Nokelainen and Sauer ejected for fighting during another fight
- Thread starter Harry22
- Start date
That's looking for bad examples to prove a point. Beside if Chara was to do so, the officials would give Pac a penalty shot, not 2 mins for Chara which completely disregard your point.
It's not Blunden steeping on the ice last night that should have given the habs the tww penalty, it's actually because he involved himself in the play that warrent a 2 mins.
There is absolutly nothing in the rulebook that could have help the refs with the decision there. It should have been 4 on 4. If the refs though what Blunden did wasnt fair, they cant create a penalty like that but they could have forgot to give an instigator to the Rangers,........... oh wait they also did.
At the absolute worst for the habs it's 5 on 4 for the rangers. Regardless of if you believe the refs should have allow to create a rule to give 2 penalties there to the habs, you just cant deny the instigator.
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,525
- 8,871
yeah maybe it was.... If we are making up rules. Cole was retired from the ice officially (5 feet from the bench), but because Blunden made the check before Cole was actually off, its a too many men. That's it. That's all.
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,525
- 8,871
Can you read the damn rule book? I posted the specific section just in the previous page. Too many men is when an extra player makes a play (plays the puck, makes a hit, etc). The only way this would have been the right call is if Dubinsky didn't have the puck when Blunden hit him. And it still would of been wrong due to thelack of an instigator penalty on Callahan.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
How do you not understand?
The TMM rules cover the new player jumping on the ice, making a play with the puck or checking someone.
It also states that for the purposes of being off the ice the retreating player must be within 5 feet of the bench and Cole was real damned close to being just that.
There is no freakin interference penalty for a clean hit on the player with the puck.
Like what has been mentioned a thousand times already, with what happened, it's a 4 on 4 with any competent reffing, a 5 on 4 with weak reffing and a 5 on 3 only results from utter gross incompetence.
Nope, hell didn't even think they had a rule book, apparently neither did Blunden.
You sure about what too many men is? I mean, according to what you wrote above, a team can have 10 players on the ice, as long as only 5 of them are involved in the play....
First off sparky, calm down.
Second of all, obviously it wasn't a clean hit, or Blunden wouldn't have been in the box.
Third, Cole was not 5 feet from the bench when Blunden jumped on to decapitate Dubinsky,
It absolutely was interference by Blunden, he jumped off the bench to deliver a hit to a streaking player, Cole wasn't even close to the bench, if that's not interfering with the play, what is exactly?
The too-many-men was called because of the interference. They are mutually inclusive. However, this has been explained and, at this point, it's a circular discussion. Either you get it (and agree), or you don't.
Kane One
Registered User
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,525
- 8,871
yes I know what too many men is, I read the section in the rule book, which I posted one page back like I told you. how hard is it to understand?
And no, because if the player gets involved in the play with the retiring player still on the ice, it's a penalty for too many men.
He should have received a game misconduct for leaving the bench and cheapshotting a player, and received the automatic 10 game suspension.
Hab fans should be happy he only got an additional minor.
Hab fans should be happy he only got an additional minor.
So, then, like another poster posted,
You are absolutely ok with the following scenario,
PK Subban comes flying down the ice, 2 on 1, Habs down a goal, the Bruin player, let's say, Scott Thornton comes off the bench right as Subban is going by and he flat out knocks him into next week, no head shot, nothing but a shoulder to upper chest, and because Subban was not expecting this, as he gets hit, his helmet flies back and he smacks his head and is now out for the season,
You are ok with a single minor, too many men on the ice?
Good to know, I am sure teams will be taking on this strategy soon, especially teams who have a strong Penalty Kill.
Two issues:
1) this is not analogous to what transpired, and would therefore require different rules to be enforced
2) I'd be concerned if Scott Thornton did this because he's been retired for several years, so this would mean he wasn't even dressed for the game. Might even be a legal issue, then.
Why don't people understand that the hit should not have been interference? Dubinsky got hit as soon as he had the puck. It was nowhere near interference. A too many men should have cancelled out the what should have been an instigator penalty.
The fact that we are even on the pk is hilarious enough to begin with, but a 5-on-3? You have to be kidding me.
The fact that we are even on the pk is hilarious enough to begin with, but a 5-on-3? You have to be kidding me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahahaha, this is my favourite argument so far.
So you're basically saying that the call is correct because the referees called a penalty....
Sorry, Shawn Thornton,
And it is completely analogous to what happened.
Well, maybe not the 2-1 part, but hell, let's make it a 3-2, what would prevent SHAWN Thornton, to come off the bench and absolutely LEVEL Subban, possibly severely injuring him? Assuming Boston is completely fine with killing off a 2 min minor penalty for too many men?
He got hit as soon as he got the puck?? On the video that's been thrown around, I thought he was already carrying the puck, then the intererence call makes absolute sense as on the video, the puck is a good 5-6 feet ahead of him I believe when he is it, I had assumed all along that he was carrying the puck and was pushing it up and pushed it a bit too far..
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,525
- 8,871
Would it suck? Yes. Would it be against the rules? No. Unless Thornton did it with malicious intent, then its Subban's fault for not keeping his head up. You can't just make **** up because you don't agree with the rules.
On the Blunden hit, Erik Cole was "retired" (aka off) from the because he was within 5 feet of the bench (He was about 2 feet away, he was at the red line when the hit was made). But because Blunden laid the hit before Cole actually gets off the ice, it becomes a too many men. If Blunden doesn't lay the hit, he's fine to be on the ice because of the "retired player" rule. He just can't engage in the play (basically, I think, it's too get back into position) until the other player is off the ice.
If they want to change the way the rules are, then fine, be my guest. But the way they are, the penalty was a made-up call. Add in the lack of call on Callahan in the same play and it becomes incompetent reffing.
Your last line kills your entire argument since it's so outrageous. It's been in the rule book for years. It's been in the rule book for years and rarely happens.
PS. So, like in the video posted above (Vancouver game), when they had too many men on the ice for a minute - does every player that threw a hit on that shift receive an "interference call"? I guess that means Vancouver should have had 6 penalties instead of just one.
Last edited:
It's not analogous. It would be analogous if another Boston player was within five feet of the bench and there was a line change, only that other player had yet to leave the ice.
You, and other fans, have created this analogy wherein the implication is that X player is virtually alone, if not on a breakaway, and some opposing player on the bench jumps on the ice with malice as their intent to disrupt the play. That's not what happened. Intent matters a great deal. So you omit two important components in the creation of this analogy:
1) there was no malice; it was a legitimate line change and had Blunden not made the hit, it would not have been too-many-men. He was justified in being on the ice, within five feet of the bench.
2) Dubinsky wasn't alone, on a breakaway, or anything. He had some space, sure, but it's not as though Blunden was preventing a scoring opportunity here.
- Aug 2, 2005
- 62,525
- 8,871
Okay, I can't debate with you anymore. What video are you watching?!?! Dubinsky clearly had the puck when he gets hit. If he didn't have the puck, then yes, it should be both a Too Many Men and Interference call. However, he clearly has the puck and any referee who can't see that (especially when there are two) should be let go from their job right now.
I would say watch closely, but I shouldn't need to since it's completely obvious.
I thought it was pretty obvious what I said, I was repeating the other poster who said that Dubinsky just got the puck, I had said I was under the impression that he was CARRYING the puck up the ice, but hey, who needs reading..
