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

[Raging Bull]

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

Anyone with Hilary Knight on their roster is technically a winner anyways.

 

[MNState0fHockey]

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

Considering the fact that not winning at least Silver would have been an embarassment in women's hockey (not trying to be harsh, but let's be honest here), it's hardly a silver lining.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

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 changed the outcome of the game.


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.

No, you're wrong. You have no direct proof that it affected the outcome of the game. It's impossible to say what would have happened.
Your team was gifted a shot at an empty net leading 2-1 in the final minutes. They failed to take advantage of it. That's the bottom line. It's hard to get a game more gift wrapped than an official giving you an open net to shoot at. A penalty call doesn't even come close.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

The hungrier team won again because the us could not put them away with a strong third period (again).

All the calls had basis.

 

[Lady Scarlet]

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.



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.

I'm curious..... what is it that makes you the 'right' one and everyone else the wrong ones? Seriously, I'd like to know what you have to back it up rather than just your 'opinion' that it is so. Where are the facts? Where is the video evidence? The hidden voice recording of her planning to affect the outcome of the game with a 'phantom' call? Where is the ref's written testimony that she deliberately gave a 'phantom' call out of thin air for some strange reason you keep alluding to that doesn't bear up in the light of day and in the absence of concrete facts? I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting for some FACTS instead of conjecture.

 

[BMOK33]

No, you're wrong. You have no direct proof that it affected the outcome of the game. It's impossible to say what would have happened.
Your team was gifted a shot at an empty net leading 2-1 in the final minutes. They failed to take advantage of it. That's the bottom line. It's hard to get a game more gift wrapped than an official giving you an open net to shoot at. A penalty call doesn't even come close.

You never really know what happens though if the ref does not interfere, perhaps the outcome is better for the US, maybe the whole post them rattled them mentally a bit...its possible that if the interference does not occur there the shot gets blocked and goes back the other way for a goal anyway.

 

[Crosbyfan]

This may sound bad, but even as a woman, I couldn't care any less about this game. Tomorrow's game is the one circled on my calender.

You are right. It does sound bad. This is what the women train for. I love the men's tournament as well, but they go home to refocus on their main goal, the Stanley Cup.

 

[JetsFlyHigh]

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.



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.

lol Someone here said if it was 3-1 US, people would say "Canada wouldn't have tied it anyway."
We don't know that they wouldn't.
But now, if the "phantom" penalty wasn't called would the outcome of the game change?
We DO NOT KNOW that it would.

It wasn't blind luck, did the puck just magically flew past Vetter twice?

 

[kihei]

It happened in 2002, so who knows?

Just to flesh out the reference: At Salt Lake, American referee Stacey Livingston gave the US team eight successive power plays at one point, including two five-on-three situations. Canada killed 12 penalties in all. I think the US had two.

 

[Evil Doctor]

the switzerland sweden game was good as well, the skill disparity wasnt there either, I hope for the future of the womens game that the european countries catch up skill wise to the NA players.

I think it's getting there. You are not seeing the blowouts we used to see. Canada in 2006 beat Sweden 5-0 in the Gold Medal game. This year we beat Sweden 3-1 in the semi-final. The games against Finland are always tight, I was shocked that they didn't even make it to the medal round. 8 years from now, we might not be seeing either Canada or the US in the Gold Medal game...

 

[WetcoastOrca]

You never really know what happens though if the ref does not interfere, perhaps the outcome is better for the US, maybe the whole post them rattled them mentally a bit...its possible that if the interference does not occur there the shot gets blocked and goes back the other way for a goal anyway.

I agree. You can never predict what would have happened. That's why you need to take advantage of your chances when you get them. If Canada wouldn't have scored on the powerplay in overtime then they would be asking the excat same questions if the US scored later.

 

[massey1984]

Bottom line is that the USA stopped playing to win and started to play to not lose in the 3rd period and like usual bad things happened. Congrats to the Canucks...hopefully the US team learned a lesson.

 

[JetsFlyHigh]

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.



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.

Wow, because you KNOW for sure, US was gonna win? You don't know that. Maybe the penalties expire, and Canada still scores, maybe the US scores, maybe a unicorn appears out of nowhere and gave everyone gold medals. But you don't know that.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Bottom line is that the USA stopped playing to win and started to play to not lose in the 3rd period and like usual bad things happened. Congrats to the Canucks...hopefully the US team learned a lesson.

Our various teams have done this many times in the past as well.

Don Cherry always talks about how he hates the 2-0 score because you don't know whether to defend or continue to create opportunities. I think you keep playing the same way, but having the lead and wanting to defend it gets into your head. Good teams pounce.

 

[JetsFlyHigh]

I agree. You can never predict what would have happened. That's why you need to take advantage of your chances when you get them. If Canada wouldn't have scored on the powerplay in overtime then they would be asking the excat same questions if the US scored later.

Has anyone read this? Because this is your winner.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

the switzerland sweden game was good as well, the skill disparity wasnt there either, I hope for the future of the womens game that the european countries catch up skill wise to the NA players.

I hear a lot about the hope that the European teams catch up to the North American teams.

You notice no one in Europe ever hopes we catch up in ski jumping or biathlon?

I couldn't care less if they never catch up. Be competitive, sure, but if a European team never wins a gold medal in women's hockey, it won't matter to me until I hear someone in The Netherlands getting concerned about the lack of North American medals in long track speed skating.

 

[The Expert]

You are right. It does sound bad. This is what the women train for. I love the men's tournament as well, but they go home to refocus on their main goal, the Stanley Cup.

It sounds embarrassing. If you couldn't enjoy the best hockey game at the Olympics so far, it says more about you than women's hockey.

 

[puckyeah]

Sorry guys, late to the party as i was watching game on delay, can i ask a question about 2 things.

1) the non-boarding call on the USA player with about a minute left in regulation with the score 2-1 USA

2) the "slashing" penalty in OT, was that really a good call? I didnt really see a "slash" there.

Thanks.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Bottom line is that the USA stopped playing to win and started to play to not lose in the 3rd period and like usual bad things happened. Congrats to the Canucks...hopefully the US team learned a lesson.

It is always easy to say in hindsight, and maybe an American fan that knows the players better will refute this, but for me I did wonder on that 3 on 3 in OT, when Canada put out 2 F and a D, and the US put out 2D and 1F, whether the US was playing more not to lose, while Canada was playing to win.

 

[BMOK33]

It is always easy to say in hindsight, and maybe an American fan that knows the players better will refute this, but for me I did wonder on that 3 on 3 in OT, when Canada put out 2 F and a D, and the US put out 2D and 1F, whether the US was playing more not to lose, while Canada was playing to win.

Canada did not seem to attempt much on it though, as a matter of fact you could even argue they were sitting back hoping the US would attempt to score and then try and go back the other way on them which is exactly what ended up happening.

 

[Hoople]

Sorry guys, late to the party as i was watching game on delay, can i ask a question about 2 things.

1) the non-boarding call on the USA player with about a minute left in regulation with the score 2-1 USA

2) the "slashing" penalty in OT, was that really a good call? I didnt really see a "slash" there.

Thanks.

That was not a slash. It was a chicken **** call after the refs were letting a lot go without a whistle.

But, in the end, the Americans played to protect the lead instead of forcing the issue in the 3rd. Bad things happen when you play to not lose instead of playing to win.

 

[stampedingviking]

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.

1. That will always be called in women's hockey.
2. Already warned, don't be stupid and do it again.
3. Clear penalty.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Sorry guys, late to the party as i was watching game on delay, can i ask a question about 2 things.

1) the non-boarding call on the USA player with about a minute left in regulation with the score 2-1 USA

2) the "slashing" penalty in OT, was that really a good call? I didnt really see a "slash" there.

Thanks.

Which one? I saw two apparent boardings, but both looked like most of the impetus came from the US player, one making a hard play, and the other playing the puck and losing balance.

The slashing was an unwise move after players were warned, but otherwise very marginal, and possibly a make up/make even call.

 

[puckyeah]

That was not a slash. It was a chicken **** call after the refs were letting a lot go without a whistle.

But, in the end, the Americans played to protect the lead instead of forcing the issue in the 3rd. Bad things happen when you play to not lose instead of playing to win.

I think you had to be lucky and good, USA was good, but not lucky. Gave up first goal on unlucky bounce and missed the open net by an inch and then when they had momentum in OT and a legit power play, they made a really shady call to even things up. Too bad the game had to end that way.

 

[redgrant]

The only penalty that mattered was the non call penalty shot. US deserved to lose no matter how you cut it.