Was Eakin's 5min major right call?

Was Eakin's 5min major right call?


  • Total voters
    427
Status
Not open for further replies.

llamateizer

Registered User
Mar 16, 2007
13,672
6,770
Montreal
Per rules, it can be justified and the refs don't have access to replays. so yes, it's a 5 min.
If you could see it once live with refs angle, the results would be different



But It's not a 5 min major with all the replays we have.
 

ReddestRum

Sad even when winning
Dec 19, 2013
3,091
3,875
"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.

This is dumb. He's not deciding on that alone, there's many factors and you're just cherry picking part of the rule and forgetting was discretion is.
 

hockeyball

Registered User
Nov 10, 2007
21,552
886
First off, it should have been 2 minutes on Eakin, though I don't think Stastny was remotely blameless here. He clearly changed an already falling players trajectory with force. He put his leg behind Pav's and then shoved him down. It's certainly an unusual hit, but an incredibly dangerous one. The ref's have the discretion to call a major based on force/effect and that's what they did (but on the wrong player). I also think they likely judged it similar to a hit to the head incident where even if it wasn't done on purpose, it's still zero tolerance (like high sticking).

So I voted no, because it was on the wrong player, but as a 5 minute major is judged based on somewhat vague standards, it's hard to say the rules are clear on this. The ref's saw what they saw, and they are given direction from the DOPS about how to call stuff we are not privy too. Regardless, the Sharks have lost many, many, many playoff games because of extremely questionable calls, it happens, you can't let one bad call sink you. In this case, Vegas had 3 elimination games to close the Sharks out and failed to do so. They put themselves into a position where one bad call at the wrong time might end their season, and then they allowed that to happen. So, essentially, I probably would have called a double minor, but it's irrelevant because game 6 and 7 never should have happened in the first place if Vegas had their shit together.

Also, this series created a ton of animosity on the ice, and the result of that ended up being a furious Sharks team having the emotional edge at the most important moment of the series. If you are going to play with fire, you might get burned.
 

Albatros

Registered User
Aug 19, 2017
12,275
7,723
Ostsee
"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.

It alone should not be the only factor, but nothing forbids the referee from minding it, too, when assessing the severity of the contact in the situation in question. The rules give the referees a lot of space in these matters.
 

ReddestRum

Sad even when winning
Dec 19, 2013
3,091
3,875
Was it avoidable? Yes.
Was Pavs expecting the hit? No.
Was it a hit? No.
Crosscheck? Yes.
Low, med, high crosscheck? High.
Where was the puck? In the next zipcode.
Did the play result in a serious injury? Yes.
Was it avoidable? Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SjMilhouse

redcard

System Poster
Mar 12, 2007
7,204
5,564
This is dumb. He's not deciding on that alone, there's many factors and you're just cherry picking part of the rule and forgetting was discretion is.

"A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who "cross-checks" an opponent"

That's not part of the rule. That's the whole rule. That's the whole cherry tree.

The referee makes a discretionary call based on the severity of the contact. That's the only factor listed in the rule allowing for a major penalty to be called. The referee decides whether or not the contact between the two players was severe enough to merit a major. That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bambamcam4ever

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,173
1,802
Houston
This is dumb. He's not deciding on that alone, there's many factors and you're just cherry picking part of the rule and forgetting was discretion is.

That's the entire rule and the wording is clear. The discretion is based on the severity of the contact.

Rule 59 – Cross-checking
59.1 Cross-checking - The action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent.
59.2 Minor Penalty - A minor 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.
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).
59.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by cross-checking.
59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.
59.6 Fines and Suspensions - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule, an automatic fine of one hundred dollars ($100) shall also be imposed. If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28).

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf

-------------

Just to give some reference for what kind of contact needs to happen before an escalation to a major is appropriate, this cross check by Craig Smith was penalized with a 2 minute minor and is *much* more severe in its contact. This is a cross check directly to the neck followed by multiple to the head after Comeau was already on the ice.



This happened in game 2 of the Stars/Preds series. Both this game and game 7 between VGK/SJS were officiated by the same 2 referees: Eric Furlatt and Dan O'Hallaran.

So given that this cannot be considered severe enough for a major, based on the rules, the absolute worst they could have penalized Eakin is 2 for cross checking and 2 for interference. No misconduct or match penalty because there was obviously no deliberate attempt to injure.

They got it wrong, objectively. This isn't the only reason Vegas lost the game or the series, but it was a mistake that directly influenced the outcome, which is unfortunate in the playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazlo Hollyfeld

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
42,550
10,140
Toronto
I don't see how any neutral fan could claim that was the right call. That's a garden-variety two minute penalty with the main question being should the call have been on Eakin or Stasny.
 

ReddestRum

Sad even when winning
Dec 19, 2013
3,091
3,875
That's the entire rule and the wording is clear. The discretion is based on the severity of the contact.



http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf

-------------

Just to give some reference for what kind of contact needs to happen before an escalation to a major is appropriate, this cross check by Craig Smith was penalized with a 2 minute minor and is *much* more severe in its contact. This is a cross check directly to the neck followed by multiple to the head after Comeau was already on the ice.



This happened in game 2 of the Stars/Preds series. Both this game and game 7 between VGK/SJS were officiated by the same 2 referees: Eric Furlatt and Dan O'Hallaran.

So given that this cannot be considered severe enough for a major, based on the rules, the absolute worst they could have penalized Eakin is 2 for cross checking and 2 for interference. No misconduct or match penalty because there was obviously no deliberate attempt to injure.

They got it wrong, objectively. This isn't the only reason Vegas lost the game or the series, but it was a mistake that directly influenced the outcome, which is unfortunate in the playoffs.


I'm sorry, but where's the crosscheck here? 2 minutes for roughing for a two-hand punch to the face. And where was the crosschecks when he was on the ice? He was shoving and maybe got a punch in there? I can't even find this clip anywhere else. Must be insignificant. Is this noted as a crosscheck anywhere else online?
 

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,173
1,802
Houston
I'm sorry, but where's the crosscheck here? 2 minutes for roughing for a two-hand punch to the face. And where was the crosschecks when he was on the ice? He was shoving and maybe got a punch in there? I can't even find this clip anywhere else. Must be insignificant. Is this noted as a crosscheck anywhere else online?

The first cross check was Comeau's, into the back which is allowed a major penalty by the rules. Then after the punch when Comeau was down, there were several cross checks into the back and shoulders with Comeau's face on the ice.
 

SjMilhouse

Registered User
Jul 18, 2012
2,119
2,439
If we open 2 more threads, will it change the outcome of the game retroactively? What if we complain more?
 

Quid Pro Clowe

Registered User
Dec 28, 2008
52,293
9,161
530
Was Eakin's crosscheck a penalty? Yes.

Would Pavelski have fell and hit his head without the infraction? No.

The action on it's own wasn't a major, but the result of the play was. It was a needless high cross check when the puck was long gone and Pavelski had no reason to expect it.
 

Albatros

Registered User
Aug 19, 2017
12,275
7,723
Ostsee
I don't see how any neutral fan could claim that was the right call. That's a garden-variety two minute penalty with the main question being should the call have been on Eakin or Stasny.

Those are different matters altogether, if both of them were guilty of cross-checking the opponent then that's two penalties whether minor or major.
 

Tobias Kahun

Registered User
Oct 3, 2017
41,661
50,516
You don't get a major penalty for a cross check to the chest. That should have been 2 minutes, San Jose would have scored once and Vegas would probably be through.

I'd be apoplectic if this had happened to the Flyers.
Its crosscheck resulting in injury that is a 5.

Doesn't matter where he is crosschecked. At no point in the rule does it specify head as the requirement for a 5 minute major.
 

Lazlo Hollyfeld

The jersey ad still sucks
Mar 4, 2004
28,161
26,454
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.
False equivalency.

Bertuzzi stalked a player from behind, tried to engage him in a fight and couldn't, then suckerpunched a player to the back of the head that immediately rendered him unconscious. Whether or not the spinal injuries were a result of the piling on or the initial impact, there's no question that the severity of Bertuzzi's punch caused significant and immediate damage and was well outside the bounds of normal play.

Eakins gave a fairly routine crosscheck off a faceoff. As far as I know there was no injury to Pavelski's chest as a result of the severity of the contact. It was a result of the awkward fall that led to the bleeding and head injury. But the crosscheck itself in no way was of such a severity that it warranted a major, let alone an ejection. That's typically reserved for things like the Kadri crosscheck.

I also haven't heard anything about this play being reviewed by the DoPS, which if it actually met the severity to warrant a crosschecking major and ejection, it would certainly be reviewed.
 

Tobias Kahun

Registered User
Oct 3, 2017
41,661
50,516
Rule says severity of the contact. It does matter.
So you just confirmed what I said.

Severity matters, location does not.

For the record, it was a terrible call, stastny is more to blame for him smashing his head off the ice.
 

Eternal Leaf

Registered User
Jul 4, 2011
7,594
8,823
Toronto
Was Eakin's crosscheck a penalty? Yes.

Would Pavelski have fell and hit his head without the infraction? No.

The action on it's own wasn't a major, but the result of the play was. It was a needless high cross check when the puck was long gone and Pavelski had no reason to expect it.

If someone steps on your stick and trips that's two minutes.

If someone steps on your stick, trips, and breaks their leg, it's 5 minutes and a game?

Things happen in hockey and that should have been a two-minute penalty. What happened after was incredibly unfortunate but that's the nature of this sport.
 

Lazlo Hollyfeld

The jersey ad still sucks
Mar 4, 2004
28,161
26,454
Was it avoidable? Yes.
Was Pavs expecting the hit? No.
Was it a hit? No.
Crosscheck? Yes.
Low, med, high crosscheck? High.
Where was the puck? In the next zipcode.
Did the play result in a serious injury? Yes.
Was it avoidable? Yes.
Great Q&A, but none of those are actually criteria used in the NHL rulebook for deciding on a 5 minute major.
 

ReddestRum

Sad even when winning
Dec 19, 2013
3,091
3,875
Great Q&A, but none of those are actually criteria used in the NHL rulebook for deciding on a 5 minute major.

My bad. I've never attended referee school, but it sounds like you guys have. Sounds like you also have officiated NHL games before and know exactly the criteria in which penalties should be handed to players. I'm instituting logic in my argument (as someone who isn't an NHL ref), in that there's more to a call than what the rulebook states. Oh wait, you're not a ref? But you have access to the rulebook? I suppose that makes you an expert, and you explicitly know exactly how a 5 minute major should be called when it comes to cross-check. Because you can see it in a PDF. Okay.
 

Ranksu

Crotch Academy ftw
Sponsor
Apr 28, 2014
19,671
9,303
Lapland
Its crosscheck resulting in injury that is a 5.

Doesn't matter where he is crosschecked. At no point in the rule does it specify head as the requirement for a 5 minute major.
So the outcome defines will it be punishable play or not? We're talking now very crucial thing for hockey's future. Why cross-checks are allowed then? Why its allowed cross-checks 1-2 times, but 3rd does count as penalty?
 

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,173
1,802
Houston
My bad. I've never attended referee school, but it sounds like you guys have. Sounds like you also have officiated NHL games before and know exactly the criteria in which penalties should be handed to players. I'm instituting logic in my argument (as someone who isn't an NHL ref), in that there's more to a call than what the rulebook states. Oh wait, you're not a ref? But you have access to the rulebook? I suppose that makes you an expert, and you explicitly know exactly how a 5 minute major should be called when it comes to cross-check. Because you can see it in a PDF. Okay.

Seems like you'd have to be an NHL ref to know that.

The rulebook is all we have to go by. If you choose to ignore it then you are going off of nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->