IF the Sharks go on to win the Cup...

would it be received in the same way the Stars Cup Win in 1999 was?


  • Total voters
    105
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Duck Knight

Henry, you're our only hope!
Feb 6, 2012
8,060
4,520
702
I don't think they will (they are the Sharks after all), but no it's not tainted unless something similar were to happen a couple more times along the way.

It was an epically shit call and hopefully it paves the way for the very simple solution of reviewing all major penalties to stop it from ever happening again.
 
Last edited:

Bizz

2023 LTIR Loophole* Cup Champions
Oct 17, 2007
10,931
6,571
San Jose
I don't think the Stars win in 1999 was tainted though.

The skate in crease rule was one of the dumbest rules in NHL history and barely lasted an entire season.

The Gretzky high stick non-call in 1993 was worse than both of them combined.
 

vippe

Registered User
Mar 18, 2008
14,234
1,184
Sweden
No... it's not gonna be a tainted cup.. It's a silly thing to say.

Knights had numerous chances to end this series in both game 6 and 7 but didnt, and the Sharks got a massive break in the end of game 7 and took advantage. Not once but 4 times during the same PP.. what is up with that.. shouldnt happen.
 

Dr Good Vibes

Registered User
Jan 18, 2010
2,441
877
People are acting like a major penalty is an automatic three or four goals against. I’m super impressed the sharks pulled it off, 99/100 times a team scores one or something and still lose.

Not tainted at all. Not a major, and a bad call, but let’s recognize the pure INSANITY that is scoring four goals on a five minute major.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
96,405
30,657
Las Vegas
Let's not. If San Jose gets through and soldiers their way to the cup they deserve to be champions. This is not comparable to a controversial goal scored in an overtime of a game 6 At that point an entire playoff run had been played with only the possibility of one more game to be played had the result gone the other way.

Were San Jose to go on a run to win a cup that requires at least 12 more games. Games they'll have to battle in and earn wins.

I don't think this was the right call and I think it swung the game in their favor as we should not have been penalty killing for more than one goal. But. Given the circumstances, the Knights needed to be better on the PK. Given the circumstances, they needed to put the puck away when Jones left the net open three times in the first period of game 6...dominating the shot count means jack shit if they get one past your goalie in OT, given the circumstances Vegas should've put more effort into their skating and passing in Game 5. Game 7 had a terrible call, but not all of the blame can rest at the refs feet here and if San Jose does indeed go on to become champions, they'll have earned it through three more series of battle.

The 99 goal call was outcome determinative to a championship. This was not. San Jose is very much at as much risk as any other team still alive to be eliminated on the way.
 

Leidi J

Registered User
Jan 28, 2012
3,930
21
Columbus, Ohio
Didn't even vote because it wouldn't be tainted at all. It's the first round... IF they went on to win they would have gotten past 3 more formidable teams and will have earned it.
 

AaronDellForPrez

RF Modulator
Dec 29, 2009
2,162
1,082
New Zealand, South Island
Officially: "Series supervisor Don VanMassenhoven said the major penalty was given because the cross-check caused a significant injury."

A penalty that would have been only 2, became a 5 minute major, because it caused a significant injury. It isn't rocket surgery. Minor penalties that cause significant injuries become majors.

I know people are emotional right now, but saying this is a "bad call" seems to be trying to work Eakin's intent into this. Eakin didn't mean for Pavelski to be that badly injured, obviously. But his minor yet obvious infraction became a major because it caused a significant injury (official wording).

Some are suggesting everyone fall down and act injured at every minor penalty then, if that is how the rule is - but there is already a penalty for that - it is called diving or embellishment. Pavelski was not embellishing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeofjive

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
96,405
30,657
Las Vegas
Officially: "Series supervisor Don VanMassenhoven said the major penalty was given because the cross-check caused a significant injury."

A penalty that would have been only 2, became a 5 minute major, because it caused a significant injury. It isn't rocket surgery. Minor penalties that cause significant injuries become majors.

I know people are emotional right now, but saying this is a "bad call" seems to be trying to work Eakin's intent into this. Eakin didn't mean for Pavelski to be that badly injured, obviously. But his minor yet obvious infraction became a major because it caused a significant injury (official wording).

Some are suggesting everyone fall down and act injured at every minor penalty then, if that is how the rule is - but there is already a penalty for that - it is called diving or embellishment. Pavelski was not embellishing.
The standard is not whether or not it caused an injury but the severity of the contact.

59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5).

I mean for the purposes of this thread, I'm on record as saying if the Sharks win it will be because they earned it. But the explanation the refs gave doesn't match the rule.

EDIT: I just ctl+f'd through the rule book for significant injury and that term isn't even in the rulebook. But serious injury is. The only time it comes up is in these rules:

8.1 Injured Player: ...In the case where it is obvious that a player has sustained a serious injury, the Referee and/or Linesman may stop the play immediately.

32.5 Stopping Play - The Linesman shall stop play: (ii) When he deems that a player has sustained a serious injury and this has gone undetected by either of the Referees

39.2 Minor Penalty – A minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct shall be assessed under this rule for the following infractions: (iii) Any player or players who bang the boards with their sticks or other objects at any time, or who, in any manner show disrespect for an official’s decision. If this is done in order to get the attention of the on - ice officials for a legitimate reason (i.e. serious injury, illness, etc.), then discretion must be exercised by the Referees.

39.3 Bench Minor Penalty - A bench minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct shall be assessed under this rule for the following infractions: (i) Any Coach or non-playing person who bangs the boards with a stick or other object at any time, showing disrespect for an official’s decision. If this is done in order to get the attention of the on-ice officials for a legitimate reason (i.e. serious injury, illness, etc.), then discretion must be exercised by the Referees


The term is never used in concert with the standards set for major penalties or penalties involving cross checks.
 
Last edited:

AaronDellForPrez

RF Modulator
Dec 29, 2009
2,162
1,082
New Zealand, South Island
The standard is not whether or not it caused an injury but the severity of the contact.

59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5).

I mean for the purposes of this thread, I'm on record as saying if the Sharks win it will be because they earned it. But the explanation the refs gave doesn't match the rule.

EDIT: I just ctl+f'd through the rule book for significant injury and that term isn't even in the rulebook. But serious injury is. The only time it comes up is in these rules:

8.1 Injured Player: ...In the case where it is obvious that a player has sustained a serious injury, the Referee and/or Linesman may stop the play immediately.

32.5 Stopping Play - The Linesman shall stop play: (ii) When he deems that a player has sustained a serious injury and this has gone undetected by either of the Referees

39.2 Minor Penalty – A minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct shall be assessed under this rule for the following infractions: (iii) Any player or players who bang the boards with their sticks or other objects at any time, or who, in any manner show disrespect for an official’s decision. If this is done in order to get the attention of the on - ice officials for a legitimate reason (i.e. serious injury, illness, etc.), then discretion must be exercised by the Referees.

39.3 Bench Minor Penalty - A bench minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct shall be assessed under this rule for the following infractions: (i) Any Coach or non-playing person who bangs the boards with a stick or other object at any time, showing disrespect for an official’s decision. If this is done in order to get the attention of the on-ice officials for a legitimate reason (i.e. serious injury, illness, etc.), then discretion must be exercised by the Referees


The term is never used in concert with the standards set for major penalties or penalties involving cross checks.


I was just meaning "officially' as in the "Series Supervisor" in an official, and that was his "official" explanation.

Isn't contact "severe" if it results in a serious injury? But now we are getting into semantics and philosophy.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
96,405
30,657
Las Vegas
I was just meaning "officially' as in the "Series Supervisor" in an official, and that was his "official" explanation.

Isn't contact "severe" if it results in a serious injury? But now we are getting into semantics and philosophy.
I mean if the contact was directly to the head and caused injury, sure. But Eakin's crosscheck was through the chest and caused Pavelski to lose his balance into Stastny who also started to lose his balance as a result and changed Pavs' fall trajectory from the side onto his back. The contact ensued because of the pinball effect that, yes, started because of Eakin's initial contact but was ultimately an unfortunate freak sequence. Just off what ordinarily happens, crosschecks tend to only get major penalties when they are vicious strikes...as in elbows cocked back and then a full force strike with the shaft of the stick, often up high. Eakin pushed through Pavelski's body, and yeah it was a crosscheck and deserved two minutes, but on its own was not a vicious attack with the shaft, just a truly unfortunate result.

Ultimately, it's there in the rules that it's up to the ref's discretion but I don't think either of them saw it, or if they did they didn't think it merited a penalty of any kind until they saw the result. But the rule doesn't say anything about what injurious result occurs, just the severity of the contact itself. Which in my opinion was not that bad.

Either way, what's done is done. There's nothing that's gonna change the past. They could throw the refs in prison and would sooner do so before they recall this game and make them play it over again. All that's left is this question that I wish wasn't asked, that if the Sharks go on to win the cup, is it a tainted win that is undeserved because of this result. And my answer is no. If the Sharks go on to win 12 more games, presuming they don't win the Stanley Cup winning game on a call like this then they will have earned it through hard fought battle. They didn't get to this game 7 on accident and as much as I think it was the wrong call, there was still the potential for Vegas to nullify its effect and earn their win. And they didn't.

(shit and of course I voted for the wrong option. Meant to go with option 2)
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Voted option 2 but almost wish for a 4th option that read 'not tainted at all'.

1. This is round 1. It will be long forgotten by the finals. Still a ton of adversity to cross and games to win to get there, those will be more important

2. They scored 4 goals on the power play!!! Bad calls happen - it's too bad on Vegas for allowing 4 goals. Maybe if it had been 1 tying goal allowed on a really bad play you blame the refs. Vegas has no one to blame but themselves though
 
Mar 1, 2002
66,105
12,072
That was a horrible call. Really bad.

But they didn't lose because of the call. They lost because they gave up 4 power play goals in 4 minutes.
 

KidLine93

Registered User
May 15, 2012
5,928
2,136
Not tainted at all. Every team who has won the cup has gotten a call go their way that they shouldnt have. Vegas won a game earlier in the series on a botched goalie interference call that took a sharks goal away and gave Vegas a powerplay that they scored on
 

Goose312

Registered User
May 15, 2015
1,328
350
I guess not as tainted because that's the only option that fits the reality of it's not remotely tainted. A 2 minute penalty turning into a 5 minute penalty with 9 minutes left while up 3-0 in the game doesn't mean the refs lost the game. It also isn't what caused the Knights to blow a 3-1 series lead. Knights choked. The fans and players can scapegoat a single penalty all they want, doesn't change that the only parties responsible for the way the series went are the Knights and the Sharks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->