Post-Game Talk: Controversy, thy name is Bruins vs Jets; Jets win 5-4 in SO

[Mortimer Snerd]

Say what you want but most nhl coaches would have challenged that play. Btw there was way more that I hope there was an angle.

When all that was lost for a failed challenge was a timeout, yes. Now? I sure hope not. I hope Maurice has learned his lesson.

 

[Gnova]

Since they put in the bench minor for a failed challenge there should never be a challenge if there is doubt. The price has been made too high. That one was way too close to challenge. There was no hint of white between the puck and the blueline. Might another angle have shown it out? Maybe, but not likely. Coach has to weigh the odds of success - and remember, it has to be very clear in order to overturn the original call.

If it had been 5v5 I would have been more okay with the challenge but a iffy challenge that will put you 5v3 for 2 full minutes if it doesnt go your way isn't a good gamble.

EDIT: I get bonus points for the run on sentence.

 

[Howard Chuck]

Why? Both feet were way off the ice. The hit was high. If it was not direct to the head it was only by luck. That was the kind of dangerous hit that needs to be removed from the game.

I'm not hating Morrissey for it. He is not a dirty player. He made a mistake. But Grzelcyk could easily have been badly injured.

How would you feel about it if the shoe was on the other foot, if Morrissey had been hit like that by a Bruins player?

Did you see the slow motion replay previously in this thread? Morrissey was clearly coasting and reaching for the puck. Any contact to the head was because Grz ducked. Morrissey was in a very awkward position when Grz turned and ducked. There was nothing about that hit that even meritted a 5 min major. If the player hadn't been hurt, it wouldn't have even been a penalty.

 

[Positive]

You disagree that 1.0 goals is not larger than 0.5 goals (which is the estimated 'cost' of turning 2 minutes of 5v4 into 2 minutes of 5v3)?

Like, in terms of goals, the downside of a failed challenge can never hurt you more than the upside of a successful challenge.

Don't get me wrong, I'll happily hear arguments that it's nowhere near 50-50, I mean, that's a skill that you trust your video crew to work on over time.

But a lot of people are saying you need to be 100% or near it. That's just not right.

For what it's worth, I agree with you; it doesn't need to be anywhere near 100% if the consequence is just a 5-on-4.

I'm pretty much going to restate everything you said. The reward linked to a successful challenge = 1 goal.

The penalty (literally and figuratively) of an unsuccessful challenge is <= 1 goal, depending on your teams' penalty kill efficiency, and the opposing teams' power play efficiency.

If the unsuccessful challenge results in a 5-on-4, I would take a 50/50 coin toss every single time, given that PK percentages lie at about 80%. (Theoretically then, a coach in this situation should challenge if the odds of it being successful are anything better than 20%)

However, it gets hazy when we're talking about the consequence being a 5-on-3 for two full minutes. Not a guaranteed goal against still, but the odds of being scored on skyrocket up from 20%.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

If it had been 5v5 I would have been more okay with the challenge but a iffy challenge that will put you 5v3 for 2 full minutes if it doesnt go your way isn't a good gamble.

EDIT: I get bonus points for the run on sentence.

Even in different circumstances, I think the challenge should only happen now when you know you will win. Otherwise the cost is too high.

I don't like the price they have put on a failed challenge. It is disproportionate. They chose that over changing the rule so that the skate didn't have to be on the ice. It means that they are accepting goals counting after a blown call as long as it was close. A very minor adjustment to the rule creates a rule that can be enforced accurately and consistently.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Did you see the slow motion replay previously in this thread? Morrissey was clearly coasting and reaching for the puck. Any contact to the head was because Grz ducked. Morrissey was in a very awkward position when Grz turned and ducked. There was nothing about that hit that even meritted a 5 min major. If the player hadn't been hurt, it wouldn't have even been a penalty.

Yes, I saw it in slo-mo. Definitely made a difference.

 

[BrokerD]

I loved that the Jets managed to pull out a win in that game.

I really love how salty the B board is about the loss.

I don't think they realize that the Jets are missing 3 starting D either when they are lamenting injuries.

Having been wrong some time in the past does not excuse being wrong again.

But having seen it in slo-mo now it just isn't nearly as bad as I thought. Not only did Grzelcyk turn but he crouched. Morrissey then came off his feet as a result of going over the low target.

Plus, you can see Josh put his hands up afterwards like WTF. He wanted to finish his check hard but Grzelcyk was the one with the bonehead play IMO

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Plus, you can see Josh put his hands up afterwards like WTF. He wanted to finish his check hard but Grzelcyk was the one with the bonehead play IMO

I'm not sure I would want to go this far but the snow shower from JoMo's skates might even indicate he tried to pull up. Think I will just settle for it not being the bad hit I had thought it was at full speed though.

 

[HannuJ]

I am. The optics of the hit make it look worse than it actually was.

The 5 minute penalty was a sufficient enough punishment.

you should probably reconsider your position.
the optics were that it was a hit as the clock expired. it was a boarding call and rightly so. Morrissey had intent to injure. he's lucky he wasn't tossed and I am surprised if the NHL doesn't review the hit.
hits like that have zero place in hockey and, frankly, i'm surprised that anyone would defend that kind of hit.
but you do you.

 

[b in vancouver]

Despite most likely disagreeing about the Morrissey hit and how the ref called it a goal in the first place... that's hockey. (try not to respond to this part - lol)

Hasn't changed. Wish you guys the best of luck this year and hope you go on a long playoff run. These two teams in The Finals would give us the best on best intense hockey we've seen since The Hawks and Bruins met in The Finals. Hopefully both teams get healthy (no word on Grzlecyk - fingers crossed he's not concussed) - as they're probably the two deepest talented teams in the league and play intense hockey. Would be great if either team won this year.

 

[BrokerD]

I'm not sure I would want to go this far but the snow shower from JoMo's skates might even indicate he tried to pull up. Think I will just settle for it not being the bad hit I had thought it was at full speed though.

I'm ok with that

 

[None]

you should probably reconsider your position.
the optics were that it was a hit as the clock expired. it was a boarding call and rightly so. Morrissey had intent to injure. he's lucky he wasn't tossed and I am surprised if the NHL doesn't review the hit.
hits like that have zero place in hockey and, frankly, i'm surprised that anyone would defend that kind of hit.
but you do you.

So what's the ideal situation here? You want the team to stop playing as hard when the clock is running down? It's definitely boarding, there's no question there, but intent? I don't see intent to injure here at all. Prove that there was intent with just the video, because that's all the NHL can really account for in their reviews. You can argue all day that he was getting revenge for Scheifele but with only video it becomes a case of objectivity.

People aren't defending the hit necessarily, the most common argument that I've read is that Grzelcyk made it worse by turning away from it.

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

He committed to the hit b4 the D man turns. Not sure what you can do in that situation. Im not sure he gets suspended... He committs b4 he turns. Looks like its gonna be shoulder to shoulder... Bruin player stopd dead in his tracks while Josh is already committed to the hit.

My issue is that he left his feet.
That's a dumb play no matter what.
I wouldn't have a problem if they suspended him for a game or two.
This game always gets played.
Fans of injured player scream for vengeance and punishment.
Fans of the offending team always look for angles to show that the player turned into it.
Reality can be either and in this case the angle Josh takes and the fact that he leaves his feet makes it dangerous and a penalty either way.

 

[HannuJ]

So what's the ideal situation here? You want the team to stop playing as hard when the clock is running down? It's definitely boarding, there's no question there, but intent? I don't see intent to injure here at all. Prove that there was intent with just the video, because that's all the NHL can really account for in their reviews. You can argue all day that he was getting revenge for Scheifele but with only video it becomes a case of objectivity.

People aren't defending the hit necessarily, the most common argument that I've read is that Grzelcyk made it worse by turning away from it.

ah yes, the old "made it worse by turning argument."
even if you are correct, it still does not make it a clean or smart hit.
a D-man boarded a forward behind his own net as the clock expired. he comes from the left D and skates into the right corner.
Morrissey's also a smart player, so he likely knew how much time was/wasn't on the clock.

if you don't see the malicious intent here, i don't know what else i can say.
i love the Jets but when Trouba was headhunting last season, i hated it and hated him for it. What Morrissey did yesterday was 100% wrong. zero justification. none. not only did it almost cost his team points, but it may have injured a player.

it's just a gross hit, plain and simple. Yes, Grz made it worse - much worse - with his spin and duck move, but i don't know how you can't argue that there was intent to hurt (not necessarily injure) and it was done with zero consequence on the play.



the Bruins' guys are actually balanced in what they say. yes, Grz ducked but Morrissey is still accountable for what he did

 

[SensibleGuy]

the Bruins' guys are actually balanced in what they say. yes, Grz ducked but Morrissey is still accountable for what he did

yeah, and he got a 5 minute penalty for it. Case closed...

 

[None]

ah yes, the old "made it worse by turning argument."
even if you are correct, it still does not make it a clean or smart hit.
a D-man boarded a forward behind his own net as the clock expired. he comes from the left D and skates into the right corner.
Morrissey's also a smart player, so he likely knew how much time was/wasn't on the clock.

if you don't see the malicious intent here, i don't know what else i can say.
i love the Jets but when Trouba was headhunting last season, i hated it and hated him for it. What Morrissey did yesterday was 100% wrong. zero justification. none. not only did it almost cost his team points, but it may have injured a player.

it's just a gross hit, plain and simple. Yes, Grz made it worse - much worse - with his spin and duck move, but i don't know how you can't argue that there was intent to hurt (not necessarily injure) and it was done with zero consequence on the play.

the Bruins' guys are actually balanced in what they say. yes, Grz ducked but Morrissey is still accountable for what he did

Morrissey comes from the slot, he knows how much time is on the clock, he sees the Bruins are playing low and collapsing (also likely a result of the clock). He likely knows there's very little chance of an odd-man rush with the time left and it's safe for him to be that far into the offensive zone because of that.

Watch the video, Morrissey doesn't lead with his shoulder/elbow/whatever; he's opening his arms as if he wants to wrap Gryzelcyk up. I don't see any intent to hurt, nor injure. The consequence was a 5 minute major against the Jets.

 

[Howard Chuck]

ah yes, the old "made it worse by turning argument."
even if you are correct, it still does not make it a clean or smart hit.
a D-man boarded a forward behind his own net as the clock expired. he comes from the left D and skates into the right corner.
Morrissey's also a smart player, so he likely knew how much time was/wasn't on the clock.

if you don't see the malicious intent here, i don't know what else i can say.
i love the Jets but when Trouba was headhunting last season, i hated it and hated him for it. What Morrissey did yesterday was 100% wrong. zero justification. none. not only did it almost cost his team points, but it may have injured a player.

it's just a gross hit, plain and simple. Yes, Grz made it worse - much worse - with his spin and duck move, but i don't know how you can't argue that there was intent to hurt (not necessarily injure) and it was done with zero consequence on the play.



the Bruins' guys are actually balanced in what they say. yes, Grz ducked but Morrissey is still accountable for what he did

We will just have to agree to disagree. I still think that Josh was going for the puck all along, he was certaily reaching for it. I don't know a single player that tries to board someone with their chest and face. He jumped from trying to stop so quickly at the very end when grz turned and ducked.

I think if there was no injury, it wouldn't even have been a penalty.

 

[CorgisPer60]

The charging rule leaves a little bit open to interpretation, but the way it's been enforced since they changed it was always that you have to jump into contact. Leaving the ice after contact is made is fine based on how it's enforced.

There's a hit from years ago, Bogosian against the Hurricanes where he wasn't suspended and he was 2-3 feet into the air after contact, I remember there was a little controversy over that at the time.

I remember that hit cleanly. It was massive. I kind of want someone to create a shooting star meme out of it.

 

[Ducky10]

you should probably reconsider your position.
the optics were that it was a hit as the clock expired. it was a boarding call and rightly so. Morrissey had intent to injure. he's lucky he wasn't tossed and I am surprised if the NHL doesn't review the hit.
hits like that have zero place in hockey and, frankly, i'm surprised that anyone would defend that kind of hit.
but you do you.

Oh Morrissey had intent to injure, you know this do you? I think you are vastly in the minority on that opinion, but go ahead and take your moral high ground.

The NHL reviewed it, no further discipline, rightly so. Plays like that happen sometimes, usually not as a result of someone trying to intentionally injure another player. It was boarding, nothing more.

 

[None]

I remember that hit cleanly. It was massive. I kind of want someone to create a shooting star meme out of it.

That's the one I was thinking of, he had another big hit either in the same game or another against the Hurricanes the same season.
And a sidenote: Mike Johnson is a great colour commentator.

 

[scelaton]

if you don't see the malicious intent here, i don't know what else i can say.
i love the Jets but when Trouba was headhunting last season, i hated it and hated him for it. What Morrissey did yesterday was 100% wrong. zero justification. none. not only did it almost cost his team points, but it may have injured a player.

it's just a gross hit, plain and simple. Yes, Grz made it worse - much worse - with his spin and duck move, but i don't know how you can't argue that there was intent to hurt (not necessarily injure) and it was done with zero consequence on the play.

There is nothing more you need to say, but that doesn't make you right.
"Malicious" usually implies an aspect of premeditated cruelty and intention to do harm. I find that insinuation, and the rest of your characterization, highly exaggerated. So does the NHL DPS, apparently.

NHL hockey is full of hard hits within the rules and Morrissey's intention, IMO, was to reciprocate the legal hit on Scheifele. To my eyes, his momentum took him over the top when the player turned and slid downward. There is nothing in the hit-gone-wrong, in Morrissey's history, or his character that justifies calling it malicious.

 

[StaticPrevails]

I remember that hit cleanly. It was massive. I kind of want someone to create a shooting star meme out of it.

I will never not laugh at this gif

 

[Evil Little]

Did you see the slow motion replay previously in this thread? Morrissey was clearly coasting and reaching for the puck. Any contact to the head was because Grz ducked. Morrissey was in a very awkward position when Grz turned and ducked. There was nothing about that hit that even meritted a 5 min major. If the player hadn't been hurt, it wouldn't have even been a penalty.

I've completely changed my tune since last night. I thought it was bad, but after having seen the clip from the Jack Edwards crybaby feed, it's abundantly clear to me that Morrissey had very few options after Grzlecyk started falling.

 

[Board Bard]

Wow, looked way worse at full speed. Almost looks like Morrisey makes awkward contact then falls forward. Not defending the hit but it doesn't look as bad as it originally did.

Yeah, looks like his skates don't leave the ice until he actually makes contact with the guy, and it's more a case of he's basically tripping over the guy at that point than trying to nail him.

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

I had a B-Day last week and a couple of items from my in-laws made me laugh.
First the card.

Then these socks

Sounds about right

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

I just wonder, why they still put Little first in the shootout... Ehlers or Connor should always be first, they're more intriguing and would hate to go against them if I were a goaltender.

Also, Myers needs to improve his quick thinking. He doesn't expect to get the puck, and then is clueless the second it hits his stick. I think he has the potential to be so much better than that. It nearly cost the team in overtime.

Otherwise, Tanev had an amazing game and I believe he should be dressed in the next game. The team played great.

I think Comrie should get the start next game, Chicago could be a little bit of a rewarding challenge for him, with Kane, Toews, Saad, and Keith on that bad team.

Ehlers is like 2 for 120 on general breakaways????
Why would he be your first shooter????
Little was 3 / 5 going into that shot.