Vegas Major Call

[Fortyfives]

Champions find ways to overcome, losers look for excuses and things to blame.

I liken this to the Bears in the playoff game versus the Eagles. Yes, Parkey deserved a lot of blame as do the refs in this situation.... but our offense did absolutely nothing all night for the most part back then and in the most critical moment the Knights were just historically horrific on the prolonged PK.

I completely understand that a five minute major changes everything, but we're not talking about giving up a goal or two in that situation, but four. Them being put into that situation stunk, but they're the ones that turned lemons into anthrax somehow for those five minutes.

 

[Blue Liner]

Directed at no one in particular, but I don't think there's anything left in this thread for me to see. A dead horse, this is.

 

[deytookerjaabs]

Bold: Please showcase anywhere where I have said or implied this.

Maybe you quoted the wrong person?

When the argument of it being a lame call becomes more important than what happened in-game we've shifted the narrative to blaming the refs.


In reality, compared to letting in 4 consecutive third period goals, 5 minute major over a guy bloodied on the ice after contact with two players before he hit the ice isn't nearly as bad as actually giving up all those damn goals. I'm just not sure why it's such a big deal as you watch lots bad no-calls and a few bad calls every game.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

When the argument of it being a lame call becomes more important than what happened in-game we've shifted the narrative to blaming the refs.


In reality, compared to letting in 4 consecutive third period goals, 5 minute major over a guy bloodied on the ice after contact with two players before he hit the ice isn't nearly as bad as actually giving up all those damn goals. I'm just not sure why it's such a big deal as you watch lots bad no-calls and a few bad calls every game.

They aren't mutually exclusive. More than one thing can be true.

It was a horrible call.

Vegas absolutely gagged.

You don't need to discount one thing in support of the other.

 

[BK]

When the argument of it being a lame call becomes more important than what happened in-game we've shifted the narrative to blaming the refs.


In reality, compared to letting in 4 consecutive third period goals, 5 minute major over a guy bloodied on the ice after contact with two players before he hit the ice isn't nearly as bad as actually giving up all those damn goals. I'm just not sure why it's such a big deal as you watch lots bad no-calls and a few bad calls every game.

What does that have to do with any of my posts? I am not blaming the loss on the call. Seems like you are confused with the discussion points.

 

[deytookerjaabs]

They aren't mutually exclusive. More than one thing can be true.

It was a horrible call.

Vegas absolutely gagged.

You don't need to discount one thing in support of the other.

It was a pretty normal for a bad call if you watch it live.


First of all, it's a "normal" play in a sense but when you're already falling to the ice after contact with guy #1 and a second guy plants you into the ice when your balance is already compromised that's dangerous as ****. I've seen plenty of injuries after similar plays where a guy is already tripping or headed down then a second guy makes contact on him while he's falling....zero chance to protect yourself from a bad fall. Go back and watch it, Pavelski was going to the ground before the second cross check.


No, it wasn't a 5 minute major according to the rule book but damn....that is a dangerous play to make as you've no chance to protect yourself from the second check after you're already falling backwards.

Then the blood/injury, etc, and it's 10 minutes while the other teams is up 3 goals? Not worth the argument it's getting.


In the days before no-touch icing you saw this all the time until the rules were changed. Guys would run toe to toe to the boards and one would fall while not even being touched, lay on the ice injured...5 minute major. Then, another play where a fella plants the dude in the numbers 10 feet before the boards and the refs would swallow the whistle thinking the guy fell and it was an accident.


Again, even as far as bad calls go it was far from the worst and was not THE pivotal factor in a 3-0 10 minute game...unless you believe ****ting the bed was warranted on the Knights part.

 

[67 others]

Bold: Yes his intent was to injure him. This is why he jumped him. The two incidents are nothing alike.

Sorry but Pavelski's head was not slammed into the ice by PS. It was incidental contact that was not close to a penalty. It sucks he got hurt but there shouldn't have even really been anything more than a 2 minute penalty and even that is a stretch.

You need to take off the homer goggles.

Every single sucker punch in history was intent to injure someone. Only one of those got a full year suspension and lawsuit.

Because the result dictates stronger punishments. Same as drunk driving. Reckless plays usually end with nobody hurt. But when someone gets hurt, it gets more.

 

[BK]

Every single sucker punch in history was intent to injure someone. Only one of those got a full year suspension and lawsuit.

Because the result dictates stronger punishments. Same as drunk driving. Reckless plays usually end with nobody hurt. But when someone gets hurt, it gets more.

Context is a thing.