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

[MikeK]

Yes, yes it does feel good.

 

[Alwalys]

The puck wasn't in sight at all, she wacked the goalie when she clearly had the puck covered. If you're denying that then you clearly didn't watch the game, or have extremely impaired vision. And if you were watching the game, you would know they got a warning for slashing the goalie at the end of the third. The American player is an idiot because that wack was completely unnecessary and she did it to just be a ****. You clearly don't know the difference between playing for a loose puck and giving the goalie a hack when the puck is covered.

The entire world knows that call was crap. You know too, all of Canada knows. It's your sport, there's no way you don't know.

I know you know. The whole world knows you know. It was really, really, REALLY obvious.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Glad you agree with me on that....Also the previous play how the American fanned on the one timer which resulted in the breakaway by Wickenhiser I couldn't believe that.....Was that Knight that fanned on that shot? If Stamkos had that opportunity that would have been game over....I know that's a hypothetical situation and is probably way off topic but it pissed me off I could have scored there......I felt bad for her.

Not sure if it was Knight who fanned.

"Had they not fallen" is not quite the same thing as "had Hayley not Fallen". I don't see it as any kind of justification for tripping a player that you're a faster skater than the player you tripped. If Knight is such a superior skater, maybe she should have gone around Wickenheiser to get the puck instead of clipping Hayley's foot. No need to foul if you can defend cleanly.

Knight fell, too. Tripping does not have to been intentional to be called. She tripped her on a breakaway. That's all that mattered.

I also noticed that Knight did not argue the call.

 

[BMOK33]

The reason Poulin had half the net open wasn't because the US goalie was slow to react, it was because she read the play wrong and moved to her left to see around the screen at the same some the pass went to her right.

That was a positioning and play reading issue caused by the screen in front, not a reaction issue.

I noticed that on replay too...to me thats not knowing your opponent, everyone on the planet knows the pass there is going to Poulin and not the player on the opposite side...I also felt Poulin flugged the shot a bit as it appeared she basically put it right into the middle of the net as opposed to the near side as she probably intended to do or at least where you generally anticipate a player will put the shot on that type of play, I'm not entirely sure she was not trying to fool Vetter by going against the grain but I doubt she'd get that cute in that scenario.

 

[JoeyBeans]

Not sure if it was Knight who fanned.



Knight fell, too. Tripping does not have to been intentional to be called. She tripped her on a breakaway. That's all that mattered.

I also noticed that Knight did not argue the call.

Agree 100% kevy

 

[Hoople]

Classy reply to the media from Team USA coach....

"After the game, the Americans did not blame the officials for their loss, but Coach Katey Stone put the officiating in the context of the pursuit to expand the women’s game.

“I think officiating is no different than developing players and programs,†she said. “The game is growing in leaps and bounds. The pace of the game is tremendous.

“We have to make sure that every part of the game operation and game management is developing at as fast a rate as it possibly can.â€

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/s...-beat-us-in-overtime-for-gold-medal.html?_r=0

In a nice and polite way, she said that the referees were clueless.

 

[Cawz]

If someone has a breakaway and you are behind them and pull them down, how on earth is that a penalty? By the rule book it's most certainly not a penalty:



That was clearly a penalty shot, and two minutes for cross-checking was an absolute joke, when the US player's stick didn't even touch Wickenheiser.

A penalty shot is still a penalty. It should have been a shot instead of a 2 minute minor. I agree, I guess the ref didnt want to the game end on a PS, so said it wasnt a clear cut breakaway. Dunno...

 

[Lepardi]

Knight fell, too. Tripping does not have to been intentional to be called.

Did someone say tripping has to be intentional to be called? I said nothing about intention, I just said that you're not allowed to trip a player just because you're faster than the player you tripped. It's also no reason not to call a penalty shot that the offending player is a faster skater than the player she took down. To me it looked like the US player was the faster skater out of the two, but she still tripped the Canadian from behind on a breakaway, and that's a penalty shot. There are five conditions in the rule book that need to be met for a penalty shot to be called. The attacking player not being a slower skater than the offending player is not one of those conditions.

 

[Alwalys]

A penalty shot is still a penalty. It should have been a shot instead of a 2 minute minor. I agree, I guess the ref didnt want to the game end on a PS, so said it wasnt a clear cut breakaway. Dunno...

I wonder what the stats are on PS vs 4 on 3 PP success. I bet the PP is more successful in womens' hockey. I don't think I saw a single breakaway buried in the womens' games I watched.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Did someone say tripping has to be intentional to be called? I said nothing about intention, I just said that you're not allowed to trip a player just because you're faster than the player you tripped. It's also no reason not to call a penalty shot that the offending player is a faster skater than the player she took down. To me it looked like the US player was the faster skater out of the two, but she still tripped the Canadian from behind a breakaway, and that's a penalty shot.

Fair enough.

 

[BMOK33]

A penalty shot is still a penalty. It should have been a shot instead of a 2 minute minor. I agree, I guess the ref didnt want to the game end on a PS, so said it wasnt a clear cut breakaway. Dunno...

To me Canada got the better deal, odds at least based on history suggest Wickenheiser is stopped way more than she makes it...if they give her the PS there and she is stoned the game could turn quickly again...I always prefer the PP as an offensive opponent and as the defensive team always hope they award the PS....Wickenheiser probably would never admit it but deep down she was probably somewhat happy she did not get awarded the PS.

 

[Cawz]

Did someone say tripping has to be intentional to be called? I said nothing about intention, I just said that you're not allowed to trip a player just because you're faster than the player you tripped. It's also no reason not to call a penalty shot that the offending player is a faster skater than the player she took down. To me it looked like the US player was the faster skater out of the two, but she still tripped the Canadian from behind a breakaway, and that's a penalty shot. There are five conditions in the rule book that need to be met for a penalty shot to be called. The attacking player not being a slower skater than the offending player is not one of those conditions.

Someone said in the thread that the puck was 10 feet in front of her and thats why the PS was not called.

 

[Cawz]

I wonder what the stats are on PS vs 4 on 3 PP success. I bet the PP is more successful in womens' hockey. I don't think I saw a single breakaway buried in the womens' games I watched.

To me Canada got the better deal, odds at least based on history suggest Wickenheiser is stopped way more than she makes it...if they give her the PS there and she is stoned the game could turn quickly again...I always prefer the PP as an offensive opponent and as the defensive team always hope they award the PS.

Some said the puck was 10 feet in front of her and so she wasnt deemed to be in possession. Maybe thats why. Dunno, I thought it should have been a PS. We all thought we saw the ref point to center ice as well...?

 

[The Winter Soldier]

The reason Poulin had half the net open wasn't because the US goalie was slow to react, it was because she read the play wrong and moved to her left to see around the screen at the same some the pass went to her right.

That was a positioning and play reading issue caused by the screen in front, not a reaction issue.

Well we can parse it that way if you want, but misreading the play, moving too slowly to the weak side play, good Goalies read that play. I was surprised how much room she left on the short side where Poulin shot.

Clearly the goaltending advantage went Canada's way.

 

[BMOK33]

I wonder what the stats are on PS vs 4 on 3 PP success. I bet the PP is more successful in womens' hockey. I don't think I saw a single breakaway buried in the womens' games I watched.

Breakaways as a whole tend to be scored on way more frequently than PSs because many of them are a result of a giveaway that occurs either in the defensive end or just outside of it so the goalie simply does not have time to properly get set and the shooter has an advantage...overall the shooter has an advantage even on breakaways that occur from further down the ice because he or she does not have time to overthink things its pure instinct, penalty shots the goalies have a marked edge and the numbers over the years show that. Thats why to me as a defender if you know you're beat you should always haul down the skater, take the PS over the breakaway in game any day.

 

[Cawz]

The entire world knows that call was crap. You know too, all of Canada knows. It's your sport, there's no way you don't know.

I know you know. The whole world knows you know. It was really, really, REALLY obvious.

She slashed at the goalie after the team was warned, did she not? Weak call or not, when you give the ref an opportunity to even things up in OT, they will. I was yelling at my tv for the girls to not breathe the wrong way after they got the 4on3.

 

[Lady Scarlet]

The entire world knows that call was crap. You know too, all of Canada knows. It's your sport, there's no way you don't know.

I know you know. The whole world knows you know. It was really, really, REALLY obvious.

The generalizations contained in this quoted post do not serve the author well.


The statement "The entire world knows that call was crap" is incorrect.



The statement "All of Canada knows" is incorrect.


All of which has been shown in this thread alone.

Thank you.


Cordially,


The fans of Team Canada and those who aren't even Canadian.

 

[dogyekcoh*]

Another Heart Breaker for us USA fans.
Congrats Canada. Experience and Grit and a little luck won the game at the end.
Our girls were too tense and it shown through the whole game. Even when we were up by two.
I knew it will be a hard game, and I was nervously thinking and asking myself "when" not "if", but "when" the momentum will swing to Canada. With 5 minutes left, my worry was... Can our girls handle the relentless pressure and attacks from the Canadians push? Sure enough, inexperience shown and we were looking at a tie game with less than 40 seconds. When the puck hit the Canadians' post with an empty net. I knew that destiny was not our.
Once again, congrats Canada. We will wait patiently for another shot in 4 years.

Team USA Women Hockey should be proud of your effort. You played a great game, fought hard against the world best and experience team down to the wire.

Peace and Go USA!!!

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

The entire world knows that call was crap. You know too, all of Canada knows. It's your sport, there's no way you don't know.

I know you know. The whole world knows you know. It was really, really, REALLY obvious.

The call was fine.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I wonder what the stats are on PS vs 4 on 3 PP success. I bet the PP is more successful in womens' hockey. I don't think I saw a single breakaway buried in the womens' games I watched.

Canada scored on a break-away against the USA in the preliminary round.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

When the puck hit the Canadians' post with an empty net. I knew that destiny was not our.

I still have no idea how it hit the post. It was going for the back corner. Then it was on its side. Then it spun into the post. Must have hit something on the (bad) ice.

 

[BMOK33]

I still have no idea how it hit the post. It was going for the back corner. Then it was on its side. Then it spun into the post. Must have hit something on the (bad) ice.

Glad someone else saw it the same way I practically left the room because I was that sure it was going in then I was like ehhhhhh this may be closer than I thought

 

[Lepardi]

.I always prefer the PP as an offensive opponent and as the defensive team always hope they award the PS...

The average power play in the NHL is around 18 percent. I don't know what the percentage for penalty shots is, but it's certainly way above 18. So why would you always prefer a power play?

That's not to say that a 4-on-3 power play in a women's game isn't a better option than a penalty shot.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Glad someone else saw it the same way I practically left the room because I was that sure it was going in then I was like ehhhhhh this may be closer than I thought

As I said elsewhere, I watched it 200 times. I was hypnotised by it. I still cannot believe it did not go in.

 

[dogyekcoh*]

Breakaways as a whole tend to be scored on way more frequently than PSs because many of them are a result of a giveaway that occurs either in the defensive end or just outside of it so the goalie simply does not have time to properly get set and the shooter has an advantage...overall the shooter has an advantage even on breakaways that occur from further down the ice because he or she does not have time to overthink things its pure instinct, penalty shots the goalies have a marked edge and the numbers over the years show that. Thats why to me as a defender if you know you're beat you should always haul down the skater, take the PS over the breakaway in game any day.

In OT I rather face a PS over a four on 3 or 5 on 3 any days. With the PS, it is 50/50 then that's it. On a power play they get to try it over and over and over with a wide open ice. With a team like Canada, you can see the box beling close as the players move closer and closer to the net then Bam. It is too close for any players to react. BTW, that was a nice shot on the winning goal by Poulin the "Americans Killer".