Post-Game Talk: Habs lose 3-2 to Sens Pt. Deux

[sandysan]

As for the bolded go look at all my posts I never complain about officiating this game was truly horrendous. I actually have been complaing about the officiating (to my brother) about the officiating in some of the other games but for the Habs no. I always try and be unbiased sometimes I'm a homer (obviously)

so your a whiner in real life and on the internet, nice work.

Officiating is subjective, those icing calls did not put the puck in the net. We had every chance to win those draws and score on the empty net. We didnt. if we had the chances of you lamenting that Karlsson dogged it are exactly zero. Its easy to go back in retrospect and say if they had done x,y,z they never would have scored but you know what that's noting but your opinion, which to be frank aint worth spit to me. its an argument that is entirely based on conjecture.

If you want to live in a purely fictional world where you can say with certainty what would have happened in these hypotheticals, be my guest but don't feign offense when others don't want to join you in that lunacy.

In a contest between what happened, and what could have or should have happened, the former always wins. The puck didnt cross the line with the icing whistle.

 

[Mrb1p]

As slow as Markov may have become, as old as he gets, Diaz still is nowhere near Markov in terms of stick work in the defensive, and in terms of passing. Markov is elite at both of those things, and it's probably the only aspects of his game keeping him a top-4 d-man.

Diaz still is weak defensively, physically, and offensively, in the offensive zone, I have yet to see him orchestrate scoring chances all by himself by doing a clever pinch or by making a cross-ice pass to the level of Markov's.

The only thing Diaz has on Markov is pure speed. But then, so has Campoli.

Fair enough... But how many times have you seen Diaz caught fatfooted at the blue line ? I really don't think Markov is a top 4 D on a good team.

 

[habs88]

so your a whiner in real life and on the internet, nice work.

Officiating is subjective, those icing calls did not put the puck in the net. We had every chance to win those draws and score on the empty net. We didnt. if we had the chances of you lamenting that Karlsson dogged it are exactly zero. Its easy to go back in retrospect and say if they had done x,y,z they never would have scored but you know what that's noting but your opinion, which to be frank aint worth spit to me. its an argument that is entirely based on conjecture.

If you want to live in a purely fictional world where you can say with certainty what would have happened in these hypotheticals, be my guest but don't feign offense when others don't want to join you in that lunacy.

In a contest between what happened, and what could have or should have happened, the former always wins. The puck didnt cross the line with the icing whistle.

This is why I steer away from arguing on these boards there's no reasoning with people like you lol. I'm a whiner because I didn't like the officiating? And by complaing about other games I meant about certain calls in other games you try to insult but like you said your opinion is worth spit. You say it's not the horrible refs who lost us the game I say I 50/50 agree Montreal could have finished them off but at the same time you can't say that those 2 bad icing calls in a row don't get called that Montreal doesnt win it.. They obviously would have but like I said keep thinking your some incredibly I'm depth person who knows all about hockey and never whines about refs(because refs always make the right call) and they did not lose us that game yesterday. Like you said my opinion doesn't mean spit to you so I can't see why you would answer this post.

 

[Max Power]

gryba sitting two for a hockey play gone bad ? The aforementioned elbow from bourque, a repeat offender who put a guy on lt IR doing the same thing ?

I though the goal would be disallowed but it could have gone either way. Blaming the loss on two non called icings is probably the worst case of being a whining petulant fan that I can remember.
These " beefs" only occur post facto, if after the first icing we win the draw and score on the empty net, my suspicion is that homers like you wouldnt be lamenting how that we scored a "disgusting goal" from a blown call.

any mistake that goes our way = great
any mistake that goes against us= evidence of some far reaching
conspiracy

have some damn pride and stop playing the victim and hope that the team follows suit.

Great to see some Habs fans who aren't pulling the conspiracy/martyr card. I totally understand fans feeling slighted when bad calls result in a very important blown game. Your point is dead on though that the Habs could have still pulled through with the bad call and/or the Sens could have still scored if the calls went the other way. That's what hockey's about. The losing team always has some bad call or play that they believe ruined the series for them. Most people can take off the rose colored glasses and suck it up, some just can't deal with it emotionally

Either way tough loss for you guys. The second period seems to be the Sens worse and Canadians best. I have a new found respect for Subban skill as well. He's much better then last year and I can see him competing for Norris for years to come. he's still annoying as hell with his animated yapping I can see some teammates finding him very annoying

 

[cupwatcher2014]

This is why I steer away from arguing on these boards there's no reasoning with people like you lol. I'm a whiner because I didn't like the officiating? And by complaing about other games I meant about certain calls in other games you try to insult but like you said your opinion is worth spit. You say it's not the horrible refs who lost us the game I say I 50/50 agree Montreal could have finished them off but at the same time you can't say that those 2 bad icing calls in a row don't get called that Montreal doesnt win it.. They obviously would have but like I said keep thinking your some incredibly I'm depth person who knows all about hockey and never whines about refs(because refs always make the right call) and they did not lose us that game yesterday. Like you said my opinion doesn't mean spit to you so I can't see why you would answer this post.

You just don't give up do you? What is an "I'm depth" person, by the way?

The refs did not bring about the loss. The Habs lost the game. Give it a break - all teams deal with adversity. The true winners are the ones who can take that adversity and nonetheless triumph.

 

[sandysan]

This is why I steer away from arguing on these boards there's no reasoning with people like you lol. I'm a whiner because I didn't like the officiating? And by complaing about other games I meant about certain calls in other games you try to insult but like you said your opinion is worth spit. You say it's not the horrible refs who lost us the game I say I 50/50 agree Montreal could have finished them off but at the same time you can't say that those 2 bad icing calls in a row don't get called that Montreal doesnt win it.. They obviously would have but like I said keep thinking your some incredibly I'm depth person who knows all about hockey and never whines about refs(because refs always make the right call) and they did not lose us that game yesterday. Like you said my opinion doesn't mean spit to you so I can't see why you would answer this post.

I'm fine with people being critical of officiating, but that's not what your position was. Your position was that those missed calls directly led to the goals, so much so that fans of the senators should only revel in a disgusting hockey win, whatever the hell that means.

Its easy to be an armchair quaterback and go back retrospectively to find things that led to a goal and assign them way more weight than they deserve, but it doesnt make you some sort of hockey savant.

if its not clear to you, bad calls happen all the time and fans who focus only on the ones that go against them and try to attribute losses exclusively to these calls, in retrospect get precisely the amount of respect they deserve, none.

 

[Poulet Kostopoulos]

The NHL is rooting for Anderson and Karlsson. People looove these guys. Also, what better way to raise the Sens' profile and promote the franchise than a gongshow of a series like this one? Not saying there is a conspiracy, but you are wrong when saying the NHL has nothing to gain.

Most importantly, if this were to happen to their team, they would not accept it, know that the there was no excuse for the reffing, and even the Team would not accept it. THAT'S how strongly the Habs were screwed over yesterday.

Those saying the icings had nothing to do with the outcome clearly haven't watched much hockey where MANY goals are scored after having an icing called against a tired team OR are just trying to make themselves feel good about the Sens win. It was KARLSSON skating in molasses! Hey, what happened to the 'best skater in the NHL'? Huh, apparently, it doesn't apply in circumstances like these.

Exactly. This is an old trick by the NHL: use controversies. Now, a much deeper hate/rivalry between the two teams and fanbases has been established. Montreal fanbase is known to be very emotional. The league exploit that for its purpose and it hopes that the Sens' rather relatively tepid/timid fanbase will now ignite.

Besides, Montreal's market is virtually saturated. Not so with Ottawa's.

 

[Habsawce]

Is there a set of unwritten rules of what fans are allowed to complain about? I don't get it, what is the harm in venting frustrations on a forum about events that make people feel upset, sad, slighted and so forth about the team they cheer for. Some people put a lot of their time and interest into sport teams and when you are that emotionally involved there are situations that are bound to get put into overdrive, it's natural and for some people to come on here and act like they're holier than thou is a bit much.

Instead of calling people whiners perhaps stop whining about people whining because the whining is annoying to us whiners that are whining about things that make us whiny.

 

[Habsawce]

Exactly. This is an old trick by the NHL: use controversies. Now, a much deeper hate/rivalry between the two teams and fanbases has been established. Montreal fanbase is known to be very emotional. They exploit that for its purpose and they hope that the Sens' rather relatively tepid/timid fanbase will now ignite.

Besides, Montreal's market is virtually saturated. Not so with Ottawa's.

I don't hate Ottawa or their fans, in fact I pity them since they don't even have a real hockey club. They play in a corn field for an owner who is best friends with Horatio Cane, how can we take them seriously no matter how many times they beat us!

 

[cupwatcher2014]

I'm fine with people being critical of officiating, but that's not what your position was. Your position was that those missed calls directly led to the goals, so much so that fans of the senators should only revel in a disgusting hockey win, whatever the hell that means.

Its easy to be an armchair quaterback and go back retrospectively to find things that led to a goal and assign them way more weight than they deserve, but it doesnt make you some sort of hockey savant.

if its not clear to you, bad calls happen all the time and fans who focus only on the ones that go against them and try to attribute losses exclusively to these calls, in retrospect get precisely the amount of respect they deserve, none.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am sure most others too would agree (at least the rational ones). However, the chances of you ever convincing Habs88 of your position is zero. Save your breath and your blood pressure too...

 

[le_sean]

fraser says

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=422689

Of course fans from all other teams will try and discredit one of the most respected referees of all-time.

 

[Mrb1p]

Of course fans from all other teams will try and discredit one of the most respected referees of all-time.

Ironically, they used him as an argument for the Gryba hit

Gotta love the double standard on HF

 

[sandysan]

Is there a set of unwritten rules of what fans are allowed to complain about? I don't get it, what is the harm in venting frustrations on a forum about events that make people feel upset, sad, slighted and so forth about the team they cheer for. Some people put a lot of their time and interest into sport teams and when you are that emotionally involved there are situations that are bound to get put into overdrive, it's natural and for some people to come on here and act like they're holier than thou is a bit much.

Instead of calling people whiners perhaps stop whining about people whining because the whining is annoying to us whiners that are whining about things that make us whiny.

I'm fine with people arguing about officiating, I personally thought it would be called back. I was wrong, not the first time wont be the last.

What I dont like is that when things go south people attributing it to something with the assumption that there is a causal relationship between the two. I didnt like that karlsson dogged it to milk a call, but we still could have won the draw and then scored into the empty net. I dont care how strongly someone truely beleives that had they not called those icings we would have won but its completely based on conjecture. I try not to enable people who think their beleifs trump reality.

 

[Habsawce]

Of course fans from all other teams will try and discredit one of the most respected referees of all-time.

Good morning Kerry,

I'm sure your InBox is being flooded with questions about Ottawa's (kicked-in or not kicked-in) first goal in the third period of game four against Montreal. What is your opinion, and how did the war room decide it was a good goal?

In my untrained opinion, it appears Mika Zibanejad made no attempt to play the puck with his stick. It also appears that his front skate was not completely on the ice, as it would be during an attempt to stop. Immediately following the puck making contact with his skate, his skate is lower to the ice. Would this not constitute a kicking motion? Considering these two points, how is the determination made that this was NOT a "distinct kicking motion?"

Thanks for your insight. Keep up the great work.

Kevin Monk

Kevin:

C'Mon Ref received over 100 e-mails on the very question you asked. This was not an easy call for the Situation Room to make. The quick answer however is that Mika Zibanejad did NOT utilize a natural stopping motion with his left skate as he entered Carey Price's goal crease and focused on the incoming puck. Instead Zibanejad demonstrated a turn of that skate toward the net coupled with a distinct forward motion toward the goal as he contacted the puck. NO GOAL!

First, it is next to impossible for the Referee on the ice to determine if Mika Zibanejad made a "distinct kicking motion" to propel the puck into the goal. The Referee appropriately pointed once the puck entered the net.

The deliberation of any illegal move Zibanejad made in real-time speed could only be detected through video review and best demonstrated on the overhead camera angle. That's where the damming evidence of Mika Zibanejad's skate action is best found. While every play is unique and must be judged on its own merit I have seen similar plays where video review has disallowed goals scored in this fashion.

When the play (video link) was being reviewed I was immediately asked my perspective on the goal by James Duthie and Steve Dryden. I advised them that the forward motion of Mika Zibanejad's skate as demonstrated in the overhead camera should result in a disallowed goal. Former players believe that Zibanejad performed an athletic play as he contacted the puck the blade of his stick first and then his skate to direct or deflect the puck into the goal.
While that might be true (athletic play) the fact remains that under the current rule a forward motion of the skate toward the net has more often than not be ruled as a "distinct kicking motion." Rule 38.4 defines "A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his sakte into the net."

The majority of personnel that staff the War Room in Toronto (good people to a man) are former players who bring a player's perspective from their experience. While they know what it takes to make the play they have never had to make a ruling or decisions from the perspective of a Referee. Our different career experience and job responsibilities can often cause us to view things from a different perspective.

The Situation Room should at the very least include staffing by former Referees to assist in making these types of decisions; ones they made throughout their career on the ice.

My first choice however would be to allow the Referee(s) on the ice to review the play from a secured location to determine the legality of these types of goals in addition to goalie interference. They get paid to make the tough calls and decisions of this nature are just part of their job description.

Interesting indeed.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

Lots of positives this year.

Galchenyuk, Eller, Emelin, Subban, Tinordi and Beaulieu all kept progressing nicely.

A quick turn around from the basement.

Yes, this series is going horrible wrong, but the future is bright.

Something must be done about injuries. Every single year this team is plagued and this has gone on for many years. This isn't statistically probable at all, something's up or we're just insanely unlucky.

 

[Mrb1p]

Something must be done about injuries. Every single year this team is plagued and this has gone on for many years. This isn't statistically probable at all, something's up or we're just insanely unlucky.

Or out of shape ?

 

[sandysan]

Or out of shape ?

or we ignore the " you must be this tall to ride the NHL playoffs" sign?

 

[habs88]

I agree wholeheartedly. I am sure most others too would agree (at least the rational ones). However, the chances of you ever convincing Habs88 of your position is zero. Save your breath and your blood pressure too...

You people are getting way to angry reading my posts. You are acting as if I should be humble about the refs officiating the way they did yesterday? That's your opinion not mine mine is that is a disgusting win, would I have taken it of course. I'm not saying the habs couldn't have won that game despite the bad calls I'm saying there were bad calls that ALMOST directly led to the loss if you can't see that then your avoiding it because you don't want to sound like a whining baby. Like I said I don't care what if you think I'm a whining you I have two people non stop whining about my comments telling me to stop whining? Hypocritical much? So I guess that means you deserve no respect because you voiced an opinion. People forget what these boards are about.

 

[Mrb1p]

or we ignore the " you must be this tall to ride the NHL playoffs" sign?

Only two of our 4 midjets have been injured.

 

[MSLs absurd thighs]

Gallagher hasn't been playing protected minutes like Galchenyuk does. It's a complete injustice to judge Gallagher by just looking at +/-. It's pretty much like judging Plek by +/-. Plek is -3, you think DD has been better, with a +1?

Well, it means that if he has this +/- by playing "normal" minutes, he might need some "training wheels" too... Just like most of this team, before even suggesting Galchenyuk needs some...

 

[habs88]

I'm fine with people arguing about officiating, I personally thought it would be called back. I was wrong, not the first time wont be the last.

What I dont like is that when things go south people attributing it to something with the assumption that there is a causal relationship between the two. I didnt like that karlsson dogged it to milk a call, but we still could have won the draw and then scored into the empty net. I dont care how strongly someone truely beleives that had they not called those icings we would have won but its completely based on conjecture. I try not to enable people who think their beleifs trump reality.

Your logic is that even though the refs made bad calls we could have prevailed you can say that about any bad call doesn't make it right. The poster you are quoting Is right and your acting "holier than thou" as if you are so much more respectable because you don't care the refs made really bad calls.

So to sum it up you say I'm a moron and can't be respected the way I think

I say your not passionate about the game..

 

[Habssince89]

So getting away from the crap last night, how do you guys feel about how we scored on Anderson? Same corner, same delay? Have we found a weakness?

 

[habs88]

Good morning Kerry,

I'm sure your InBox is being flooded with questions about Ottawa's (kicked-in or not kicked-in) first goal in the third period of game four against Montreal. What is your opinion, and how did the war room decide it was a good goal?

In my untrained opinion, it appears Mika Zibanejad made no attempt to play the puck with his stick. It also appears that his front skate was not completely on the ice, as it would be during an attempt to stop. Immediately following the puck making contact with his skate, his skate is lower to the ice. Would this not constitute a kicking motion? Considering these two points, how is the determination made that this was NOT a "distinct kicking motion?"

Thanks for your insight. Keep up the great work.

Kevin Monk

Kevin:

C'Mon Ref received over 100 e-mails on the very question you asked. This was not an easy call for the Situation Room to make. The quick answer however is that Mika Zibanejad did NOT utilize a natural stopping motion with his left skate as he entered Carey Price's goal crease and focused on the incoming puck. Instead Zibanejad demonstrated a turn of that skate toward the net coupled with a distinct forward motion toward the goal as he contacted the puck. NO GOAL!

First, it is next to impossible for the Referee on the ice to determine if Mika Zibanejad made a "distinct kicking motion" to propel the puck into the goal. The Referee appropriately pointed once the puck entered the net.

The deliberation of any illegal move Zibanejad made in real-time speed could only be detected through video review and best demonstrated on the overhead camera angle. That's where the damming evidence of Mika Zibanejad's skate action is best found. While every play is unique and must be judged on its own merit I have seen similar plays where video review has disallowed goals scored in this fashion.

When the play (video link) was being reviewed I was immediately asked my perspective on the goal by James Duthie and Steve Dryden. I advised them that the forward motion of Mika Zibanejad's skate as demonstrated in the overhead camera should result in a disallowed goal. Former players believe that Zibanejad performed an athletic play as he contacted the puck the blade of his stick first and then his skate to direct or deflect the puck into the goal.
While that might be true (athletic play) the fact remains that under the current rule a forward motion of the skate toward the net has more often than not be ruled as a "distinct kicking motion." Rule 38.4 defines "A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his sakte into the net."

The majority of personnel that staff the War Room in Toronto (good people to a man) are former players who bring a player's perspective from their experience. While they know what it takes to make the play they have never had to make a ruling or decisions from the perspective of a Referee. Our different career experience and job responsibilities can often cause us to view things from a different perspective.

The Situation Room should at the very least include staffing by former Referees to assist in making these types of decisions; ones they made throughout their career on the ice.

My first choice however would be to allow the Referee(s) on the ice to review the play from a secured location to determine the legality of these types of goals in addition to goalie interference. They get paid to make the tough calls and decisions of this nature are just part of their job description.




Interesting indeed.

Yup he just sees what everybody else sees, it clear as day to be honest

 

[void]

@ian_mendes:
Eric Gryba: "We can smell blood. We can taste blood. And it's time to put them away."

 

[David Suzuki]

@ian_mendes:
Eric Gryba: "We can smell blood. We can taste blood. And it's time to put them away."