Toggle sidebar

GDT: Gold Medal Game: Canada Vs Russia | 1:00PM EST 7PM CET

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain And Coke said:
So much whining about refs and rules, no one is talking about how damn good that Thomas goal was. Shame.
Click to expand...

It was a nice toe drag. Crazy that his first touch on the puck was right on the top of the crease and the Russian goalie straight panicked. It would have been so easy for him to knock it away.
 
Zaide said:
Structural would be any physical object. The issue isn't whether the camera was a structural element. It's whether it's "above" the ice surface, and while part of it is depending on its angle, it wasn't hit on a part that was above ice surface.
Click to expand...
Any physical object? What other kind of objects are there? Dark matter?
 
Congrats to Sweden and Finland on a great tournament.

Way to grab that gold, Boys!
 
King 88 said:
Left the ice no doubt. Hypocrite of the finest calibre. Hoping for very short career for dirty rat like him. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Of course nobody wants anything bad to young players or well anyone (marchand/wilson:DD). I dont like Hayton at all, his behave was one of the most embrassing things in hockey. Yep Russian left ice once before the national anthem and that was more disgusting thing. Hayton is promising great young player but things like that makes him look like he never should be captain or be in the sport where you should respect or opponents.
 
CarlWinslow said:
Again. It was attached to the glass. For the purposes of the rules, the camera could very well considered part of the glass.
Click to expand...

The netting is attached to the glass too and it's a structural object. So your saying if a dman clears the zone and hits the netting it's not a penalty?
 
What a game!:clap:

Overall one of the most competitive and best played WJC's I've ever seen. And believe me, I've seen plenty.
 
ItWasJustified said:
No it's not. There's a difference between a camera that is set up OUTSIDE the rink and the jumbotron that is ABOVE THE ICE SURFACE.

Not much, obviously.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure which side you're arguing, but I'm saying it should have been a penalty. It sounds like you are too. But thanks for the ad hominem comment, that's cute.
 
Oh, and congratulations to Canada about the gold. This is kind of weird, I usually have a strong feeling about he result being "justified" or not (obviously no such thing really in sports) but now I'm kind of baffled, it's not that Russians would have earned it either. I would have preferred most of the game being 5 on 5 and without that bizarre ending, it would have been a sure classic. Oh well, IIHF...
 
  • Like
Reactions: NyQuil
Zaide said:
Structural would be any physical object. The issue isn't whether the camera was a structural element. It's whether it's "above" the ice surface, and while part of it is depending on its angle, it wasn't hit on a part that was above ice surface.
Click to expand...

Do you actually think they discern sections of the camera which result in a penalty or not? The rule will address striking the camera or not. That’s it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dentastic and 1989
Yakushev72 said:
Congratulations to Canada! As I mentioned before the game, this game came down to goaltending, and while in many ways it looked like the Russian skaters were better than the Canadians for most of the game, they were sabotaged by their weakness in goal in the third period. Miftakov is a backup who was pressed into service after Askarov's total meltdown against the Czechs, did okay in the first match against Canada (although he wasn't tested), then melted himself with 2 monkey-wheel circus goals given to the Americans. Wait, its not over yet. Then Askarov has another meltdown,and is pulled in favor of...guess who? Miftakov played okay for the first two periods, before melting down in the 3rd. The second Canadian goal was just bad luck, blocked by a defender, caroms off both legs of the Canadian forward, past Miftakov. The tying goal was partially Romanov's fault for not taking away the shooter's angle, but it was a wrist shot from outside that should have been saved. Then the winning goal, which technically wasn't even a shot. He just laid down on his back and watched the game go away!

Overall, it was an exciting game, but with a team with the talent that he had, fans have to wonder how long the RHF can justify keeping Bragin. Its time to move on. The U18 coach, Filatov, should be behind the bench next year. He has some radical defensive concepts for Russian hockey, and the U18 and below teams are accomplishing things they never have before. How could Bragin have not defended a 3-1 lead late in the second period?
Click to expand...
tough to blame bragin when the second canadian goal was a pure luck and the third was the result of another stupid penalty, the fourth goal is the goalie's fault. i am not bragin's fan but he can't be blamed for losing here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom