Nokelainen and Sauer ejected for fighting during another fight

[JIMVINNY]

So you're suggesting that since he was already receiving a bench minor the interference shouldn't be called?????

It was interference in the refs eyes. There is this rule called interference, that's what the ref used to justify the call.

That would make sense, if what Blunden did was actually against the interference call. Since Dubs had the puck, it wasn't. Nice try.

 

[Puckface NYR*]

Cole was only a stride or two from the bench. Had he not stopped skating, it wouldn't even have been too many men. So this "alert hockey player" you speak of should have known how close Cole was to the bench, and kept his head up for a guy coming off the bench.

Fact of the matter is, the refs totally blew the situation. They assessed an interference penalty that wasn't justified whatsoever, and didn't assess an instigator that clearly was justified, by the multiple rangers that jumped blunden.

He obviously wasn't close enough to the bench or it wouldn't have been a TMM call.

 

[shao01]

This is what happens when one team is skating and the other team is standing still. The Canadiens are making the decisions for the refs tonight, not the other way around.

So you are saying the Canadiens deserved the penalty for delivering a clean hit to a Rangers player standing still?

Or perhaps you mean the missed call when a Habs player was hooked and no penalty was called?

If you actually paid any attention to the game, you would know how pathetic the reffing was tonight.

 

[JIMVINNY]

He obviously wasn't close enough to the bench or it wouldn't have been a TMM call.

Did you miss the "Had he not stopped skating" part of my post? Try again, please.

 

[Saitama]

refs have got to be on the take. No other way to explain those calls. It was the ref at the other end of the rink that made the call, not the one standing right beside them. (referring to the interference call on the hit)

Oh wait, you're serious?

 

[Jee]

Blunden was taking Cole's spot who was going on the bench, making himself the new 5th guy on the ice. I can live with the Too many men on the ice call, but there's no way this was an Interference. Now if Cole made a hit, that'd be an interference.

 

[Puckface NYR*]

Did you miss the "Had he not stopped skating" part of my post? Try again, please.

I didn't miss it. But that fact completely discredits the rest of your post.

 

[Stanley Foobrick]

Did you miss the "Had he not stopped skating" part of my post? Try again, please.

Seriously? You're arguing the 2 many men?

Cole is close enough to the bench if...... and only if his replacement doesn't get involved with the play or any opposing players. Since his replacement clearly gets involved the call is obvious.

If you cant see that, I really can't help you any further.

 

[HockeyHD]

It's not a clean hit if there are already five guys on the ice. He deserved a penalty.

Dubinsky knew there were five guys. He wasn't expecting a sixth to just hop out in front of him.

Yeah, they called the too many on the ice. Get off your high horse. You don't know it all. Stick to your own board.

 

[Davebo*]

Now the rags embellishing to make sure....

 

[Jigger77]

I don't ever complain about reffing. They have a hard job. But these two are in over their heads.

Too bad, the game started really well, good energy from both teams. Refs ruined it.

 

[Puckface NYR*]

Blunden was taking Cole's spot who was going on the bench, making himself the new 5th guy on the ice. I can live with the Too many men on the ice call, but there's no way this was an Interference. Now if Cole made a hit, that'd be an interference.

Wrong. Blunden is considered the 6th man.

 

[LeMAD]

Insanity. The refs start the 2nd period like they did in the 1st.

 

[Saitama]

Yeah, they called the too many on the ice. Get off your high horse. You don't know it all. Stick to your own board.

Yeah! No Rangers fans on the General board, didn't you know that?

 

[shao01]

Another penalty? Are you serious?

This is ********. Refs are handing the game and anyone who disagree is obviously a Rangers homer or didn't watch the game. Simple as that.

 

[Puckface NYR*]

Insanity. The refs start the 2nd period like they did in the 1st.

lemad?

 

[Made Dan]

Another penalty? Are you serious?

This is ********. Refs are handing the game and anyone who disagree is obviously a Rangers homer or didn't watch the game. Simple as that.

So because of a bad call in the 1st, they should finish the game by not calling actual penalties? Are you serious?

 

[Callagraves]

Habs fans *****ing about the reffing.

No chance that they're taking alot of penalties. The Canadians would never do that!

 

[HTTP 400]

Just to say, I was wrong earlier... The 2 penalties on Blunden were indeed a wrong call. You can't call a player both on too many men and for interference, since it's the same penalty :

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.


From the rule book.

Now, hoping to see some real hockey for the 2nd and 3rd...

 

[Callagraves]

doublepost

 

[JIMVINNY]

Seriously? You're arguing the 2 many men?

Cole is close enough to the bench if...... and only if his replacement doesn't get involved with the play or any opposing players. Since his replacement clearly gets involved the call is obvious.

If you cant see that, I really can't help you any further.

Not arguing the TMM at all. Just saying that it could have been avoided had Cole not stopped skating. Point being that if Cole was that close to getting off the ice, Dubs has to be responsible and keep his head up for players that might be coming off the bench.

 

[Boom Boom Geoffrion*]

Blunden was taking Cole's spot who was going on the bench, making himself the new 5th guy on the ice. I can live with the Too many men on the ice call, but there's no way this was an Interference. Now if Cole made a hit, that'd be an interference.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26485

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.

Cole wasn't 5 feet from the bench when Blunden hit Dubinsky. That's an interference penalty, on top of too many men.

 

[Stanley Foobrick]

Just to say, I was wrong earlier... The 2 penalties on Blunden were indeed a wrong call. You can't call a player both on too many men and for interference, since it's the same penalty :

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.


From the rule book.

Now, hoping to see some real hockey for the 2nd and 3rd...

It says the infraction of too many men will be called, but it doesn't limit it to anything else...... it doesn't say ONLY the penalty of too many me will be called.

 

[shao01]

One more penalty? **** this. I'm done.

These ****ing incompetent monkeys are about the most useless referees I have ever seen in my entire life.

**** this.

 

[Section337]

Did his second foot touch the ice before the hit? It was extremely close, but if it did not touch the ice he could be called for interference as he is considered to still be on the bench, as defined in the interference penalty.

However, the too many men on the ice does have a paragraph about that possibility. Not sure if both should be call in a too many men on the ice situation. It could be considered two fouls, but they both involved the same act.