Toggle sidebar

GDT: Feb. 20 • Women's Gold Medal Game • Canada vs. United States • Pt IV

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Hilary Knight ‏@Hilary_Knight 1h
Thank you everyone for your support along this journey. It has been an honor skating w this group and representing the #USA #thankful
Click to expand...


Team USA may have lost the gold to team canada,but winning the silver is better then winning no medal at all,I'm proud to support anybody that puts on a USA jersey
 
Phu said:
Being that that would be a 3-0 goal and the game would have likely ended at 3-0 or 3-1, there would be no arguing otherwise. Pucks hit refs all the time and the refs get in the way all the time. That is a normal part of hockey. The player is equally responsible for avoiding the ref, and players can and do use refs to set picks. That is not an unfair situation because it has an equal chance to happen to either team.

A phantom call on the other hand is a deliberate act by the referee and thus is a patently unfair act.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It happened right after the first Canadian goal. 2-1. The puck was heading towards the blue line, and a Canadian player was in position to play the puck and the ref hit her, like it was a body check and the US player shot it at the end of the ice.
 
Beau Knows said:
You are accusing the refs of trying to fix the game?
Click to expand...

No, a deliberate phantom call doesn't necessarily mean there is a sinister motivation overall. However it was deliberately intended to deny the US a power play, which did affect the outcome of the game.

JetsFlyHigh said:
Wrong. It happened right after the first Canadian goal. 2-1. The puck was heading towards the blue line, and a Canadian player was in position to play the puck and the ref hit her, like it was a body check and the US player shot it at the end of the ice.
Click to expand...

Right, I acknowledged that earlier, however it doesn't change my point. The game likely ends 3-1, and with a non-deliberate action by the ref being the cause, there is little argument since the US team was already up and it was blind luck.
 
Last edited:
GG US.

At 4 mins left, I thought they had it. But all of it worked out for Canada today.

GO CANADA GO!
 
JetsFlyHigh said:
Wrong. It happened right after the first Canadian goal. 2-1. The puck was heading towards the blue line, and a Canadian player was in position to play the puck and the ref hit her, like it was a body check and the US player shot it at the end of the ice.
Click to expand...

That would have been an unfortunate finish, though less dramatic as what took place afterward, but of course the US player was absolutely right to try to take advantage where given.

It was a hard fought game that, obviously, could have equally gone either way.
 
Crosbyfan said:
That would have been an unfortunate finish, though less dramatic as what took place afterward, but of course the US player was absolutely right to try to take advantage where given.

It was a hard fought game that, obviously, could have equally gone either way.
Click to expand...

I just saw a replay of it and the funny thing is the US player probably had enough time to chip that past the Canada defender out to center ice, get to it and then have an easy empty netter, she probably did not realize that though in the 2 seconds she had to react.
 
ryan55 said:
Haha fair enough, I wont be as gracious during a mens hockey win though. I think a US win here would make the women s hockey landscape more interesting as opposed to 16 years of Canada. Im sympathetic to the underdogs getting screwed in this manner, and no I do not expect the same sympathy if the roles were reversed.
Click to expand...

An american who was rooting for the US, and saw the whole game from the 10-minute mark of the 1st period onward...

First off, the Canadians are a much more polished, better-coached team. The US women were pinned for long, long stretches in their own zone, spending most of the 2nd period there. The officiating was poor, as there were several icing calls against the US despite the player being well past the redline, but it was not the refereeing that cost them the game; it was the Capuano-esque/Ted Nolan-Latvia style of sitting back in a defensive position and hoping the other team won't score. Had the US stayed aggressive - maybe they ran out of gas? - in the last few minutes of the game, they would have won, but they got into a defensive shell. I'm more upset about the coaching than I am about anything else. IMO, blaming the officiating is bad sportsmanship in this instance; the US women have not caught up to the Canadians....YET. Eventually they will, and will win the gold medal, but this was simply not their time yet.
 
Phu said:
No, a deliberate phantom call doesn't necessarily mean there is a sinister motivation overall. However it was deliberately intended to deny the US a power play, which did affect the outcome of the game.
Click to expand...

There's no way to know whether it affected the outcome of the game any more than any of the bad calls that went against Canada.
As others have said, the most blatant mistake the refs made was giving the US a shot at the empty net. The US failed to take advanatge of their golden opportunity while Canada did. That's sports. One team has to win and one has to lose and often the team that takes advantage of its chances wins.
 
4 in a row at any level just sounds unheard of. Surely the Canadian women will fall at some point and the old saying "You can't win them all" will apply.
 
The ref was just dumb and should never whistle in Olympic level again, this is coming from someone who was completely objective.

In OT, you should never be so whistle prone as this woman was. Only exception being a highsticking or something other obvious, but in this OT every call was questionable.
1. Penalty was cross checking I guess, she just protected the goalie from that slashing.
2. Penalty was slashing, it was probably a make up call so the refs wouldn't decide the game
3. Penalty was tripping? no, it wasn't tripping. Wickenheiser was exhausted and fell, she wasn't tripped at all she only tried to sell a tripping to the ref who took it. And it should have been PS over a 2min if it was penalty worthy for her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I keep reading about a Phantom Call, yet I've seen NO ATTEMPT to actually articulate this argument in a semi debatable manner.
 
Zamuz said:
The ref was just dumb and should never whistle in Olympic level again, this is coming from someone who was completely objective.

In OT, you should never be so whistle prone as this woman was. Only exception being a highsticking or something other obvious, but in this OT every call was questionable.
1. Penalty was cross checking I guess, she just protected the goalie from that slashing.
2. Penalty was slashing, it was probably a make up call so the refs wouldn't decide the game
3. Penalty was tripping? no, it wasn't tripping. Wickenheiser was exhausted and fell, she wasn't tripped at all she only tried to sell a tripping to the ref who took it. And it should have been PS over a 2min if it was penalty worthy for her.
Click to expand...

Clearly we watched a different game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crosbyfan said:
That would have been an unfortunate finish, though less dramatic as what took place afterward, but of course the US player was absolutely right to try to take advantage where given.

It was a hard fought game that, obviously, could have equally gone either way.
Click to expand...

I never said it was wrong. :nod:
 
Zamuz said:
The ref was just dumb and should never whistle in Olympic level again, this is coming from someone who was completely objective.

In OT, you should never be so whistle prone as this woman was. Only exception being a highsticking or something other obvious, but in this OT every call was questionable.
1. Penalty was cross checking I guess, she just protected the goalie from that slashing.
2. Penalty was slashing, it was probably a make up call so the refs wouldn't decide the game
3. Penalty was tripping? no, it wasn't tripping. Wickenheiser was exhausted and fell, she wasn't tripped at all she only tried to sell a tripping to the ref who took it. And it should have been PS over trip if it was penalty worthy for her.
Click to expand...

So skates collide and both players go down, but the smaller of the two is accused of diving?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cyris said:
Vancouver was the bigger moment. This is just fresher.
It is definitely way up there.
Click to expand...
Why don't we just call them the two greatest victories in Canada's Olympic hockey history and leave it at that? Both gold medals wins have a lot to be said in their favour.
 
vanwest said:
There's no way to know whether it affected the outcome of the game any more than any of the bad calls that went against Canada.
Click to expand...

Actually there is, you can compare the situation and the history. Any 5-4 pp is dramatically less effective than a 4-3 pp, and when it is in OT, there is no subsequent play during which a goal can be answered. Then if a key penalty occurs the other way during the time in which the team should have been on the PP, which leads to an OT goal against, you have direct proof that that call affected the outcome of the game.

vanwest said:
As others have said, the most blatant mistake the refs made was giving the US a shot at the empty net. The US failed to take advanatge of their golden opportunity while Canada did. That's sports. One team has to win and one has to lose and often the team that takes advantage of its chances wins.
Click to expand...

Others may have said that, but anyone who says that is wrong. A non-deliberate act, no matter how egregious, is effectively luck. A deliberate act is not, and is patently improper refereeing.
 
Pricenyuk said:
Yeah, I fell asleep during the first period, and woke up to catch the 2nd, 3rd, and overtime. I was up until 5 am last night, so maybe it was just the fatigue that sucked all the energy out of the game for me?

I'm actually kind of mad that i'm not ecstatic over the win because I really want to celebrate (At the American's expense) like everyone else. :laugh:
Click to expand...

I honestly couldn't agree more with you with the exception of this game. I couldn't turn away.

Tomorrow you'll have another reason to celebrate, don't worry. ;)
 
I agree, Kevin Dineen was a huge difference, Canada's system was just so much more effective, like you said Canada had huge stretches of possession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom