is woefully inconsistent with the reffing, and that is as much on the NHL as it is the individual officals.

All that said, something more should have been done about the crosscheck. You have four officials on the ice on a move that happened after the whistle. I find it incredible to believe that not one of them saw it for what it was. Manson did far less than that and got 5 and the gate. We have seen them call a major then back off of it, so why not the other way around? And we know they have access to the cameras. If league rules are in the way of them doing their jobs, then the rules need to change.

Further, if none of the officials on the ice were willing or felt able to make it more than 2 minutes, the league with all the cameras sure as hell should have addressed it via player safety. If Mac gets 4 games for that dirty move on Ekman-Larsson (and yes, that was indefensible as well), then this should have gotten something too. That is, ff they are taking player safety and trying to remove dangerous dirty plays from the game seriously.

 

[NDiesel]

That's trying too hard to remove the bias.

Not at all...go watch all the different angles, it's clear as day (to me at least, maybe you can show me something else), that he hits poitras in the body (chest/shoulder area) first and then rides up as the momentum continues. Just like a hit to the head, the principal point of contact matters.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The crosscheck in the face of Poitras was in the same ballpark- it was deliberate and designed to injure. It's indefensible and should be suspendable. Unless you are going to argue that those types of things arent much risk to player safety?

Also, I meant to respond to our earlier conversation, but #thanksgiving got in the way . I agree with you, hockey is a hard sport to ref, and the stripes are not going to catch everything. I am also, for the record, not one that blames every loss on bad reffing/anti-Bruin bias because I see that shit happen to every single team in the league on almost a nightly basis. The league is woefully inconsistent with the reffing, and that is as much on the NHL as it is the individual officals.

All that said, something more should have been done about the crosscheck. You have four officials on the ice on a move that happened after the whistle. I find it incredible to believe that not one of them saw it for what it was. Manson did far less than that and got 5 and the gate. We have seen them call a major then back off of it, so why not the other way around? And we know they have access to the cameras. If league rules are in the way of them doing their jobs, then the rules need to change.

Further, if none of the officials on the ice were willing or felt able to make it more than 2 minutes, the league with all the cameras sure as hell should have addressed it via player safety. If Mac gets 4 games for that dirty move on Ekman-Larsson (and yes, that was indefensible as well), then this should have gotten something too. That is, ff they are taking player safety and trying to remove dangerous dirty plays from the game seriously.

As NDiesel stated, principle point of contact was the shoulder, not the head.

And you don't really know it was an attempt to injure. Attempt to injure usually results in, ya know, injury.

 

[Dr Hook]

As NDiesel stated, principle point of contact was the shoulder, not the head.

And you don't really know it was an attempt to injure. Attempt to injure usually results in, ya know, injury.

No, attempts are attempts. Attempted murder doesn’t result in, ya know, murder. Anyway, we’ll just disagree on this. It isn’t the first time and I am sure it won’t be the last