Post-Game Talk: ECQF GAME 1 - For the FIRST time since March 10th - FREE BEER!!! - B's 4 Whalercanes 3 F/2OT

[AngryMilkcrates]

Oh I see it all right, I just choose to ignore it

 

[TwineTickler]

The opponent has to take the puck away from a player for it to be a giveaway.

Interesting... I honestly didn't know that.

 

[Walkenthewalk]

Carolina fans whine more than Habs fans

No, never.

 

[lopey]

Canes fans still whining about that Coyle goal. Brindamour F'ed up. He challenge the wrong thing and lost. Ref called a good goal.

 

[Mick Riddleton]

Either Wagner or Nordstrom imo, I think Kuraly is kind of the engine of that line and I don't see who else would play 4C. Nordstrom did make two nice plays but those desperation defensive plays are only necessary because they were getting hemmed in their own zone. Ideally that's a line you hope to see at least hem the other opponents lines in with good forechecking and cycling, today they were chasing the play too often. I think that's why perhaps someone like Kuhlman is a good option to try. He's fast and works really hard, he just doesn't really have the hands to play in the top 9.

Cassidy and he would never consider it. Ritchie is struggling on the team, put Kuhlman in for him. Nordy had 5 shot blocks and 3 big hits and was excellent on the PK.

 

[Maine Fan]

No. You cannot challenge because you think a play should have been blown dead.lol that is not reviewable.

Had it been reviewed I think the goal would not have counted because the goalie had it long enough

 

[xStanleyCupsFor]

I was surprised to see the Canes outhitting the B's. They've got some new faces, but their rep in recent years hasn't been that of a nasty team.

They seemed to be more chippy last year. Maybe because of no Ferland? We'll see if things heat up.

 

[HumBucker]

Had it been reviewed I think the goal would not have counted because the goalie had it long enough

That was my initial impression, tbh. It looked like he had it covered, and if it had been Rask, I would have been furious over that goal. But the more replays I saw, I noticed, especially from the reverse angle, that Bjork's stick (with white tape on the blade, so it's harder to see) is there at about the same time Mrazek's glove tries to smother it. So, rather than a complaint based on Bjork whacking a "covered" puck loose, I think Bjork had as much of a right to make a play with the puck as Mrazek did – they got to it at the same time – and Bjork was able to make the play, while Mrazek wasn't. I think that's what the ref saw.

 

[Bruinator]

Had it been reviewed I think the goal would not have counted because the goalie had it long enough

Again determining whether or not the goaltender had covered the puck long enough is not a reviewable play so no the goal would not have been called back. There is no standard for how long you have to cover a puck up to get a whistle . Even if there was he never had it covered for more than a 1/2 second.

 

[Bruinator]

That was my initial impression, tbh. It looked like he had it covered, and if it had been Rask, I would have been furious over that goal. But the more replays I saw, I noticed, especially from the reverse angle, that Bjork's stick (with white tape on the blade, so it's harder to see) is there at about the same time Mrazek's glove tries to smother it. So, rather than a complaint based on Bjork whacking a "covered" puck loose, I think Bjork had as much of a right to make a play with the puck as Mrazek did – they got to it at the same time – and Bjork was able to make the play, while Mrazek wasn't. I think that's what the ref saw.

No question. Had Bjork been half a second sooner and touched the puck before mrazek the play would have been called no goal for hand pass

 

[Maine Fan]

That was my initial impression, tbh. It looked like he had it covered, and if it had been Rask, I would have been furious over that goal. But the more replays I saw, I noticed, especially from the reverse angle, that Bjork's stick (with white tape on the blade, so it's harder to see) is there at about the same time Mrazek's glove tries to smother it. So, rather than a complaint based on Bjork whacking a "covered" puck loose, I think Bjork had as much of a right to make a play with the puck as Mrazek did – they got to it at the same time – and Bjork was able to make the play, while Mrazek wasn't. I think that's what the ref saw.

Do ties go to the runner in this case, Bjork?

 

[Maine Fan]

Again determining whether or not the goaltender had covered the puck long enough is not a reviewable play so no the goal would not have been called back. There is no standard for how long you have to cover a puck up to get a whistle . Even if there was he never had it covered for more than a 1/2 second.

You have to admit it was exciting. Where would we have been without that goal. Bruins must play better, playoff hockey. Much better defense, Rask must get better, and the offense needs to tighten up. All for Playoff Hockey. Regular season hockey is over, has been for some time.