GDT: Group B - May 11 - Canada (3) vs France (2)

[ijuka]

Hope these refs aren't calling the playoffs.

 

[ijuka]

From a replay it WAS spearing, take a closer look.

The high stick was spearing too.

 

[kary]

Yea ... the spearing was there, the french guy could have take more than 2 for that high stick to though

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

From a replay it WAS spearing, take a closer look.

I just did, that's not even close to a spear. More like a poke.

 

[Smif]

From a replay it WAS spearing, take a closer look.

You talking about the spear to the face??

 

[Muston Atthews]

From a replay it WAS spearing, take a closer look.

I've never seen that called ever

 

[oooooooooohCanada]

From a replay it WAS spearing, take a closer look.

If that's spearing then any type.of contact with stick to body is a spear. There is zero intent there. He simply saw a loose puck and poked at it. Horrible call.

 

[Alerion]

Offsetting minors would have been sufficient for that situation, would have been a 2 min PP for France if not for the stick to the face of Skinner. Definitely don't agree with 5 and a game for that but whatever.

 

[Matt24]

I'm kind of cheering for France for the lulz, but the high stick was more vicious than the "spear".

 

[Alerion]

So nice of Killorn to start the French breakout there...

 

[MS]

It's weird, because if that exact same action was done intentionally to a skater as opposed to a goalie, it would clearly be a spear. The blade was turned in and made good contact. But because it was an unintentional spear when he was poking a a puck in the goalie's equipment, it just seems weird. Not sure what to make of it really.

 

[kary]

I'm kind of cheering for France for the lulz, but the high stick was more vicious than the "spear".

I wouldn't say "vicious", there was no intent to smash him in the face with a stick, he just went at him to avenge his goalie and forgot he had a stick in hand - two minutes for high stick for sure, but i dont see how that was vicious.

 

[Smif]

I wouldn't say "vicious", there was no intent to smash him in the face with a stick, he just went at him to avenge his goalie and forgot he had a stick in hand - two minutes for high stick for sure, but i dont see how that was vicious.

Just because there wasn't intent doesn't make it not vicious.

 

[kary]

Just because there wasn't intent doesn't make it not vicious.

So I just googled the definition of vicious ... the first thing that came up was "deliberately cruel or violent"

 

[Daninja]

Just because there wasn't intent doesn't make it not vicious.

Umm...it does? Like, by definition. Also, double negative?

 

[Muston Atthews]

What a terrible 2 on 0 and it was by teammates too

 

[y2kcanucks]

Another very weak call. Wow.

 

[y2kcanucks]

The officials are doing everything they can to help France get the tying goal. This is embarrassing.

 

[Zybalto]

Only a 6 on that dive....little too obvious

 

[ijuka]

Competing for position in front of the crease... ? Ref bet big money on a tie or something?

 

[y2kcanucks]

It's weird, because if that exact same action was done intentionally to a skater as opposed to a goalie, it would clearly be a spear. The blade was turned in and made good contact. But because it was an unintentional spear when he was poking a a puck in the goalie's equipment, it just seems weird. Not sure what to make of it really.

In the NHL that's probably 2 minutes, if anything at all. I could live with 2 minutes. 5 minutes and a game was ridiculous.

 

[Belizarius]

When canadians whines at the ref', there's something wrong...

 

[Smif]

So I just googled the definition of vicious ... the first thing that came up was "deliberately cruel or violent"

Learn something new every day...

 

[Smif]

Umm...it does? Like, by definition. Also, double negative?

Ya, I don't care.

 

[Macbanan]

What a fun game. Does Bellemare ever leave the ice?