Kopitar was cussing going off the ice, Kopitar is not a guy who complains about refs call.
It was a weak call.
Oh...so because Kopitar is cussing and as you say, that he never does
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/27998/27998eed92ccd134ee0471460daedba4386654b2" alt="sarcasm :sarcasm: :sarcasm:"
Kopitar was cussing going off the ice, Kopitar is not a guy who complains about refs call.
It was a weak call.
I would expect any of the Canadian lines to beat the Koptar line in possession considering the two team's rosters. Not only offensive lines but the support they receive from the D as far as possession is concerned. Which is the essence of my point. Looking stricty at game 2, at least, the way the game was played, the amount of shots and scoring chances Canada had relative to what theyve proven capable of in other games, against teams supposedly better on paper than europe, Europe deserves a lot of credit, especially considering they were not simply defending they were also creating offensively.
Considering Kopitar played 24 minutes, had a considerable offensive presence as far as im concerned, and played against most if not all Canadian lines throughout the game if my memory serves me well, he is one that deserves a large amount of this credit.
Certainly would expect the Toews line to have more possession, especially when you consider the Dmen as well. Looking at how all Team Canada lines did against the Kopitar line would provide some better context (which I think I saw someone start to do by mentioning the Crosby line).
Size of square = TOI of matchup
Color share = Possession %
Contrast = Total events per minute
Obviously, when evaluating possession, deployment should be taken into account as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DpS0kekqE8
Check carefully that change around 0:30. Too many men IMO. Gimmick tournament ending with goal against the rules![]()
He's a great coach. I mean I wouldn't want to watch any team he's coaching, but he's a great coach.
That could have been called, as Canada gained a distinct advantage. There is no question that Marchand was trying to get on to get into the rush, and that only after he started to come over the boards did the behind-the-play forward start for the bench. The changing forward was at least 12 feet away when Marchand hit the ice. Having said that, if you watch any NHL game, the officials give that kind of leeway, and even more, routinely on line changes on the fly so long as the changing player is well out of the play. Harry Neale had a great term for on the fly line changes in the NHL that is no doubt now politically incorrect; he called them "a Chinese fire drill". LOL. It was a proper non-call based on how rule 17 is actually interpreted by the officials. I see your point, though, and had actually concluded before seeing your post and after seeing the replay that Canada probably got away with one.