Post-Game Talk: Capital Pains: Pens - 3, Caps - 4 (OT)

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

Uh oh... I stand corrected. Looks like they REALLY threw the book at Wilson, there. Fining the guy the amount of money he can dig up in his sofa is sure to send a strong message. I'm quite certain he'll think long and hard about that while he's two-handing Malkin over the left wrist next game. He might even feel a flash of concern over getting a phone call from his droog Campbell while he's getting an atta boy from his coach on the bench.

And for the people that say this is some sort of win because it gives him a paper trail or whatever. Please. Are you even watching the same league I am? Nothing will happen to Wilson or any other of his thuggish ilk until someone ends up in the hospital, suddenly without a career or both. And even then... it probably depends on how "olde tyme" of a hockey play it was that caused it. The league WANTS Tom Wilson to go out there and Tom Wilson. If they don't... they have the most backasswards way I've ever seen in showing it.

Whatever. I didn't expect anything to come of it, anyway. Might as well not dwell on it. It's an inevitable part of the game nearly every night the Penguins take the ice, these days.

 

[flaneur]

Trotz blames Sheary:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/29/tom-wilson-conor-sheary-fined-capitals-penguins/


They probably missed one in not fining or suspending Sheary.

blind homerism is not a good look on you Trotz.

 

[MtlPenFan]

F off Trotz, you Dick Tracy comics henchman.

I'm merciless when it comes to trash talking. Nothing is off limits. I have something in mind I'd tell him that would get me banned forever.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not a Pens fan, but I do lean towards them as my #2 team most of the time. I thought the call on the OT goal was extremely questionable but it's not the hot topic on the boards that I thought it would be today. So I thought I'd come to the most partisan place and see if there's anyone who agrees with me here.

Personally I feel like, if the video evidence confirms that's a goal, then please award the 2004 stanley cup to the Calgary Flames. I don't think you can conclusively see white ice between the entire puck and the goal line. You see the curve of the puck as it approaches the line and then it disappears under Murray's pad. there appears to be white ice but I think that's quite arguably the "side" of the puck, not the front of it, and you'd need to be sure you were seeing the front of it over the line.

That aside, I'm also curious what the official rule is. In a lot of cases (high sticks, goalie interference) you need conclusive evidence contrary to the call on the ice in order to overturn that call. Is it the exact same when it comes to whether the puck crossed the line? If the ref waved it off then they went upstairs, would that video evidence have been inconclusive and therefore his call would have stood? Or was that actually considered conclusive?

 

[SidDidNothingWrong]

It must be tought being Sullivan/Lemieux. The first thing I would do if I was one of them would be to pick up Lapierre or Cooke and have them break Wilson's leg. Take the suspension and say "sorry old time hockey." I understand the second action is always the one more picked apart I just find it so amazing how the players and coaches don't lose their cool.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

My understanding is that if it's called a goal on the ice... it takes conclusive evidence to overturn that call.

In this particular instance... the official who called it a goal was basically reacting to a celebration. Or he literally has superhuman vision and needs to immediately be thoroughly studied by the scientific and medical community as the possible next step in human evolution.

But it's more likely he called it a good goal because of Oshie's celly. Which is... well... what it is, I guess.

 

[seventieslord]

My understanding is that if it's called a goal on the ice... it takes conclusive evidence to overturn that call.

In this particular instance... the official who called it a goal was basically reacting to a celebration. Or he literally has superhuman vision and needs to immediately be thoroughly studied by the scientific and medical community as the possible next step in human evolution.

But it's more likely he called it a good goal because of Oshie's celly. Which is... well... what it is, I guess.

sounds like that's the wrong thing to do. if you aren't sure it went in, wave it off, wait for a stoppage, then look for video evidence to prove you were incorrect.

if a goal actually went in and you say it didn't and then the evidence is inconclusive, it's no goal. but you still left the team that truly scored, with a roughly 50% chance of winning.

if a goal actually didn't go in and you say it did, and the evidence is inconclusive, it's a goal. but you completely screwed the team that truly didn't get scored on, because now the game's over and they have a 0% chance at redemption.

seems like you should always err on the side of caution and call it no goal unless you literally see it cross the line with your own eyes. This ref didn't; he reacted to Oshie's celebration.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

sounds like that's the wrong thing to do. if you aren't sure it went in, wave it off, wait for a stoppage, then look for video evidence to prove you were incorrect.

I don't disagree with you one bit.

I don't think the Penguins get or have gotten even treatment for a while. Though that has more to do with on-ice thuggery than straight up botched goals/non goals. I just think the refs in this league are incompetent/corrupt in general and am not surprised (or often even really angered) by that much, anymore.

 

[66-30-33]

Trotz blames Sheary:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/29/tom-wilson-conor-sheary-fined-capitals-penguins/


They probably missed one in not fining or suspending Sheary.

Let's just beat them and keep making Trotz teams not go very far in the playoffs. I personally don't care what he says, he just made himself look like a complete idiot, now let's make him pay for his words. Once we win, we can blame it on Sheary as a shot back. Thanks for the fuel to the fire Trotz.

 

[66-30-33]

I'm not a Pens fan, but I do lean towards them as my #2 team most of the time. I thought the call on the OT goal was extremely questionable but it's not the hot topic on the boards that I thought it would be today. So I thought I'd come to the most partisan place and see if there's anyone who agrees with me here.

Personally I feel like, if the video evidence confirms that's a goal, then please award the 2004 stanley cup to the Calgary Flames. I don't think you can conclusively see white ice between the entire puck and the goal line. You see the curve of the puck as it approaches the line and then it disappears under Murray's pad. there appears to be white ice but I think that's quite arguably the "side" of the puck, not the front of it, and you'd need to be sure you were seeing the front of it over the line.

That aside, I'm also curious what the official rule is. In a lot of cases (high sticks, goalie interference) you need conclusive evidence contrary to the call on the ice in order to overturn that call. Is it the exact same when it comes to whether the puck crossed the line? If the ref waved it off then they went upstairs, would that video evidence have been inconclusive and therefore his call would have stood? Or was that actually considered conclusive?

I'm not worried about it, Pens should have won the game without going to OT. **** happens, who knows if the puck went in or not, angles are weird and there was no evidence it was in by overhead because of the goalie pad. Pens should worry about game 2.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

Here's something to chew on:

In Shanny's first year as head of DoPS -- 13 playoff suspensions. In the four years since then... 14 total. But I'm sure they all just REALLY learned their lesson that first year and the league has been thoroughly cleaned up since then, yeah?

But, ya know... we all had to listen to the league and every other fanbase for years (and to this damned day!) ***** and cry and moan about how THIS league is different. And there is NO place for your Matt Cooke here. No sir! We're just gonna have to make an example of him until he cleans up his act (and he actually did). See? We CARE about our players... look at what we did to Matt Cooke!

Welp *dusts hands off* -- job well done, fellas. Time to pack 'er in. What a successful witch hunt, that was! High fives!

 

[rintinw]

My understanding is that if it's called a goal on the ice... it takes conclusive evidence to overturn that call.

In this particular instance... the official who called it a goal was basically reacting to a celebration. Or he literally has superhuman vision and needs to immediately be thoroughly studied by the scientific and medical community as the possible next step in human evolution.

But it's more likely he called it a good goal because of Oshie's celly. Which is... well... what it is, I guess.

I think it was similar to Minnesota no goal during Game 6 against Dallas in Round 1 (link). But this time there was on ice goal call and no clear angle from the top.

 

[66-30-33]

Here's something to chew on:

In Shanny's first year as head of DoPS -- 13 playoff suspensions. In the four years since then... 14 total. But I'm sure they all just REALLY learned their lesson that first year and the league has been thoroughly cleaned up since then, yeah?

But, ya know... we all had to listen to the league and every other fanbase for years (and to this damned day!) ***** and cry and moan about how THIS league is different. And there is NO place for your Matt Cooke here. No sir! We're just gonna have to make an example of him until he cleans up his act (and he actually did). See? We CARE about our players... look at what we did to Matt Cooke!

Welp *dusts hands off* -- job well done, fellas. Time to pack 'er in. What a successful witch hunt, that was! High fives!

HF: Pens did not change Cooke, he knew if he injured another player he would be kicked out of the league.

^ Lol, that was their response to changing Cooke. He can't be changed because he's Matt Cooke even though we changed him.

 

[Ugene Magic]

Totally forgot I made this earlier.

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

I think it was similar to Minnesota no goal during Game 6 against Dallas in Round 1 (link). But this time there was on ice goal call and no clear angle from the top.

That seems about right, I'd say. Yeah.

HF: Pens did not change Cooke, he knew if he injured another player he would be kicked out of the league.

^ Lol, that was their response to changing Cooke. He can't be changed because he's Matt Cooke even though we changed him.

I mean... I was fine with the treatment Cooke got. I was tired of having his antics on my favorite team, as well. Same reason that I was done with Neal. It's a shame that he was so, so, so ridiculously good with an extremely important player on this team... but his recklessness was costing the team too often.

My point is the league-wide hypocrisy that has followed since then.

 

[madinsomniac]

Wilson now has a legit fine on his record... the next thing he does will be as a repeat offender... so there is that

 

[djt153]

Wilson now has a legit fine on his record... the next thing he does will be as a repeat offender... so there is that

a good point. so much of main thread is 'it wasnt dirty - he didnt get suspended!' when in fact he received the maximum fine allowable under the cba. also tons of moral equivalenceing instead of just admitting it was a garbage hit that would infuriate any fanbase on whose player was on the receiving end.

 

[The Old Master]

I'm not a Pens fan, but I do lean towards them as my #2 team most of the time. I thought the call on the OT goal was extremely questionable but it's not the hot topic on the boards that I thought it would be today. So I thought I'd come to the most partisan place and see if there's anyone who agrees with me here.

Personally I feel like, if the video evidence confirms that's a goal, then please award the 2004 stanley cup to the Calgary Flames. I don't think you can conclusively see white ice between the entire puck and the goal line. You see the curve of the puck as it approaches the line and then it disappears under Murray's pad. there appears to be white ice but I think that's quite arguably the "side" of the puck, not the front of it, and you'd need to be sure you were seeing the front of it over the line.

That aside, I'm also curious what the official rule is. In a lot of cases (high sticks, goalie interference) you need conclusive evidence contrary to the call on the ice in order to overturn that call. Is it the exact same when it comes to whether the puck crossed the line? If the ref waved it off then they went upstairs, would that video evidence have been inconclusive and therefore his call would have stood? Or was that actually considered conclusive?

we are still pissed at the fatty for lovejoy trade and you want to change the subject!!!!...we'll get around to it in 4 or 5 yr's.....maybe

 

[WhatsaMaatta]

The fact that the maximum allowable fine is 2400 and change just speaks volumes about the NHL's concern about player safety.

 

[Penguinator]

The fact that the maximum allowable fine is 2400 and change just speaks volumes about the NHL's concern about player safety.

Indeed, pocket change for most, no deterrent effect whatsoever.

 

[billybudd]

I'm not a Pens fan, but I do lean towards them as my #2 team most of the time. I thought the call on the OT goal was extremely questionable but it's not the hot topic on the boards that I thought it would be today.

Reality is there's no way of knowing without some sort of 3D mapping software. My gut says it's not in based on the replay that the NHL used to conclusively decide it was in (seems to me there's not enough white to account for parallax), but we'll never know for sure.

As screwjobs go, the five minute major we were robbed of because of Wilson's kneeing non-call was a lot bigger one than a goal I don't think was in, but am not sure about.

 

[#66]

Who cares about Wilson... go after Kuzy.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

Yes, my greatest hope is that the Pens completely forget about winning the series and try to get revenge.

That will show them.

 

[mpp9]

Who cares about Wilson... go after Kuzy.

I want to see Malkin own him in this series. I hope the coaching staff gets through to him about that. Malkin doesn't need to be a points machine at ES. Take that kid's time and space away like the Flyers did. I'll take our other three lines against the Caps'.

For all the talk about the Caps' depth, three of their bottom six players have yet to register a point. And I wouldn't plan on them putting up many among Richards, Winnik and Wilson.

 

[XanderCrews34]

Wish the dummies at the league office would realize calling penalties is...a good thing.

These old timers says "the players should decide the game!" to justify letting this crap go.

Well players DO decide the games. Always. But when you don't call penalties, you're just letting the talentless hacks decide the game by cheating. It's such a non-answer.