Was Eakin's 5min major right call?

[Connor McConnor]

2 minute minor.

 

[Lonewolfe2015]

We have a mechanism to punish players after the fact if the penalty was worse on the ice - it's why we have a DoPS. You don't penalize the result of a play - you penalize what you saw.

The refs said to Gallant that it was a cross-check to the face. Clearly they called something they didn't see, because that is not what happened.

Not going to disagree with you. But imo this is more endemic to the entire system if this is the hill to die on. Suspensions aren't supposed to be based on the result either, but they are. Penalties aren't supposed to, but they are. Hell goals can come down to a ref's obscured view of the net.

The call made (to me) is expected based on the way the refs are calling things these days. Maybe that's a flaw in my reasoning.

 

[Coffey]

That's barely a call in the regular season, pushing a player away after a face off?
He got injured because he ran into Stastny and fell on his head, not because of the cross check.
If Cody used his hands to push him into Stastny instead of his stick, would that be a 5 min interference?

 

[Albatros]

It was by the book, thus correct.

 

[ManofSteel55]

No, but blaming the call for the Knights crapping their britches isn't right either. Kill a penalty.

 

[Hischier and Hughes]

Its almost like people forget how fast things are moving and that theyre watching comfortably on their couches and recliners getting to focus on whatever part of the game they want.

Ref sees Eakins extend his arms into Pavelski who starts taking a tumble and then ends up injured and bleeding. Most NHL players dont just fall down from simple crosschecks so the ref likely assumed it hit Pavelski’s face (the blood also helps with this assumption, although he did have a protector on)

I mean seriously... cops on a daily basis divvy out charges based on assumptions and little evidence they have. Why the hell cant a referee, in the heat of the moment having seen the small clues they did, do the same?

Only change id make is maybe have a review of the penalty. But even that IDK

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I mean - this is a remarkably stupid take. Obviously it cost the Knights. The goals scored were *on* the PP, and they lost a valuable player for the rest of the game as a result.

Yes the Knights should have stopped their PP. Their PK was awful. Doesn't change the fact that but for the awful call, they would not have been in that situation.


Lol - they didn't even see the play they called. They saw blood on the ice.

In real time it was a bad call. On replay it was an abysmal call.

Yup. If someone doesn't believe the refs changed the outcome of this game then they never can do so.

 

[smitty10]

No, this call was based on the outcome of the play, not the play itself.

 

[bukwas]

My son showed up shortly after the call was made so i rewound the game to show him the infraction. I asked him what he thought the call on that play was. His reply was "maybe 2 minutes but they usually let those post faceoff battles go without any call".
He was shocked when i told him how the refs had called that.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I'm 95% on agreement with the refs normally ..but this was just a blown call anyway you slice it. yes it caused an injury but why he flopped down like that is beyond me. Players get pushed in the chest all the time and that doesnt result.

 

[cheswick]

Rule 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

 

[ReddestRum]

Rule 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

I don't even know what the debate is at this point.

Armchair refs I guess.

 

[SpaceCoastShark]

Perhaps a 4-minute double minor then.

 

[redcard]

I don't even know what the debate is at this point.

Armchair refs I guess.

The debate is about the language of the rule: severity of the contact. Not severity of the injury.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

I don't even know what the debate is at this point.

Armchair refs I guess.

Stop looking at the result. The actual act was not severe at all. Him flopping to the ice is what injured himself. Weak on his skates. He should have expected contact on the faceoff like there always is.

 

[HanSolo]

View attachment 220463 Perhaps a 4-minute double minor then.

I mean. I'd sure as shit prefer it to a 5 minute major, but double minors are only for high sticking calls.

 

[ReddestRum]

The debate is about the language of the rule: severity of the contact. Not severity of the injury.

Stop looking at the result. The actual act was not severe at all. Him flopping to the ice is what injured himself. Weak on his skates. He should have expected contact on the faceoff like there always is.

Borderline collarbone cross-check that resulted in an injury as a direct result of that contact. You peeps say stop looking at the result, yet the NHL literally takes injuries from actions into account when deciding on punishments or not.

 

[Jacob]

Borderline collarbone cross-check

What is "borderline collarbone." Either it hit his collarbone or it didn't (it didn't).

that resulted in an injury as a direct result of that contact.

The shove made Pavelski stumble into Stastny, where he tripped and was simultaneously pushed down by Stastny, where his head hit the ice which caused the injury. That's the very indirect IMO.

An example of "injury as direct result" would be Kucherov's hit on Nutivaara.

 

[redcard]

Borderline collarbone cross-check that resulted in an injury as a direct result of that contact. You peeps say stop looking at the result, yet the NHL literally takes injuries from actions into account when deciding on punishments or not.

Still doesn't fit "severity of the contact." The contact between Eakin and Pavelski was not severe, that's the language of the rule. If the rule stated "injury as a a result of the play" you'd have a point, but it doesn't say that.

Armchair refs I guess.

Are you more of an Armlesschair ref? Stool ref? Standing desk ref? I hear those are much better for your health, sitting's the new smoking and all.

 

[Coffey]

Still doesn't fit "severity of the contact." The contact between Eakin and Pavelski was not severe, that's the language of the rule. If the rule stated "injury as a a result of the play" you'd have a point, but it doesn't say that.



Are you more of an Armlesschair ref? Stool ref? Standing desk ref? I hear those are much better for your health, sitting's the new smoking and all.

Word.

The hit did no damage, it was a standard push-away play out of a faceoff.
I'm defending this dumb call and I was cheering for the Sharks.

 

[ReddestRum]

This is pointless to argue, because opinions. Good call, bad call, it doesn't matter, you still gave up four goals in five minutes.

My opinion is that it's the right call. There's no reason why there should be a crosscheck there. There was no battle for the puck. It was a clean win back by Pavs and the puck was even out of the damn faceoff circle before contact even happened. It wasn't a shove, it was a high cross-check and because he decided to cross-check there, there ended up being an injury and that factored into the refs discretion. Blaming the refs here is as laughable as giving up a 3 goal lead in the third period and blowing it in OT.

 

[Albatros]

Still doesn't fit "severity of the contact." The contact between Eakin and Pavelski was not severe, that's the language of the rule.

The rule states that it is "at the discretion of the Referee." It's fine if you draw the line differently than the referee of the game did, but likewise he was entirely entitled to make the call he did.

 

[LilLeeroy]

only reason it was a penalty is cause he hit is head. if he didnt hit his head on the ice, it wouldn't even be a penalty.

vegas got screwed.

The only reason Bertuzzi got suspended is because Steve Moore's face was smashed into the ice. If he didn't smash his face on the ice, it only would have been 5 for fighting.

Bertuzzi got screwed.

 

[redcard]

The rule states that it is "at the discretion of the Referee." It's fine if you draw the line differently than the referee of the game did, but likewise he was entirely entitled to make the call he did.

"at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact"

The referee has the discretion to decide if the contact between Eakins and Pavelski was severe enough to warrant a major.

The referee does not have the discretion to decide if the injury to Pavelski was severe enough to warrant a major.

 

[ReddestRum]

The only reason Bertuzzi got suspended is because Steve Moore's face was smashed into the ice. If he didn't smash his face on the ice, it only would have been 5 for fighting.

Bertuzzi got screwed.

Ya. Why did Moore fall like that? Why didn't he brace? It's the NHL, shouldn't he have known a hit was coming? If he woke up on the right side of the bed that morning, instead of the left, would've been a totally different story.