Post-Game Talk: Gm7: Canadiens win Part II

[HumBucker]

Anyone have a video of that Boychuk "penalty" on Beaulieu near the end of the game? The one where his head snapped back.

 

[HumBucker]

Came home from last night's game really frustrated with the team's performance. I've been thinking about this and thought that I'd throw it out there for comment or debate.

As successful as this team has been here is their playoff history in the last 6 years.

2009 - second round OT loss to Carolina in a home Game 7
2010 - second round loss to Philadelphia in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss and blowing 3-0 series lead
2011 - first round OT win over Montreal in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss
2012 - first round OT loss to Washington in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss
2013 - first round miracle OT win over Toronto in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss
2014 - second round loss to Montreal in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss

2010 can be explained by key injury to Krejci. Even still in the last 6 years the Bruins have been a 4 time first or second round knock out made worse by losing 5 possible close out Game 6 's and then losing 4 Game 7's at home. The 2 home Game 7's that they did win could have been 2 more first round knock outs.

There is a problem with this team when as good as they have been they can't deliver the knock out punch in a deciding Game 6 where they come out completely flat and outplayed, then they lose 4 out of 6 Game 7's at home and the2 Game 7 home wins could just as easily have been 2 more losses.

Glass half empty much?

Who cares about game 6 losses where we won game 7? All that matters is winning the series.

Why not look at it as a Cup win and SCF game 6 loss (that could have just as easily been a win) in the past 4 years?

 

[Neely08]

Absolutely hits it on the head.

Really?

I disagree w/ a lot of that, actually.

 

[ReggieMoto]

Absolutely hits it on the head.

Yep. Pretty fair.

 

[bossfan]

Glass half empty much?

Who cares about game 6 losses where we won game 7? All that matters is winning the series.

Why not look at it as a Cup win and SCF game 6 loss (that could have just as easily been a win) in the past 4 years?

I'm very happy with the 2011 Cup and the almost Cup in 2013.

Glass is not half empty. I thought that my point is that from 2009 to this season this team has not played with the proper motivation and killer instinct when it matters the most. Game 7's are usually a toss up and it can go either way. Losing a Game 7 on the road I can understand more easily, but don't you think that losing 4 Game 7's all at home indicates that there is a problem with the mental toughness of what has been very good teams?

 

[habslive]

As soon as Marshy got that penalty for spraying Price, I knew that it was going to be "one of those games".


Absolutely fustrating. I think I'm okay now though. The team should be ashamed of the effort they give. A little too late. No determination. Sad.x

The refs have been calling the snowjob penalty all playoffs long. Not just when it happens to Carey Price.

Either Pacioretty or Eller took one for spraying Lindback last round too.
It happens. Don't do it.
I personally have no issue with spraying a goalie. It can always be disguised by "I was stopping for a rebound" which actually is valid.

 

[Harpo]

The refs have been calling the snowjob penalty all playoffs long. Not just when it happens to Carey Price.

Either Pacioretty or Eller took one for spraying Lindback last round too.
It happens. Don't do it.
I personally have no issue with spraying a goalie. It can always be disguised by "I was stopping for a rebound" which actually is valid.

I agree. I have no idea why they make these calls, especially in the playoffs where holding, grabbing and cross-checking is left ignored. The Marchand, Eller and the other call in a Penguins game (can't remember who) were all unwarranted in my opinion. Refs should just ignore it and allow a little abuse from the D's on the spraying guy.

 

[Shoebottom]

The refs have been calling the snowjob penalty all playoffs long. Not just when it happens to Carey Price.

Either Pacioretty or Eller took one for spraying Lindback last round too.
It happens. Don't do it.
I personally have no issue with spraying a goalie. It can always be disguised by "I was stopping for a rebound" which actually is valid.

**** off, you don't call that in a game 7. That would be like the ref calling one of the countless hooks the habs were guilty of. You just don't dothat in a game 7. Or Markov pushing Marchand into Price. Since when does the home team get more penalties at home than the visitor? 19 to 13 was my count. Can't tell me the Bruins were that much more deserving. Not saying the refs were the sole reason for this fail, because they weren't, but it did affect the series. OT pp goal in gm 2 ring a bell?

 

[Shoebottom]

That's a losers bull **** excuse in my books.

We were outplayed in every facet and the Habs deserved to advance.
The refs had as much influence on the end result of this series as I did.

You trying to be too objective. Bruins were better in most facets of the game and they outplayed them for the most part. That's why this is so frustrating. Just look up the stats if you don't trust the eye test.

 

[Harvard Dan]

Anyone have a video of that Boychuk "penalty" on Beaulieu near the end of the game? The one where his head snapped back.

I may have missed someone else posting this....but food for thought, and yeah I know it's Kerry Fraser, but something caught my eye. This was Jackson's first playoff after being off under King for 2010-2013. Four years off the playoffs and then a Game 7 between rivals in a divisional final? Really Walkom? Hawks fan so no bones in this...just seemed odd.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=452261

 

[Harvard Dan]

....and for me it wasn't the calls....but just the inconsistency....If players don't know what is/isn't a penalty at a given moment....it's not good.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

That's a losers bull **** excuse in my books.

We were outplayed in every facet and the Habs deserved to advance.
The refs had as much influence on the end result of this series as I did.

Wally, I generally agree with you, but you are just wrong here. Wrong on every count.

 

[member 96824]

You trying to be too objective. Bruins were better in most facets of the game and they outplayed them for the most part. That's why this is so frustrating. Just look up the stats if you don't trust the eye test.

Yesterday? In the third period yeah...but that's about it.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I may have missed someone else posting this....but food for thought, and yeah I know it's Kerry Fraser, but something caught my eye. This was Jackson's first playoff after being off under King for 2010-2013. Four years off the playoffs and then a Game 7 between rivals in a divisional final? Really Walkom? Hawks fan so no bones in this...just seemed odd.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=452261

This is what caught my eye from Fraser's column:

These decisions set a difficult standard for the referees to maintain as it appeared the game was being worked differently from end of the ice to the other.

This is what I was seeing the whole series. What was let go on the Habs end of the ice was a penalty on the Bruins end. That was the most frustrating thing about this.

 

[Drifting]

**** off, you don't call that in a game 7. That would be like the ref calling one of the countless hooks the habs were guilty of. You just don't dothat in a game 7. Or Markov pushing Marchand into Price. Since when does the home team get more penalties at home than the visitor? 19 to 13 was my count. Can't tell me the Bruins were that much more deserving. Not saying the refs were the sole reason for this fail, because they weren't, but it did affect the series. OT pp goal in gm 2 ring a bell?

The rules don't change because it's game 7. Don't see how it makes sense to blame the refs for calling a penalty that's been happening all season. The bigger question should be why Marchand would do that in a game 7.

As for the penalty differential in the series: The refs are there to call penalties based on infractions - not to call an even number over a series. Boston had the least PP time out of 30 teams in the regular season; Montreal had the 6th most PP time. Montreal plays with speed and skill; Boston plays with speed but also with intimidation and toughness. There shouldn't be any surprise with the penalty differential in the series.

 

[Sam the Lion]

**** the habs

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

The rules don't change because it's game 7. Don't see how it makes sense to blame the refs for calling a penalty that's been happening all season. The bigger question should be why Marchand would do that in a game 7.

As for the penalty differential in the series: The refs are there to call penalties based on infractions - not to call an even number over a series. Boston had the least PP time out of 30 teams in the regular season; Montreal had the 6th most PP time. Montreal plays with speed and skill; Boston plays with speed but also with intimidation and toughness. There shouldn't be any surprise with the penalty differential in the series.

I don't think Eller got called for his snowshower, just roughing in the scrum afterwards. Didn't the Habs even get out of it a PP? Or at least 4 on 4 when they should have been on the PK.

 

[Harvard Dan]

The rules don't change because it's game 7. Don't see how it makes sense to blame the refs for calling a penalty that's been happening all season. The bigger question should be why Marchand would do that in a game 7.

As for the penalty differential in the series: The refs are there to call penalties based on infractions - not to call an even number over a series. Boston had the least PP time out of 30 teams in the regular season; Montreal had the 6th most PP time. Montreal plays with speed and skill; Boston plays with speed but also with intimidation and toughness. There shouldn't be any surprise with the penalty differential in the series.

The rules are what they are, no argument there. However the question is advantage. What advantage was gained by the ice shower? Did the Habs cluster and lead to a scrum? No? So no call there IMHO. There was an inconsistency in the game between the two officials on what would be. I DO NOT believe consistency = same amount of PP's for each team, however I do believe in calling penalties that 1. create advantage disadvantage, 2. safety. Ice shower led to neither. You can cling to your rule book all you want, but there was more advantage gained by Subban crashing the net off it's mooring than the dumb play by Marchand. Again a Hawks fan here...Jackson had NO playoff games from 2010-2013 and now is working a divisional final? Whether or not his blackballing for those seasons was justified, why put your league under scrutiny by assigning him to this game?

 

[Glove Malfunction]

No one is saying the refs were perfect. He's saying the refs were inconsequential to the outcome of the series (that's how I read it at least), and I (and it appears you) agree with him.

They weren't perfect, and you can quibble with his line of "did a nice job", but they weren't the storyline or anywhere near it.

No, what he said was "the refs did a nice job in the series." That is so laughable as to bring scorn on the rest of his entire piece (which was actually pretty good). See what Kerry Fraser had to say about the way it was called.

 

[Harvard Dan]

No, what he said was "the refs did a nice job in the series." That is so laughable as to bring scorn on the rest of his entire piece (which was actually pretty good). See what Kerry Fraser had to say about the way it was called.

As a multi-sport official (not hockey however) I agree with Fraser as well. Refs did not do a nice job in Game 7, and there was inconsistency throughout series. Again, I DO NOT believe consistency is the same as both teams getting same amount of penalties/power plays, but rather calls made on an advantage/disadvantage basis. This did not happen.

 

[Budddy]

The refs have been calling the snowjob penalty all playoffs long. Not just when it happens to Carey Price.

Either Pacioretty or Eller took one for spraying Lindback last round too.
It happens. Don't do it.
I personally have no issue with spraying a goalie. It can always be disguised by "I was stopping for a rebound" which actually is valid.

No...Eller sprayed Rask in game 2 and it wasn't going to be called as no ref had their hand up...but then Bruins went after Eller and THEN the ref called it on Eller but also called bruins for roughing...matching penalties....

Oh...which ref didn't call the shower on Eller even though he was about 10 feet away? Yep....Dave Jackson....

 

[Whiskey Sam]

Came home from last night's game really frustrated with the team's performance. I've been thinking about this and thought that I'd throw it out there for comment or debate.

As successful as this team has been here is their playoff history in the last 6 years.

2009 - second round OT loss to Carolina in a home Game 7
2010 - second round loss to Philadelphia in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss and blowing 3-0 series lead
2011 - first round OT win over Montreal in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss
2012 - first round OT loss to Washington in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss
2013 - first round miracle OT win over Toronto in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss
2014 - second round loss to Montreal in a home Game 7, Game 6 loss

2010 can be explained by key injury to Krejci. Even still in the last 6 years the Bruins have been a 4 time first or second round knock out made worse by losing 5 possible close out Game 6 's and then losing 4 Game 7's at home. The 2 home Game 7's that they did win could have been 2 more first round knock outs.

There is a problem with this team when as good as they have been they can't deliver the knock out punch in a deciding Game 6 where they come out completely flat and outplayed, then they lose 4 out of 6 Game 7's at home and the 2 Game 7 home wins could just as easily have been 2 more losses.

This is where Chicago stands out in comparison. They ran a stat after they finished off Minnesota where during Toews/Kane's run, the Blackhawks are 14-0 in Games 5 and 6 of playoff series that were tied after Game 4. They're also 12-2 in games with a chance to win a series, including 6-1 on the road. They have a killer instinct we lack, and it's why they have a great shot at their third Cup in five years while we come away feeling like we've underachieved over that same period. Essentially, they are the team we only think we are.

 

[onlylordsvsmorebp]

boston did not play their best hockey...krejci marchand iginla were major disappointments...but the officiating was horrible.
also to be truthful markov is a pos.weise is a pos.subban is a pos.galagher is a pos.emelin is a pos.habs are so ****ing dirty.dont mind tough physical mean teams but i despise teams that are dirty and have the refs in their back pocket.markov slewfoots then looks for a call when bruin retaliates ****ing sickening.

 

[Sanman19]

People have to stop blaming Krejci. Sure the donut in the G column does not look good, however he actually showed up last night.

And glad to see we made Keith Olberman's worstest person in the sports world.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

The rules don't change because it's game 7. Don't see how it makes sense to blame the refs for calling a penalty that's been happening all season. The bigger question should be why Marchand would do that in a game 7.

As for the penalty differential in the series: The refs are there to call penalties based on infractions - not to call an even number over a series. Boston had the least PP time out of 30 teams in the regular season; Montreal had the 6th most PP time. Montreal plays with speed and skill; Boston plays with speed but also with intimidation and toughness. There shouldn't be any surprise with the penalty differential in the series.

Explain this then. Montreal also had the 3rd most overall PK time, was shorthanded 7th most often, and was 6th in # of minor penalties. At home, they were 6th in PK time and 9th in times shorthanded. In the regular season, Boston was 20th in the league in overall times shorthanded and 17th in overall PK time per game. So while they play a heavy game, they are disciplined. They don't draw penalties (which you correctly noted), but they don't commit them that often either.

By your logic, the Habs would have been on the PK more often than the Bruins. BUT...by some stroke of officiating magic, in the playoffs, they were far and away the least penalized team, and it was laughably more slanted at home. In fact, through two rounds, they had spent less time on the PK than three teams that didn't even make it past the first round. At home, they have spent less time on the PK than all but two playoff teams. Yes, that means they spent less time killing penalties at home than 6 of the 8 teams who didn't even make it out of the first round.

This is only for the 8 teams who won their first round series, but here's the average time on the PK and number of times on the PK, per home game, and overall:

PK time # times SH Overall Overall
@ Home @ home PK Time times SH
MTL 02:58.2 1.80 0:03:47 2.27
MIN 04:48.3 2.83 0:04:59 2.92
NYR 04:52.0 2.71 0:04:56 2.93
PIT 05:17.9 3.57 0:05:59 3.75
CHI 05:41.2 3.17 0:06:46 3.83
LAK 05:43.0 3.67 0:07:01 4.00
BOS 07:37.0 4.57 0:06:32 4.08
ANA 08:00.8 4.67 0:06:47 4.08


As for you assertion that the refs are there to call penalties for infractions - you are correct. But you leave out one very (perhaps the MOST) important detail. They are also there to call the game the same way on both ends of the ice. They didn't do that. To the point that the media covering the games, and even Kerry Fraser, said so. So, yeah, it actually is quite surprising how lopsided the penalty differential was. But it's also easy to see why.