Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes


Full Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by top-shelf-1

  1. We'll be fine. Every team throws a clunker now and then, and we've done it plenty. The difference since Jan 1 has been that we respond after doing so.
  2. Bouch pulling smack on Mraz out of his patoot for the sake of keeping his gums flapping.
  3. Anybody still think you can win in the playoffs without a PP? Two chances squandered and we're down 3-0.
  4. We looked mostly disinterested. I expect we'll be a lot more engaged in the second. We proved Thursday that these guys are no match for us when we possess the puck. Have to get back to that.
  5. One more thing on this, since at this point it's probably just us giving a rip anyways. To me, the best-case scenario would be getting all the bench doors inside the neutral zone. That would make it impossible to be offside while trying to get off the ice. Whether it's possible while keeping both benches on the same side of the rink I'm not sure, but I'm guessing no, or they've have done it a long time ago. So put one player bench on each side of the rink. That would end the extracurricular crap between teams when both are changing lines, and it would make the access to benches the same for both teams all game long (no "long change" in the second period). I'd also like to see the sin bins moved, one each, to the end of the rink. When you get a penalty, you serve it in the box in your end, allowing the sprung player to re-join the play more quickly (assuming the team with the man advantage is set up on the PP when the penalty expires). The official scorer's table/referee's crease could remain in the neutral zone, at one or the other end of one of the players benches.
  6. Oh, I am, but just in the specific conditions of Landeskog's offside, which render it of zero consequence. I think that when those conditions exist and are clearly visible upon video review, the refs should be allowed to let the goal stand. They lack that ability at present due to the strictures of the video review for offsides, i.e.: if the guy is on the ice in the zone, the goal is called back--even if he's at the bench, getting off, has his back to the play, and the puck is in a different zip code.
  7. I appreciate you putting this up. Maybe the rule has been modified over the years, because back in my competitive playing days, catching the puck was not an option. You could knock it down with your closed or open hand, but the minute you held it the play was blown dead. I do think a case can be made that Faulk sought a territorial advantage. He takes a stride while turning, so he can place it in front of him, putting his body between the puck and the nearest defender. But I can also see how refs would deem it okay, because he did it all in one motion. Regardless, it was a gorgeous goal, and the breakdown was ultimately on the Isles; they have to know the guy is getting sprung and be ready.
  8. I'll paraphrase something I said when some were declaring us dead ducks halfway through the first period of Game 1 of the Washington series, in which we got to our game and scored two in the third to get within one (before they closed out with an empty netter). It's playoff hockey, something some apparently haven't seen in so long that they forget: (1) it's best-of-seven, and (2) teams respond at this time of year in ways you'll never see in the regular season, usually several times within the same game.
  9. I do, and it's a good point. To my knowledge there are variations from rink to rink. The only rule governing bench "geography" is that both benches in each rink must be "mirrors" of each other, so both teams are faced with the same door placements relative to the rink surface/markings. Landeskog's replacement being on the ice or not was not the issue; the call was that he was still in the zone, thus making the play offside when the puck crossed the blue line into the Sharks' end. I get what you're saying but it's not the issue here; it's his proximity to the blue line. We'll have to agree to disagree regarding officials' discretion; I think it exists on literally every call. Faulk closed his hand on the puck on his breakaway goal vs. the Isle, but it was let go. I've also seen guys who never closed their hand on the puck get called for doing so. TT embellished when he went down against Boston--if you agree that going down unnecessarily constitutes embellishment. Bishop embellished when he went down and stayed there after that shot to the shoulder, but the refs have discretion in determining if a player is seriously enough injured to warrant a stoppage. In that case, they knew his history and got it right: he was fine and just trying to get a free whistle. So why wasn't Bishop tagged for embellishment? Maybe he would have been, if the Stars had managed to control the puck? Instead the Blues scored, so if there was a delayed call, the goal would have wiped it out. All examples of discretion and its effects. When you introduce video review, discretion becomes a whole different question, because you must to go with whatever the video shows. The offside rule is clear: If an offensive player is still on the ice and in the O-zone when the puck crosses back in from neutral ice, the play is offside, period. That hard-and-fast hewing to the letter of the rule is what prompted the goal being called back, despite Landeskog clearly having his back to the ice, going off, and not being anywhere near the play. Kudos to him for taking blame, and rightly so; he was, absolutely, technically, offside. But he had nothing to do with the play, in much the same way you suggest vis-a-vis line changes. Here's something else to think about. How many times have we seen two guys mugging each other as they make their way up the ice, behind the play? If a goal is scored while they are doing so, should the goal be called back due to the refs not noticing the roughing incident, which began before the puck tickled the twine?
  10. Two different teams. We made the Bruins look bad, not the Bruins.
  11. Well said. It's easy to forget the majority of this team has not gotten to this level specifically because they have been so good at staying on their game. We dominated one of the best teams in the league last night for 45 minutes and made it look easy. I promise you that Boston is one of two things: unjustifiably overconfident or scared *edit*-less. Either way, it's a plus for us.
  12. It does, you just don't hear it. Refs look at tape the same way teams do, and when last night's crew looks at those calls in the third, they'll know they went too far. It's unfortunate that it cost us the game, but I expect the next one to be wide open, and their whistles to be mostly in their pockets. I also want to say that the players themselves have a role in instigating poor officiating. I loved the call against Boston for tripping TT coming through the neutral zone, but you know what? He went down easy, just like the Bruin Ferland hit, and the one Jordan did. That slash (though it was called a hook) got TT on the cuff of his glove, not the wrist, and he could just as easily have kept skating and carried the puck into the zone. He chose to try to draw a penalty, and it worked. Once both teams saw that, it was showtime. In my experience of watching hockey, the blatant acting we saw repeatedly last night from players on both sides will be ignored by the stripes in the next game, leaving the players no choice but to get back to business.
  13. I totally get this perspective, I just didn't see it that way at all. I saw three highly questionable calls back to back to back and a very good PK in all three instances, until the other guys managed to score. But even down 5-2, our guys were battling hard to put one in, right til the end and nearly did, a couple of times. That only reinforced the message that our stifling D sent for 45 minutes, before the bogus calls: "Whether we're winning or losing, we going to bring it every second that clock is running, and we have the conditioning to do it. Do you?"
  14. I know you do. FWIW, I've been wanting it too--for 50 freakin' years. About 25 years in, I decided it wasn't worth the angst. Games go how how they go. Some are called great, some not so great, but the league (EVERY league) is always going to stand by its officials, because failure to do so will create chaos. That's one reason Kerry Fraser's tweets don't impress me. The league backed up that little loudmouth for years, and now he calls out the guys trying to do the job--but he has the benefit of replays, and none of the pressure to make a decision while 20,000 people are screaming at him.
  15. Yup. After McGinn clearly elbowed whoever-it-was, prompting him to retaliate, Mrs. Shelf said, "The refs missed that call against us, the Bruins have a right to be angry," I said, "You're right, but I'll take it. 10 years with zero luck, we deserve to get some calls in the other direction." But she was right: In a well-officiated regular-season game, that is concurrent minors to both guys for roughing. In a well-officiated playoff game, it's two guys heading to their benches--and nothing at all.
  16. Emrick is best known for calling Devils games, is from Indiana, and has had no professional affiliation with the Bruins. I don't see him as a Bruins homer, just as a hugely overrated play-by-play man. I also think that generally, national announcers are seen as "homers" of whatever team wins the latest game--by the fans of the team that lost it. Or even of the team that has scored the last goal, by fans of the team it was scored on. After Aho's tally, I'm sure B's fans whining about the praise Olczyk was heaping on him. What most bothers me about the national TV deal is that the announcers are clearly prevented from calling out poor officiating, and too often bend over backwards to praise non-calls. There is no rule against reverse hits, and Olczyk should have said, "That's a bad call." Hits like Ferland's occur in board battles all season long with no calls, and he should have said that, too. I'm pretty confident he thought those things; anybody who watches as much hockey as he does would have to. The fact that he didn't say them is evidence that supporting the official's calls on the ice during the playoffs is very likely written into the contract.
  17. Me either, and I'm typically the last to complain about officiating, but the second call on Hamilton was total ********.
  18. Enjoy it while you can, Beantown. We're fixin' to ruin a lot of Mother's Days up there.
  19. If you want to complain about officiating, this is a case where I'm right there with you. There is no question that by the letter of the rule, Skog was offside. But in a Game 7, with the guy waiting at the open bench door for room to step in, with his stick in a useless position, and the puck on the other side of the ice? I picked the Sharks to win, but at some point, situational reality has to be brought to bear. In a case like this, the officials should have the discretion to say that while technically an infraction, it had zero effect on the play, so SJ doesn't lose its TO for the challenge but the goal stands. Really, really crappy way to lose, or win, a Game 7, IMO--and could be avoided in the future if the league sees fit.
  20. I totally do. Just saying in terms of elder leadership and hunger, I think Mac and Willy bring perspectives nobody else can. I also think Mac has a calming influence on the D that Mraz doesn't necessarily. Having a backup who can calm guys down, even if it's as they pass him coming off and taking the ice, is huge IMO.
  21. Exactly. Somebody on the broadcast said he went to the room after the hit. It was close to intermission, and I'm guessing he was perfunctorily "cleared." That's disturbing enough on its own, even before you consider that he was in the protocol just two years ago.
  22. I'm just having a really hard time imagining any scenario in which Curtis McElhinney accepts anything less than his first trip to the Final--or where JWilly misses what would most likely be his last. Settle in, boys and girls. And make sure your seat belts are fastened.
  23. Because it was an elimination game and it would have taken a police cordon to keep him off the ice, I'm guessing. Not saying it's right, but it is hockey: "If we lose, I have all summer to get better."
  • Create New...