iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Oct 21, 2018 20:47:59 GMT
Guptill benched as a punishment same as kovacs was a few weeks ago, he’s been told iits a team game and not all about him trying to score on his own . The guy was walking round in in Panthers tracksuit so he hasnt gone . Was Rich in the arena tonight ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 20:49:59 GMT
He's a decent coach give him time. A couple of good wins, a couple of sketchy wins, a lot of lost games and a scrape through tonight against a very ordinary Stars team. He’s going to have to come good very soon. Well the least he deserves is 3 years minimum considering he's new to the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 20:53:55 GMT
When I got a txt about this Guptil getting booted i thought straight away BS
|
|
EMB
Randall Weber
Posts: 4,069
|
Post by EMB on Oct 21, 2018 20:54:14 GMT
Yes Rich was sat in the stand behind the goal at the far end on his own, Henderson has an injured arm.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Oct 21, 2018 21:03:03 GMT
A couple of good wins, a couple of sketchy wins, a lot of lost games and a scrape through tonight against a very ordinary Stars team. He’s going to have to come good very soon. Well the least he deserves is 3 years minimum considering he's new to the league. Want to see an upturn ASAP or we are a seriously struggling mid table side and as per usual with the Panthers they have a mass clear out at the end of the season and it starts all over again like Groundhog Day.
|
|
|
Post by cjones on Oct 22, 2018 6:18:17 GMT
How the hell have we struggled against this Dundee team??? We struggled against them up there. They’re losing games by the odd goal or OT
|
|
|
Post by cjones on Oct 22, 2018 6:26:40 GMT
Can I just point out, it's nice to actually see and be involved in some reasonable debate and posts. It's not very often that threads aren't full of bickering and personal insults. Refreshing change from the Inferno! 🙄😂😂 ‘Healthy scratch’ could mean a personal reason perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Oct 22, 2018 8:49:59 GMT
The Olsen penalty is down on the game sheet as 5+G for cross checking. Is that right?
|
|
EMB
Randall Weber
Posts: 4,069
|
Post by EMB on Oct 22, 2018 9:08:00 GMT
was actually called on the night as kneeing... as you can see from the footage no kneeing or boarding.
|
|
|
Post by johnbluebeam on Oct 22, 2018 10:01:45 GMT
Initially called for kneeing, then I think on one feed it was changed to interference, finally on the game sheet cross checking. I still think the Stars player was already going down and Olson was doing his best to avoid him. Let's see what DOPS come up with.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Oct 22, 2018 10:21:01 GMT
Initially called for kneeing, then I think on one feed it was changed to interference, finally on the game sheet cross checking. I still think the Stars player was already going down and Olson was doing his best to avoid him. Let's see what DOPS come up with. A ban hopefully.....for the referee !
|
|
|
Post by cjones on Oct 22, 2018 10:29:23 GMT
Looks like the Stars player was going down
Olsen then just fell on him. Looks like his knee made contact first as he fell so maybe that was the original call later changed to Crosschecking which is automatic 2+10 but with injury changes to 5+Game? Is that right?
|
|
|
Post by PantherB on Oct 22, 2018 10:42:11 GMT
Can I just point out, it's nice to actually see and be involved in some reasonable debate and posts. It's not very often that threads aren't full of bickering and personal insults. Refreshing change from the Inferno! 🙄😂😂 ‘Healthy scratch’ could mean a personal reason perhaps? He was at the game and travelled home on the team coach last night so I think it's more punishment than anything too sinister. Understandable why people assumed it was something different though, not very often your coach intentionally has his team play shorter than they could.
|
|
Jonno
Pat Casey
Posts: 379
|
Post by Jonno on Oct 22, 2018 11:03:46 GMT
Was sitting right behind the penalty box and the ref actually came over and signalled 5+game for tripping (I remain sceptical as to whether that’s a valid penalty!) The announcer then twice incorrectly read out 5+game for kneeing and both times the ref shook his head and again signalled the tripping motion - the game had resumed at this point.
My take on it live, without having seen a replay, was that it was a cross check and he deserved a 2 minute minor.
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Oct 22, 2018 11:31:40 GMT
Was sitting right behind the penalty box and the ref actually came over and signalled 5+game for tripping (I remain sceptical as to whether that’s a valid penalty!) The announcer then twice incorrectly read out 5+game for kneeing and both times the ref shook his head and again signalled the tripping motion - the game had resumed at this point. My take on it live, without having seen a replay, was that it was a cross check and he deserved a 2 minute minor. It is a valid penalty to be able to call: "iii. A player who recklessly endangers an opponent by tripping will be assessed either a major and automatic game-misconduct penalty or a match penalty."
|
|
Jonno
Pat Casey
Posts: 379
|
Post by Jonno on Oct 22, 2018 11:37:56 GMT
Was sitting right behind the penalty box and the ref actually came over and signalled 5+game for tripping (I remain sceptical as to whether that’s a valid penalty!) The announcer then twice incorrectly read out 5+game for kneeing and both times the ref shook his head and again signalled the tripping motion - the game had resumed at this point. My take on it live, without having seen a replay, was that it was a cross check and he deserved a 2 minute minor. It is a valid penalty to be able to call: "iii. A player who recklessly endangers an opponent by tripping will be assessed either a major and automatic game-misconduct penalty or a match penalty." Cheers 👍🏻. Still a crap call!
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Oct 22, 2018 12:16:19 GMT
Was sitting right behind the penalty box and the ref actually came over and signalled 5+game for tripping (I remain sceptical as to whether that’s a valid penalty!) The announcer then twice incorrectly read out 5+game for kneeing and both times the ref shook his head and again signalled the tripping motion - the game had resumed at this point. My take on it live, without having seen a replay, was that it was a cross check and he deserved a 2 minute minor. There’s a side on view on the highlights and I can’t see any penalty whatsoever never mind a 5+game.
|
|
Discoray
Robert Lachowicz
Simply Clantastic!
Posts: 418
|
Post by Discoray on Oct 22, 2018 12:28:50 GMT
I’ve just seen that slow mo video too and you’re correct. How the ref saw that even as a penalty never mind a 5+game is just ridiculous,Olsen doesn’t even move his legs he just coasts towards the boards. That ref needs suspending or sending back to ref school. The calls tonight were the best of the three but still inept and should be looked at by someone at EIHL This is the nonsense we put up with pretty much every weekend, feel lucky that you folks get them less!
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Oct 22, 2018 12:56:03 GMT
The calls tonight were the best of the three but still inept and should be looked at by someone at EIHL This is the nonsense we put up with pretty much every weekend, feel lucky that you folks get them less! You would have thought that would be the first place the league would spend to get it right.
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Oct 22, 2018 13:08:11 GMT
I must be missing something. Looks at best like a very lazy/clumsy challenge, with a cross check nudge to the small of the back, as they go into the boards. No attempt to play the puck at all. Result, Dow hits the boards very awkwardly, looks like his left knee took the brunt of it, and it looks a nasty one. The ref had his arm up instantly as Olsen engaged with Dow, meaning to me that he thought the initial contact was worthy of a penalty of some description. So, if the ref deems the initial challenge worthy of a cross check penalty, the fact that it's caused an injury (which is prima facie a result of the player being recklessly endangered by the check) means it can absolutely be a 5+G. IIHF Rule 127. "A player who recklessly endangers an opponent by cross-checking will be assessed either a major and automatic game-misconduct penalty or a match penalty." The side on view only gets there after the initial contact, so not overly helpful. Olsen does land on Dow with his knee, but I don't think that's penalty worthy? In any case, that happened after the initial call. Wonder what DOPS will make of it.
I always find a good test is what would your reaction be if it was Dow on Olsen, Olsen helped off the ice? Nothing to see there? Play on?
|
|
Discoray
Robert Lachowicz
Simply Clantastic!
Posts: 418
|
Post by Discoray on Oct 22, 2018 13:19:28 GMT
This is the nonsense we put up with pretty much every weekend, feel lucky that you folks get them less! You would have thought that would be the first place the league would spend to get it right. In a world of sense, competence and logic yes, but remember the words of our league chairman: "We're a bums on seats entertainment business." Since either getting or training the best refs possible won't put more said bums in seats, we're stuck with whoever we have. The ECHL use part-time refs, and North America is also a fairly sizeable area, so I'd be asking them how they pull off pretty decent refereeing standards, and how they accomplish getting even refs to "graduate" in time to the NHL. That's just me as a basement dwelling keyboard warrior though, what do I know compared to the likes of Tony Smith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2018 14:48:31 GMT
I must be missing something. Looks at best like a very lazy/clumsy challenge, with a cross check nudge to the small of the back, as they go into the boards. No attempt to play the puck at all. Result, Dow hits the boards very awkwardly, looks like his left knee took the brunt of it, and it looks a nasty one. The ref had his arm up instantly as Olsen engaged with Dow, meaning to me that he thought the initial contact was worthy of a penalty of some description. So, if the ref deems the initial challenge worthy of a cross check penalty, the fact that it's caused an injury (which is prima facie a result of the player being recklessly endangered by the check) means it can absolutely be a 5+G. IIHF Rule 127. "A player who recklessly endangers an opponent by cross-checking will be assessed either a major and automatic game-misconduct penalty or a match penalty." The side on view only gets there after the initial contact, so not overly helpful. Olsen does land on Dow with his knee, but I don't think that's penalty worthy? In any case, that happened after the initial call. Wonder what DOPS will make of it. I always find a good test is what would your reaction be if it was Dow on Olsen, Olsen helped off the ice? Nothing to see there? Play on? You must be missing something as it appears only you and a sub standard Scottish ref saw it ! I ll be utterly amazed if Dops take this further!!
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Oct 22, 2018 15:41:44 GMT
Me too re DOPS, but you never know. I, however, can see why it was called a major. There's absolutely an injury caused, and it was 100% avoidable by Olsen. So, back to my question, if that happened to a Panther, you'd be saying "Well, I can't see much wrong with that, just a bit unlucky, no real contact, he was going down anyway..."? Maybe it's just me and a sub-standard ref, eh?
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,624
|
Post by Yotes on Oct 22, 2018 16:32:17 GMT
It's not as egregious as I was expecting, I don't think the reported kneeing call really helped though. Won't get any extras for it.
Good goal from Bolduc and Hurtubise to win it, Dundee must hate overtime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2018 16:40:10 GMT
Me too re DOPS, but you never know. I, however, can see why it was called a major. There's absolutely an injury caused, and it was 100% avoidable by Olsen. So, back to my question, if that happened to a Panther, you'd be saying "Well, I can't see much wrong with that, just a bit unlucky, no real contact, he was going down anyway..."? Maybe it's just me and a sub-standard ref, eh? If this was Dow on Olsen I'd think he would be hard done to. It looks incredibly soft and look a worse as he's on the way down.. I've watched it in slow mo on their highlights and I see nothing malicious
|
|