Jump to content
The Official Site of the Anaheim Ducks
hoxxey

playoff game...

Recommended Posts

Whoever decided to keep a camera fixed onto Ben Bishop's mom is an evil genius. Her reactions are almost as entertaining as this game :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So....this is...GOOD news for us? Now we just need the Sharks to lose, right? For our pick to be good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DuckFan4Life said:

Boston’s Charlie McAvoy will have a hearing today for an Illegal Check to the Head on Columbus’ Josh Anderson.

and he gets 1 fricking game.  Just another glaring example of how inappropriate Cogliano's 2 game suspension was.  McAvoy's hit was vicious.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 3:16 PM, dtsdlaw said:

But that's still determining whether something is ILLEGAL, not whether a clearly illegal act can be elevated to a higher level of discipline based on player history. 

I think this is where you guys are swinging at each other and missing.  It appears that past history can take no part in determining whether an act on the ice is illegal.  An illegal act is something that was called a penalty on the ice, or I guess is anything that could have been called on the ice, though it appears they often fail to supplement stuff not called on the ice.

Marchant's rabbit punch to the back of the head ticks off a lot of check marks for me.  Brian Burke argued that it had no force... but what I saw looked like a lot of force.  We're talking about hockey player hitting, and a hockey player receiving - they may not move like mere mortals would under such impacts, but that's their job.  It did not look like a simple tap to me, and I couldn't give less a poo that it was to his helmet.  It was a purposeful hit to the back of the head of an unsuspecting player who was kneeling on the ice.  I don't know the letter of the law on roughing, or what can and can't be called after the whistle is blown, but I would have called at least an unsportsmanlike or a roughing.  There was no purpose to that act other than to instigate a fight.  

So, my guess, and that's all it is, is that Marchant's act was illegal.  Given his past, it should have warranted supplemental discipline, and since there's likelihood it could have injured the neck of the player or given him a laceration or even a concussion (unsuspected "light" hits can do serious damage), an opposing player in an all important playoff game... it is completely unfair for them NOT to give him a suspension.  He needs to cut it out.

Compare with Kadri.  At least with Kadri's hit, the player he hit knew it was coming and could try to protect himself.

If there's some other rhyme to their reason, then I don't see it.  And, like every time, I want to burn it all to the ground when I think of what they did to Cogs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Marchand

Marchant was one of the most honorable guys to ever play the game. Marchand is a POS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Jasoaks said:

So....this is...GOOD news for us? Now we just need the Sharks to lose, right? For our pick to be good?

We need the Sharks to lose. If it's St Louis and the Sharks in the WCF and St Louis loses we get the 28th pick. If the Sharks lose against the Avs I think we get the 23rd pick. If the Sharks and Hurricanes both lose in the WCF we get the 29th pick.

Edited by perry_mvp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, perry_mvp said:

We need the Sharks to lose. If it's St Louis and the Sharks in the WCF and St Louis loses we get the 28th pick. If the Sharks lose against the Avs I think we get the 23rd pick. If the Sharks and Hurricanes both lose in the WCF we get the 29th pick.

We just need the sharks to lose.  Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BombaysTripleDeke said:

If Dallas loses, that miss by Cogs will haunt him forever

Yup.  My wife and I just kind if laughed and said "of COURSE Cogs missed the open yawning net!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 11:34 PM, dtsdlaw said:

That should be a suspension, but I’m fine with the call on the ice. There is no major penalty available for an illegal check to the head under rule 48. It’s either a minor or a match penalty, and the match penalty requires a deliberate intent to injure. IMO, the ref can’t call that a match penalty on the ice watching it at full speed. McAvoy’s skates stayed on the ice, elbow was down, and he didn’t explode into the hit at all. I think he just mis-timed what could/should have been a solid body check on a guy who is significantly bigger than him. So according to the rule, 2-min minor + incoming 1-game suspension. Let’s see if the DPS does their job on this one....

Penalty could have easily been Charging IMO because McAvoy launched himself. 

The head contact rule is written poorly. I don't understand why that vast majority of penalties have options for 2, 5+GM and Match, but for some reason they decided not to have a 5+GM for head contact. Outside of the rule book I think that hit by McAvoy was worth being ejected from the game and that kind of head contact is what the league is trying to get rid of. 2 minutes achieves nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 11:34 PM, dtsdlaw said:

That should be a suspension, but I’m fine with the call on the ice. There is no major penalty available for an illegal check to the head under rule 48. It’s either a minor or a match penalty, and the match penalty requires a deliberate intent to injure. IMO, the ref can’t call that a match penalty on the ice watching it at full speed. McAvoy’s skates stayed on the ice, elbow was down, and he didn’t explode into the hit at all. I think he just mis-timed what could/should have been a solid body check on a guy who is significantly bigger than him. So according to the rule, 2-min minor + incoming 1-game suspension. Let’s see if the DPS does their job on this one....

Also disagree that McAvoy's skates stayed on the ice. His skates may have stayed on the ice until the moment of contact, but his feet left the ice as he exploded through the hit because he was driving upwards towards the head. This is different to a hit where a player's feet leave the ice as he hits because he loses balance because of the force of the hit. McAvoy was driving upwards and he caught the player high, textbook charge for me.

Edited by nieder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, nieder said:

Also disagree that McAvoy's skates stayed on the ice. His skates may have stayed on the ice until the moment of contact, but his feet left the ice as he exploded through the hit because he was driving upwards towards the head. This is different to a hit where a player's feet leave the ice as he hits because he loses balance because of the force of the hit. McAvoy was driving upwards and he caught the player high, textbook charge for me.

I partially agree. He was definitely rising upwards as he hit Anderson (who is considerably taller than McAvoy), but the hi-res suspension video also clearly shows that McAvoy's right skate collided with Anderson's right skate as he drove through the hit, and IMO, considering how much weight McAvoy appeared to have leaning on his right skate at that moment, I don't think the right skate comes off the ice if the two skates don't collide at that speed. Regardless, I should have clarified my point to say that he didn't explode into the hit by leaving his feet to initiate the contact, which seems like that is usually what NHL refs look at when determining if it should be a match penalty for this foul. He definitely rose up into the hit though. However, I think rising into contact and jumping into contact are very different. Seems like most checks involve a player rising into the hit to generate additional force, even when the check isn't predatory in nature. On the flip side, jumping into a check is always predatory to me (i.e. Tyson Barrie's hit on Despres), and its usually called as such on the ice. It also seems to me that the NHL has been very consistent in calling McAvoy's type of hit as a minor (or not calling it at all if you're Drew Doughty) and then throwing a suspension at the offender later once the DPS's video review confirms the head as the main point of contact. And again, I'm not fine with the hit (I said it deserved a suspension) but I can't criticize the officials for not calling it a match penalty on the ice. Watching it once, at full speed, I don't see McAvoy jump into the hit and I see him keeping his elbow down, so it's hard to criticize a ref for not seeing an intent to injure.

I also don't really see a charge there. IMO, if that's a charge then almost every solid body check is a charge. I know you're a ref and have a lot of experience actually calling hockey games (which I don't have), but if he had caught him square in the chest or shoulder instead of in the head, do you still call that a charge? Because the rule book's definition for charging is "the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner."  I don't see anything usual there in terms of distance traveled. In fact, I used to cheer like crazy when Beauchemin would travel that exact same distance and deliver a crushing hip check. The distance McAvoy traveled for that hit happens every game, several times per game. Only the head contact makes it a penalty IMO, which is why it's a Rule 48 violation instead of Rule 42.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nieder said:

Penalty could have easily been Charging IMO because McAvoy launched himself. 

The head contact rule is written poorly. I don't understand why that vast majority of penalties have options for 2, 5+GM and Match, but for some reason they decided not to have a 5+GM for head contact. Outside of the rule book I think that hit by McAvoy was worth being ejected from the game and that kind of head contact is what the league is trying to get rid of. 2 minutes achieves nothing.

It may be poorly written, but that's not the refs' fault. I'm seeing a ton of criticism of the refs for this call on social media, but if they are calling it according to the plain language of the rule, they are doing their jobs exactly how they are supposed to.

IMO, blame the NHL's competition committee or whoever writes these rules, not the refs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:

I partially agree. He was definitely rising upwards as he hit Anderson (who is considerably taller than McAvoy), but the hi-res suspension video also clearly shows that McAvoy's right skate collided with Anderson's right skate as he drove through the hit, and IMO, considering how much weight McAvoy appeared to have leaning on his right skate at that moment, I don't think the right skate comes off the ice if the two skates don't collide at that speed. Regardless, I should have clarified my point to say that he didn't explode into the hit by leaving his feet to initiate the contact, which seems like that is usually what NHL refs look at when determining if it should be a match penalty for this foul. He definitely rose up into the hit though. However, I think rising into contact and jumping into contact are very different. Seems like most checks involve a player rising into the hit to generate additional force, even when the check isn't predatory in nature. On the flip side, jumping into a check is always predatory to me (i.e. Tyson Barrie's hit on Despres), and its usually called as such on the ice. It also seems to me that the NHL has been very consistent in calling McAvoy's type of hit as a minor (or not calling it at all if you're Drew Doughty) and then throwing a suspension at the offender later once the DPS's video review confirms the head as the main point of contact. And again, I'm not fine with the hit (I said it deserved a suspension) but I can't criticize the officials for not calling it a match penalty on the ice. Watching it once, at full speed, I don't see McAvoy jump into the hit and I see him keeping his elbow down, so it's hard to criticize a ref for not seeing an intent to injure.

I also don't really see a charge there. IMO, if that's a charge then almost every solid body check is a charge. I know you're a ref and have a lot of experience actually calling hockey games (which I don't have), but if he had caught him square in the chest or shoulder instead of in the head, do you still call that a charge? Because the rule book's definition for charging is "the actions of a player who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner."  I don't see anything usual there in terms of distance traveled. In fact, I used to cheer like crazy when Beauchemin would travel that exact same distance and deliver a crushing hip check. The distance McAvoy traveled for that hit happens every game, several times per game. Only the head contact makes it a penalty IMO, which is why it's a Rule 48 violation instead of Rule 42.

I do agree that the refs probably called it right by the rule book if they were only thinking of checking to the head. I also do not believe there was any intent/attempt to injure. Heck, you probably couldn't even say the hit was all the reckless, he just got the point of contact wrong. Like you say, if he hits through the chest even if driving upwards there is no issue there.

There are 2 different types of charging - the first is traveling a long distance to make a hit and basically not gliding into it, so you're taking strides right before the hit which makes the hit overly violent. So long as you let up and don't take a stride right before hitting the guy, you probably don't get called for charging on that play (it's also really difficult to make this call as a referee because typically you are watching around the puck and/or where there are players grouped together where a foul could happen - you aren't typically watching for how many strides some random guy is taking towards the puck carrier). The second type of charging is leaving your feet - which basically comes with the head contact aspect because the whole point of calling this is to prevent players jumping and hitting guys in the head. That's why the other part of the rule says 'a minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent'. Part of that is protection of the head (while the rule doesn't explicitly state this). I hear what you're saying in that the call they landed on is probably consistent with how the NHL has been calling this. I do think that 5+GM for Charging was probably an option for them though if they felt that McAvoy deserved to be out of the game even if the intent wasn't there to injure the player. I don't think anybody would have been upset if that were the call they had made - though I have to think the Game 7 Sharks/Knights call came into this and they didn't want to make that call and risk getting reprimanded for it.

24 minutes ago, dtsdlaw said:

It may be poorly written, but that's not the refs' fault. I'm seeing a ton of criticism of the refs for this call on social media, but if they are calling it according to the plain language of the rule, they are doing their jobs exactly how they are supposed to.

IMO, blame the NHL's competition committee or whoever writes these rules, not the refs.

Agreed.

Edited by nieder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hoxxey said:

We just need the sharks to lose.  Period.

And that’s why they won’t, of course....

And Pavelski scores the first goal.  Their season should be done, but he is playing again.

Edited by CAsFirstCup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that 5 minute major has really affected us. This was the ultimate goal of the nhl. :ph34r:

It wasn't to help the sharks... 

Somewhere barstools are being thrown with the sounds of nature CD on replay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First the bogus, BS major penalty that changed the direction of the Vegas series.

Then, Colorado scores the tying goal but wait, the NHL comes to their rescue and determines that Landescgog was still on the ice.  Not enough for a "too many men on the ice" penalty - just being there made the goal be disallowed.  I'll bet someone from the league sent a text telling SJ what to do.  I'll bet that stuff happens all the time during games and it is never called.  It could have changed everything.

What is up with this???

My only hope is that Binnington can somehow magically stop them from scoring because the Blues defense is much more stout than Colorado's or Dallas, for that matter.  I don't care about draft choices at this point - only seeing the sharks lose.  Hockey gods - where are you??????

And just for goodness and karma, St. Louis had a horrendous start to the season and they made it this far.  That's a story I can support although I still want Carolina to thump the bruins and get to the final.

I just can't watch anymore Toemaaaaas Hurtle or Dunski or Karlson or beardy...  Barf...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hoxxey said:

First the bogus, BS major penalty that changed the direction of the Vegas series.

Then, Colorado scores the tying goal but wait, the NHL comes to their rescue and determines that Landescgog was still on the ice.  Not enough for a "too many men on the ice" penalty - just being there made the goal be disallowed.  I'll bet someone from the league sent a text telling SJ what to do.  I'll bet that stuff happens all the time during games and it is never called.  It could have changed everything.

What is up with this???

My only hope is that Binnington can somehow magically stop them from scoring because the Blues defense is much more stout than Colorado's or Dallas, for that matter.  I don't care about draft choices at this point - only seeing the sharks lose.  Hockey gods - where are you??????

And just for goodness and karma, St. Louis had a horrendous start to the season and they made it this far.  That's a story I can support although I still want Carolina to thump the bruins and get to the final.

I just can't watch anymore Toemaaaaas Hurtle or Dunski or Karlson or beardy...  Barf...

I agree.  I don’t care if the Blues winning could knock the Ducks pick from Buffalo down from #28 to #29, I just want to see the Sharks eliminated ASAP.  God forbid their obnoxious fans invade the Pond with their team having won the Cup.  It doesn’t surprise me that another controversial call went their way to help them win in Game 7 again.  You have to love the irony.  The call for a 5 minute major wasn’t reviewable, but a marginal offside  overturned a goal on review.  Maybe the Sharks will finally lose this round now that doing so could hurt the Ducks pick.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CAsFirstCup said:

I agree.  I don’t care if the Blues winning could knock the Ducks pick from Buffalo down from #28 to #29, I just want to see the Sharks eliminated ASAP.  God forbid their obnoxious fans invade the Pond with their team having won the Cup.  It doesn’t surprise me that another controversial call went their way to help them win in Game 7 again.  You have to love the irony.  The call for a 5 minute major wasn’t reviewable, but a marginal offside  overturned a goal on review.  Maybe the Sharks will finally lose this round now that doing so could hurt the Ducks pick.  

Yeah I totally agree. I'm rooting for the blues, I actually hope they sweep the sharks. That would be fantastic!

I didn't mind that Thornton would win but now it's just ridiculous. We lose out on the better pick AND the sharks are getting the better end of some bogus calls. 

Blues and Canes for the final! Though now I'm hoping the blues win it all. 

Also, who could have predicted that both buffalo picks would go to the conference final. That's right, no one. 

Edited by g20topdogg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically it was the right call to disallow that goal. I'd just rather see the player who fumbled the puck at his own blueline get punished instead of the changing player who stayed on the ice by his bench door for a fraction of a second longer than he should. One is hockey. The other is a tool assisted replay that had to be slowed down 200% to determine if something that a linesman decided not to call in real time was actually an infraction by mere centimetres.

Sucks to see a team get bailed out by that type of thing during such an important game. There's nothing you can really do about it if you're the Avs outside of hoping they eventually get rid of the offside challenge outright. Funnily enough it was Duchene scoring the most blatantly offside goal of all time in Colorado a few years back that ramped up the discussion for the coach's challenge in the first place. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, PetrSykora said:

Technically it was the right call to disallow that goal. I'd just rather see the player who fumbled the puck at his own blueline get punished instead of the changing player who stayed on the ice by his bench door for a fraction of a second longer than he should. One is hockey. The other is a tool assisted replay that had to be slowed down 200% to determine if something that a linesman decided not to call in real time was actually an infraction by mere centimetres.

Sucks to see a team get bailed out by that type of thing during such an important game. There's nothing you can really do about it if you're the Avs outside of hoping they eventually get rid of the offside challenge outright. Funnily enough it was Duchene scoring the most blatantly offside goal of all time in Colorado a few years back that ramped up the discussion for the coach's challenge in the first place. 

The offside challenge is a stupid rule because there are a lot of plays that are onside but are whistled offside.  But you obviously can’t review those plays that might have  resulted in goals if not for the mistakes of the linesmen.  The net effect of the rule is fewer goals scored.  

This offseason I hope the NHL eliminates the offside challenge and adds video review to confirm or overrule 5 minute major penalties.

Edited by CAsFirstCup
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s comedy for everyone who thinks Vegas lost the series solely based on the 5 minute major penalty. 1). It’s a series of 7 games where the Sharks were the team who won 3 straight games to win. 2). There have been plenty of 5 min majors in the past and most “good” teams work through the adversity. Vegas failed miserably 3). the Sharks went on a rampage and scored 4... that’s 4 goals in the final 10 min (I believe), this alone was a clear mental breakdown by Vegas. They had the game in hand with such a big lead and blew it. They and they alone lost this game. 

Lastly I'm really surprised that most people here wanted Vegas to win over the Sharks anyways. Not sure why. Vegas has done absolutely nothing to earn a deep run in the PO. They are a newbie team acting like they have a rich long history in the league, they don’t. And, I will bet you anything that the Vegas bandwagon fans are probably wayyyyyyyy worse than the Shark fans. 

Vegas got beat by the better, more experienced team, no question about it. Vegas has no one to blame but themselves

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RobD360 said:

It’s comedy for everyone who thinks Vegas lost the series solely based on the 5 minute major penalty. 1). It’s a series of 7 games where the Sharks were the team who won 3 straight games to win. 2). There have been plenty of 5 min majors in the past and most “good” teams work through the adversity. Vegas failed miserably 3). the Sharks went on a rampage and scored 4... that’s 4 goals in the final 10 min (I believe), this alone was a clear mental breakdown by Vegas. They had the game in hand with such a big lead and blew it. They and they alone lost this game. 

Lastly I'm really surprised that most people here wanted Vegas to win over the Sharks anyways. Not sure why. Vegas has done absolutely nothing to earn a deep run in the PO. They are a newbie team acting like they have a rich long history in the league, they don’t. And, I will bet you anything that the Vegas bandwagon fans are probably wayyyyyyyy worse than the Shark fans. 

Vegas got beat by the better, more experienced team, no question about it. Vegas has no one to blame but themselves

No one thinks Vegas lost SOLELY based on the 5-minute major penalty.

However, without the 5-minute major penalty, Vegas wins that series.  Both things can be true.  Vegas got jobbed.  They should have done better at not letting it affect them, but they still got jobbed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RobD360 said:

It’s comedy for everyone who thinks Vegas lost the series solely based on the 5 minute major penalty. 1). It’s a series of 7 games where the Sharks were the team who won 3 straight games to win. 2). There have been plenty of 5 min majors in the past and most “good” teams work through the adversity. Vegas failed miserably 3). the Sharks went on a rampage and scored 4... that’s 4 goals in the final 10 min (I believe), this alone was a clear mental breakdown by Vegas. They had the game in hand with such a big lead and blew it. They and they alone lost this game. 

Lastly I'm really surprised that most people here wanted Vegas to win over the Sharks anyways. Not sure why. Vegas has done absolutely nothing to earn a deep run in the PO. They are a newbie team acting like they have a rich long history in the league, they don’t. And, I will bet you anything that the Vegas bandwagon fans are probably wayyyyyyyy worse than the Shark fans. 

Vegas got beat by the better, more experienced team, no question about it. Vegas has no one to blame but themselves

Why doesn't Vegas deserve a deep run? Sure they're a new team but every team's gotta start somewhere. If they go deep they probably earned it. The expansion rules might have been better for them then for other teams in years past but that's not on them. And it's not that they got extra points to start the season. I thought last year was a fluke but if they don't break down in that game 7 they would have made another good run. Good on them and good for the sport of hockey in a new town.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RobD360 said:

It’s comedy for everyone who thinks Vegas lost the series solely based on the 5 minute major penalty. 1). It’s a series of 7 games where the Sharks were the team who won 3 straight games to win. 2). There have been plenty of 5 min majors in the past and most “good” teams work through the adversity. Vegas failed miserably 3). the Sharks went on a rampage and scored 4... that’s 4 goals in the final 10 min (I believe), this alone was a clear mental breakdown by Vegas. They had the game in hand with such a big lead and blew it. They and they alone lost this game. 

Lastly I'm really surprised that most people here wanted Vegas to win over the Sharks anyways. Not sure why. Vegas has done absolutely nothing to earn a deep run in the PO. They are a newbie team acting like they have a rich long history in the league, they don’t. And, I will bet you anything that the Vegas bandwagon fans are probably wayyyyyyyy worse than the Shark fans. 

Vegas got beat by the better, more experienced team, no question about it. Vegas has no one to blame but themselves

No bogus 5 minute major, Vegas wins the series, period.  

If Vegas wins the series the Ducks 1st round pick for Montour is #23 instead of #28 or #29.  Good reason for Ducks fans to be angry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL You guys are all just too bitter and bias against the Sharks. That’s why the POs are a 7 game series, you can’t just pin one (just 1) event within a single game let alone a single period on losing the entire tournament. The Sharks are stacked with talent. They blew the lid off the Ducks last season (swept them under the rug) and are now slowing making their way through this years tourney. They have a great team over there. I can’t believe you guys would prefer Vegas to have won. Let’s take off the rosy-colored glasses for a moment.

Look, If the Ducks don’t win it all I don’t care who else does anyway....unless it’s LA cause then I’ll hear it and see it from every one of their dreadful fans who are everywhere around here (in the street, at the office, in the supermarket) due to living in the same-ish vicinity as them. But if the winner turns out to be St Louis that’s ok too cause like the Sharks they have never won it before and have been in the game for a few decades as well and so their true fans prob deserve it as well for sticking with them for all this time (band wagon Vegas fans, not so much). Further, Most of the Good Ol Boy clubs (Rangers, Hawks, Red Wings etc) are out of it so that’s cool too. 

Edited by RobD360
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RobD360 said:

LOL You guys are all just too bitter and bias against the Sharks. That’s why the POs are a 7 game series, you can’t just pin one (just 1) event within a single game let alone a single period on losing the entire tournament. The Sharks are stacked with talent. They blew the lid off the Ducks last season (swept them under the rug) and are now slowing making their way through this years tourney. They have a great team over there. I can’t believe you guys would prefer Vegas to have won. Let’s take off the rosy-colored glasses for a moment.

Look, If the Ducks don’t win it all I don’t care who else does anyway....unless it’s LA cause then I’ll hear it and see it from every one of their dreadful fans who are everywhere around here (in the street, at the office, in the supermarket) due to living in the same-ish vicinity as them. But if the winner turns out to be St Louis that’s ok too cause like the Sharks they have never won it before and have been in the game for a few decades as well and so their true fans prob deserve it as well for sticking with them for all this time (band wagon Vegas fans, not so much). Further, Most of the Good Ol Boy clubs (Rangers, Hawks, Red Wings etc) are out of it so that’s cool too. 

Have go disagree.  I think that one event absolutely cost Vegas the series. It's not like there's another game to be played, and the penalty called was dubious at best. That's like taking a two week cruise and on day 13 contracting the norovirus. Sorry, but in my world that one single event would ruin the entire cruise for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...