London Knights 2023 - 24 Season Thread (Part 4)

[Fastpace]

https://x.com/houndsinsider/status/1758901010582421588?s=12

Nah, The ‘suspension’ is completely bogus.
The refs on the ice got it all wrong. I’m sure it will be rescinded once they take a look.
On ice officials were reffing the nameplate on the jersey.

-The Soo player took a run at Sawyer from out near centre ice and cross checked him in the back. Sawyer was just standing there nowhere near the puck.
-Sawyer followed him into the corner and returned a ‘how do you do’ low cross check.
-The Soo player comes up high with his stick in Bolton’s face, so Bolton grabs him.
- The Soo player throws down his gloves and tries to get some quick rabbit punches on Bolton. Clearly instigating the fight.
-Bolton defends himself/ragdolls him a bit.

Nothing suspendable. Definitely didn’t instigate anything.

Seen ing this replay, I have to agree with you Holden Caufield, there sure were a cross-check from behind to S, Boulton that wasn't call. Boulton did however press the issue by going after Vigilio, so it will be a up to the league how they will view this one.

 

[ohloutsider]

He wouldn't have a need to dislodge it if he wasn't hooking George

Clearly there was a hooking call that was not called + a holding the stick call that was not called. Sounds like a chopped pot to me.
And of course the slapped stick that was called and the grumpy response to the ref that was call. Hope this helps, lol.

 

[nelli27]

K. Johnston slots in for S. Boulton.
R. Boulton in.
Henry B in, Woolley out.
Simpson starts.

 

[Fastpace]

Did you watch the video?

When I watch the video I see Cloutier reach around George trying to knock the puck off his stick while forechecking. George clamps his arm around the stick and skates 80 feet with it under there trying to sell the call. All the while Cloutier trailing behind trying to dislodge the stick. Ref watched the entire thing and no call, so really not sure why you are choosing this play as the hill you are going to die on?


I guess after George refusing to relinquish the stick for so long, the refs decided he was the one hooking himself?

What the hell, man, was the puck all the way up to George's arms and head ?

 

[HockeyPops]

What the hell, man, was the puck all the way up to George's arms and head ?

At what point are you referring to? Behind the net? Or 80 feet up the ice near center?

 

[Fastpace]

Clearly there was a hooking call that was not called + a holding the stick call that was not called. Sounds like a chopped pot to me.
And of course the slapped stick that was called and the grumpy response to the ref that was call. Hope this helps, lol.

I don't know ohloutsider, I know the game has changed a lot since my playing days, no one player would take a hockey stick under the arms poking ribs lightely or up around the face without protecting himself, the game changed but not as much as taking stick abuses, that I know of

 

[Fastpace]

At what point are you referring to? Behind the net? Or 80 feet up the ice near center?

Coming around his net heading up ice

 

[ohloutsider]

I don't know ohloutsider, I know the game has changed a lot since my playing days, no one player would take a hockey stick under the arms poking ribs lightely or up around the face without protecting himself, the game changed but not as much as taking stick abuses, that I know of

Since we played the game has definitely changed. Players clamp down on the stick now to ensure the ref sees the hook. It is a sell job you see across the league. In our day you would turn around and address the issue if you know what I mean. Back then there was no fighting limits and no understanding of head injuries. I'm ok with fighting coming out of the game but the consequences of that is what you see now from , I will call them antics. Be safe.

 

[HockeyPops]

No.... it's impossible for there to be a hook against the Soo

Ok I will bite again, despite my better judgement.

I am still interested to hear at what point you see a hook? When the puck is still there and the stick is near the hands, George is adeptly stickhandling it with an stick interference by Cloutier. I honestly don't see a hook there.

By the time George moves the puck Cloutier only has one hand on the stick and George is bear hugging the stick and refusing to give it up. Is that the hook? Not in my books.

Finally, a few seconds later as Cloutier is trying to finally pull the stick free George is still not giving it up and is spun around with the stick up high in his armpit (put there and kept there by George). Good non call.

Nobody has explained where the hook is. Just that there must have been one because the stick was there. Sorry, stick got there without a hook in my many, many, viewings of this. Can someone clearly explain precisely at what point of the video they see a hook?

Coming around his net heading up ice

So the part conveniently cut off by Otto?

 

[ohloutsider]

Ok I will bite again, despite my better judgement.

I am still interested to hear at what point you see a hook? When the puck is still there and the stick is near the hands, George is adeptly stickhandling it with an stick interference by Cloutier. I honestly don't see a hook there.

By the time George moves the puck Cloutier only has one hand on the stick and George is bear hugging the stick and refusing to give it up. Is that the hook? Not in my books.

Finally, a few seconds later as Cloutier is trying to finally pull the stick free George is still not giving it up and is spun around with the stick up high in his armpit (put there and kept there by George). Good non call.

Nobody has explained where the hook is. Just that there must have been one because the stick was there. Sorry, stick got there without a hook in my many, many, viewings of this. Can someone clearly explain precisely at what point of the video they see a hook?


So the part conveniently cut off by Otto?

As he comes around the net the stick goes under the arm for a brief second and then the arm clamps down on the stick. Under the letter of the law that is a hook. But like many, many other times in many other games it was not called.

 

[Holden Caufield]

Seen ing this replay, I have to agree with you Holden Caufield, there sure were a cross-check from behind to S, Boulton that wasn't call. Boulton did however press the issue by going after Vigilio, so it will be a up to the league how they will view this one.

My view is players get tied up and grapple/face wash each other and exchange words behind the play all the time. It usually doesn’t lead to an actual fight.

In the history of the instigator rule. It has always been given to the guy who actually takes off his gloves first with the intention of bare knuckle fighting. That was clearly Virgilio. Not sure why last night they decided to interpret the rule differently.

But Sawyer isn’t in the lineup… So I guess the league has already ruled against him.

Hopefully Ryder can provide a little spark tonight and the team can bounce back with a better performance in general.

 

[Otto]

Ok I will bite again, despite my better judgement.

I am still interested to hear at what point you see a hook? When the puck is still there and the stick is near the hands, George is adeptly stickhandling it with an stick interference by Cloutier. I honestly don't see a hook there.

By the time George moves the puck Cloutier only has one hand on the stick and George is bear hugging the stick and refusing to give it up. Is that the hook? Not in my books.

Finally, a few seconds later as Cloutier is trying to finally pull the stick free George is still not giving it up and is spun around with the stick up high in his armpit (put there and kept there by George). Good non call.

Nobody has explained where the hook is. Just that there must have been one because the stick was there. Sorry, stick got there without a hook in my many, many, viewings of this. Can someone clearly explain precisely at what point of the video they see a hook?


So the part conveniently cut off by Otto?

You say "conveniently cut off" yet you say you've seen the video. So if you have another video please post it.

You've also acknowledged that tge stick was under George's arm... last I checked that was a penalty of some sort

My view is players get tied up and grapple/face wash each other and exchange words behind the play all the time. It usually doesn’t lead to an actual fight.

In the history of the instigator rule. It has always been given to the guy who actually takes off his gloves first with the intention of bare knuckle fighting. That was clearly Virgilio. Not sure why last night they decided to interpret the rule differently.

But Sawyer isn’t in the lineup… So I guess the league has already ruled against him.

The rule states that gloves off first is one of the criteria for calling an instigator, but so is throwing the first punch, which Boulton clearly did

 

[ohloutsider]

You say "conveniently cut off" yet you say you've seen the video. So if you have another video please post it.

You've also acknowledged that tge stick was under George's arm... last I checked that was a penalty of some sort


The rule states that gloves off first is one of the criteria for calling an instigator, but so is throwing the first punch, which Boulton clearly did

We also don't know what was being said. Boulton may have been aggressive verbally that caused them to make that call?

Anyway thanks for allowing my interjections, I'm off to scream at the officials in the Windsor/Flint game tonight,. Just Sayin.

 

[Otto]

@HockeyPops

 

[Fastpace]

Ok I will bite again, despite my better judgement.

I am still interested to hear at what point you see a hook? When the puck is still there and the stick is near the hands, George is adeptly stickhandling it with an stick interference by Cloutier. I honestly don't see a hook there.

By the time George moves the puck Cloutier only has one hand on the stick and George is bear hugging the stick and refusing to give it up. Is that the hook? Not in my books.

Finally, a few seconds later as Cloutier is trying to finally pull the stick free George is still not giving it up and is spun around with the stick up high in his armpit (put there and kept there by George). Good non call.

Nobody has explained where the hook is. Just that there must have been one because the stick was there. Sorry, stick got there without a hook in my many, many, viewings of this. Can someone clearly explain precisely at what point of the video they see a hook?


So the part conveniently cut off by Otto?

You are definitely not winning your case with that kind of argument, educate yourself on hockey and try something else or watch the replay in slow-mo if the game is too fast for the eyes

 

[Ferguson Jenkins]

K. Johnston slots in for S. Boulton.
R. Boulton in.
Henry B in, Woolley out.
Simpson starts.

I don’t think KJ’s in. Just the 19th skater of the warmup.

 

[Otto]

Mark McKelvie is by far the best TV play by play man in the OHL

 

[HockeyPops]

educate yourself on hockey and try something else or watch the replay in slow-mo if the game is too fast for the eyes

Hmmm, the old argument "you don't know hockey." Try debating the arguments instead of attacking the poster?

I can see Cloutier get his stick in there at the ~8.5 second mark of Otto's most recent video. I can understand why some London fans might believe it's hooking. I still do not believe it's hooking. Here's why.

I have seen many a breakaway with no call where there was the same or more stick contact than what Cloutier did at the ~8.5 second mark of Otto's most recent video. Many, many non calls. On breakaways. And in those situations it was potentially preventing a scoring opportunity and still no call. This was clearly not a scoring opportunity for George. The stick did not prevent George from playing the puck either. I believe no call on the hooking was correct, as I have said.

However, maybe I just need to go learn hockey. I will go now.

 

[Otto]

Hmmm, the old argument "you don't know hockey." Try debating the arguments instead of attacking the poster?

I can see Cloutier get his stick in there at the ~8.5 second mark of Otto's most recent video. I can understand why some London fans might believe it's hooking. I still do not believe it's hooking. Here's why.

I have seen many a breakaway with no call where there was the same or more stick contact than what Cloutier did at the ~8.5 second mark of Otto's most recent video. Many, many non calls. On breakaways. And in those situations it was potentially preventing a scoring opportunity and still no call. This was clearly not a scoring opportunity for George. The stick did not prevent George from playing the puck either. I believe no call on the hooking was correct, as I have said.

However, maybe I just need to go learn hockey. I will go now.

And clearly not a high stick even though his stick made contact with the neck/head area?

 

[HockeyPops]

And clearly not a high stick even though his stick made contact with the neck/head area?

It needs to clearly be a high stick to be called. I don't see clear contact above the shoulders.

 

[Otto]

It needs to clearly be a high stick to be called. I don't see clear contact above the shoulders.

11 second mark of Ottos most recent video

 

[HockeyPops]

11 second mark of Ottos most recent video

Watched it. Stick under arm, don't see any clear contact above shoulders. At 11 second mark of Ottos most recent video.

 

[Otto]

Watched it. Stick under arm, don't see any clear contact above shoulders. At 11 second mark of Ottos most recent video.

 

[HockeyPops]

Watched it. Stick under arm, don't see any clear contact above shoulders. At 11 second mark of Ottos most recent video.

Ditto

 

[Ferguson Jenkins]

Hate to bring this up but this is yet another terribly officiated game. Phantom call on Gaz leads to a goal… phantom PS call on Smith leads to Cowan goal. Now a bs call on Bonk lol