Nokelainen and Sauer ejected for fighting during another fight

[Jee]

LeMad and a few others making every Habs fan look foolish.

Some strange calls went both ways. By far not the worst officiated game so far. NY came away with the win. Neither goaltender looked more than human.

lololol what ? Cannot be more one-sided.

 

[Callagraves]

I think it was toronto. Everyone was up in arms about it too. It's a meh call, but i have something against Subban...

 

[Stanley Foobrick]

I have watched hockey for a long time and I didn't recall a penalty for snowing a golatender. Snowing a goaltender happned a dozen time a game.

Doesn't happen very often. There were even a couple times earlier in this game when it happened. Wouldn;t be surprised if there was a point when the refs warned the next ones getting called.

 

[Jigger77]

lololol what ? Cannot be more one-sided.

The call on McDonough was a makeup call. Refs were in over their heads.

 

[Jigger77]

I think it was toronto. Everyone was up in arms about it too. It's a meh call, but i have something against Subban...

There's no doubt he did it on purpose. I've just never seen it penalized.

Thanks.

 

[Callagraves]

lololol what ? Cannot be more one-sided.

Oh the penalties that lead to the five on 3 for the habs, you can easily see that the initial penalty came when a Habs player stepped on the puck and fell, and i suppose if you wanna call holding on Lundqvist, you can make an arguement for that call, but it was a pretty meh call to me.

Soft calls went both way. Stop collecting injustices, nobody's getting special treatment.

 

[Jee]

The call on McDonough was a makeup call. Refs were in over their heads.

What about the non-calls when Kostitsyn and Pacioretty got tripped behind the net ? When Blunden got interfered in the corner, when Eller got clocked by a knee ?

It was one-sided.

 

[Puckface NYR*]

What about the non-calls when Kostitsyn and Pacioretty got tripped behind the net ? When Blunden got interfered in the corner, when Eller got clocked by a knee ?

It was one-sided.

I've seen worse games alone at the Bell Centre

 

[Jee]

Oh the penalties that lead to the five on 3 for the habs, you can easily see that the initial penalty came when a Habs player stepped on the puck and fell, and i suppose if you wanna call holding on Lundqvist, you can make an arguement for that call, but it was a pretty meh call to me.

Soft calls went both way. Stop collecting injustices, nobody's getting special treatment.

What ? Lundqvist had his stick around Gionta's waist to slow him from getting the puck. Couldn't have been more clearer.

 

[Jigger77]

What about the non-calls when Kostitsyn and Pacioretty got tripped behind the net ? When Blunden got interfered in the corner, when Eller got clocked by a knee ?

It was one-sided.

I clearly remember the non-call about mid-way through the 3rd on Pacioretty. Pretty brutal. Don't remember the Kostitsyn one or the Eller one. But I tend to agree that it felt one-sided. I don't buy the "nhl wanted habs to lose bs" but maybe the refs were a bit inexperienced and influenced by the home crowd who knows.

Either way, there were a lot of dumb penalties by the Habs (two high sticks for example).

Just a really frustrating game to watch.

 

[Swept In Seven]

So much buttdevestation in this thread. The Canadiens played undisciplined, simple as that. There were some missed calls on both sides, but when you hook someone or pop them in the face with your stick right in front of a ref, it is going to get called. There was too much stickwork by MTL tonight, and that is why they had so many penalties.

 

[SRTtoZ]

Fun game to watch IMO, good action both ways...a ton of penalties decided things early but the game evened up at the end and we had a great 3rd period. Subban is a moron! I'm sorry but Lundqvist caught the puck and was standing there for the whistle and idiot boy has to skate 20 feet and shower him for no reason when you have momentum, thats a STUPID MOVE. Spin it any way you want but there was zero need for that.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

I don't know why habs fans are confused about the Blunden call. It would have been a legal hit if the guy Blunden was changing for delivered the check. Had Blunden not made an illegal change, Dubinsky would have had a clear path into the zone. Therefore, his mere presence on the ice made him illegal. Throwing a hit --clean or not-- served as the interference

 

[NewGuy]

well, ill admit as a ranger fan the reffing was pretty one sided. It happens though.

At least Habs fans now know the frustration of other teams fans when games are at the bell centre.

Yes having all those power plays at the Bell Centre must really be frustrating.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.ht...AALL&sort=homeTimesShort&viewName=penaltyKill

 

[Jigger77]

I don't know why habs fans are confused about the Blunden call. It would have been a legal hit if the guy Blunden was changing for delivered the check. Had Blunden not made an illegal change, Dubinsky would have had a clear path into the zone. Therefore, his mere presence on the ice made him illegal. Throwing a hit --clean or not-- served as the interference

I'm fine with the interference call but I'm not sure how the Rangers end up with a 5 on 3 on the play.

 

[QcnARF]

I don't know why habs fans are confused about the Blunden call. It would have been a legal hit if the guy Blunden was changing for delivered the check. Had Blunden not made an illegal change, Dubinsky would have had a clear path into the zone. Therefore, his mere presence on the ice made him illegal. Throwing a hit --clean or not-- served as the interference

Funny how you are just making new rules to justify the bad call. The rule clearly states that it should only have been a TMM:

Rule 74 - Too Many Men on the Ice

74.1 Too Many Men on the Ice - Players may be changed at any time during the play from the players’ bench provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall be within five feet (5') of his players’ bench and out of the play before the change is made. Refer also to Rule 71 – Premature Substitution. At the discretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5’) limit of the players’ bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed.

When a player is retiring from the ice surface and is within the five foot (5’) limit of his players’ bench, and his substitute is on the ice, then the retiring player shall be considered off the ice for the purpose of Rule 70 – Leaving Bench.

If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of “too many men on the ice” will be called.

If in the course of a substitution either the player(s) entering the play or the player(s) retiring is struck by the puck accidentally, the play will not be stopped and no penalty will be called.

During the play, the player retiring from the ice must do so at the players’ bench and not through any other exit leading from the rink. This is not a legal player change and therefore when a violation occurs, a bench minor penalty shall be imposed.

A player coming onto the ice as a substitute player is considered on the ice once both of his skates are on the ice. If he plays the puck or interferes with an opponent while still on the players’ bench, he shall be penalized under Rule 56 – Interference.

Now do you understand why we are confused?

 

[Theosis]

The rule states pretty clearly to me that all it should have been was a too many men on the ice penalty... No idea how it ended up as a 5 on 3? Maybe the refs don't even know their own rule book

If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of “too many men on the ice” will be called.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Funny how you are just making new rules to justify the bad call. The rule clearly states that it should only have been a TMM:



Now do you understand why we are confused?

Fair enough. The only thing I can think of then is that the Refs thought Blunden hit Dubinsky away from the puck, which is not the case.

As for the game itself, I think the Habs deserved every penalty, while the refs let virtually all of the borderline calls by the Rangers go uncalled.

The Rangers usually get screwed, so I wont shed a tear over it.

 

[Pruch025]

Please no more. The better team won. There was no ref conspiracy. Thank you.

 

[Saitama]

Funny how you are just making new rules to justify the bad call. The rule clearly states that it should only have been a TMM:



Now do you understand why we are confused?

If Blunden doesn't illegally check Duby there, he skates straight in and has an excellent chance to score. Instead, he was interfered with. Not terribly hard to understand I think.

 

[Mike8]

If Blunden doesn't illegally check Duby there, he skates straight in and has an excellent chance to score. Instead, he was interfered with. Not terribly hard to understand I think.

Not sure why you're saying this. Did you not read the bolded and underlined portion of the post you quoted?

 

[Kakko]

Two different calls

1: An unarguable Too many men

2:

A minor penalty shall be imposed on any identifiable player on the players’ bench or penalty bench who, by means of his stick or his body, interferes with the movements of the puck or any opponent on the ice during the progress of the play.

Technically, Blunden was an extra man, and therefore a bench player. Hence, both penalties apply

 

[Mike8]

Two different calls

1: An unarguable Too many men

2:

Technically, Blunden was an extra man, and therefore a bench player. Hence, both penalties apply

Are you stating that there should have been two 'too many many' penalties called here?

Because one was interference, and one was too many men. So your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Kakko]

Are you stating that there should have been two 'too many many' penalties called here?

Because one was interference, and one was too many men. So your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

Nah, the quote is the rule for interference. should have put that

 

[JimmyStart*]

Blindsiding someone by cutting in front of them while they have the puck? That's just Dubinsky not keeping his head up. It wasn't even a headshot.

The sad thing is you honestly think this accurately explains what happenned. Homer much?