Official 2012 MasterCard Memorial Cup Thread

[Jabba11]

Looks like there's still no respect for the Cataractes..all about how Samuelsson scored the GWG and the french refs etc.. I congratulate the Cats for putting on a great effort despite not playing a single game since a while. I wasn't impressed by the Oil Kings at all..having a hard time beating a rusted Cats team..wait till they play against the Sea Dogs..they will suffer.

 

[Wheatking]

Looks like there's still no respect for the Cataractes..all about how Samuelsson scored the GWG and the french refs etc.. I congratulate the Cats for putting on a great effort despite not playing a single game since a while. I wasn't impressed by the Oil Kings at all..having a hard time beating a rusted Cats team..wait till they play against the Sea Dogs..they will suffer.

Well...do you really think they went 50-15-7, scored 300+ goals, had a 22 game winning streak and became WHL champions playing like they did tonight?

I think the combination of coming off an extreme high in a very intense series, not playing in a week, nerves(young team that wasn't supposed to really do anything until next season) and not giving the Cataractes enough respect lead to a pretty poor game...but even in this poor effort, their defense stood strong and they really only needed one half decent period to score 3 goals and win the game.

I don't like the Oil Kings chances against the Sea Dogs but I'd expect them to look better in a loss against them than they did in the win tonight.

 

[Beerfish]

I know it's not exactly the way the rule is written, but to me if the puck's momentum alone is what carries it over the goal line like it was in that situation, then it has to be a goal. I understand the call when guys are jamming at it or pushing the goalie back, but that wasn't the case. That's the way they call it if the net gets dislodged IIRC.

None of that matters. It doesn't matter about momentum, it doesn't matter about the situation. It doesn't matter if a guy is jamming at it or not. If the ref blows the whistle the play is dead, end of story. You simply can't be in the nik Kypreos world and invent that the whistle did not blow. It was blown before the puck crossed the line play is over.

I found it mind boggling that John Garrett was actually the smarter of the two. Kypreos showed without a doubt he has no clue whatsoever.

 

[Beerfish]

It was a quick whistle. Its not like he made the save and they banged away at his pads for 3 seconds.

Player put the puck between the goalies legs and the ref blew his whistle too quick.

The end result they got correct. Thought it should have been a goal.

Kypreos is an idiot though.

No they did not get it right. Once the whistle is blown the play is dead. You can't go back in time and say, well they should not have blown the whistle so lets make it the way it should have been. There is zero question that they screwed up the call on the review. You simply can't ignore a whistle because you think the ref blew it too quickly.

 

[Brewster]

What a confusing conversation. The ref seemed entirely focused on whether the puck was over the line and didn't really seem to care at all about when the whistle blew, which was really the only thing that was supposed to be in question.

Regardless, a good win for the Oil Kings. Shawinigan was also quite impressive for being off for a month.

 

[Oilmageddon*]

Pisyk one hell of a dirty player. Aiming for the head every hit.

As a season ticket holder for the Oil Kings this really puzzles me , he is more of a positional dman that angles off opponents or uses his stick to clear pucks. Never considered him dirty player in the least.

 

[oilerbear]

Honestly, I would be in favor of picking him with our early 2nd that will be 33rd or 32nd.

One pick to late!

 

[lavoy]

So glad they caught that garbage on TV. The nation and the rest of the Q fan base gets to see that A) That Ref is a complete blockhead or B) This league heavily favors the Quebecers, something us Moose fans would be ridiculed for and cry "Moose against the world"... Well, you saw it and heard it tonight, complete garbage.

 

[PBandJ]

Edmonton/Saint John is going to be a hell of a game. The Oil Kings have their legs back under them now, and hopefully they give em hell.

 

[Playmaker09]

Missed calls happen. The QMJHL ref literally gave the Cataractes a free goal. The man in the review booth told him to stick with his no-goal call on the ice and the ref turned around and did the exact opposite. That's probably a thousand times worse than a missed call.

The reviewer was just as lost if not more so than the ref.

The ref told him multiple times that the only thing in question was whether or not the puck completely crossed the goal line and the guy kept replying with nonsense about the whistle.

The initial "no-goal" call had probably already been changed during the gathering of officials as you could see the one linesman quickly skate over and protest the initial call right away. Hence, the only thing left to review, in the ref's mind at least, was whether or not it crossed.

 

[OilerTyler]

The reviewer was just as lost if not more so than the ref.

The ref told him multiple times that the only thing in question was whether or not the puck completely crossed the goal line and the guy kept replying with nonsense about the whistle.

The initial "no-goal" call had probably already been changed during the gathering of officials as you could see the one linesman quickly skate over and protest the initial call right away. Hence, the only thing left to review, in the ref's mind at least, was whether or not it crossed.

The reviewer probably kept mentioning the whistle because it was the determining factor of whether this should've been a goal or not. Everyone in the building knew that the puck crossed the goal line. What we didn't know was if the whistle blew before it did (which it did). The ref seemed pretty confident that he blew the whistle after the puck crossed the line which was surprising because ten seconds earlier he didn't even know that the puck went in the net.

If the initial no-goal call was changed the refs need to single that on the ice. These aren't calls that they can keep secret from everyone. If they did reverse the call, the ref probably should've mentioned that to the goal judge. That way when he said they should go with the call on the ice they wouldn't think he meant the exact opposite of what he actually did.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

What a confusing conversation. The ref seemed entirely focused on whether the puck was over the line and didn't really seem to care at all about when the whistle blew, which was really the only thing that was supposed to be in question.

This is what I thought during the exchange. It was like the ref and the upstairs goal judge were talking about two completely different things. Unless I misheard, the ref even seemed to get his story confused.

It doesn't matter now that the game is done and it didn't cost the Oil Kings the game, but man ... if that had turned the tide and they lost because of that?

 

[I am the Liquor]

The conversation was embarrassing but I think they got the call right in the end, even if the conversation didn't make sense.

 

[I am the Liquor]

The reviewer was just as lost if not more so than the ref.

The ref told him multiple times that the only thing in question was whether or not the puck completely crossed the goal line and the guy kept replying with nonsense about the whistle.

The initial "no-goal" call had probably already been changed during the gathering of officials as you could see the one linesman quickly skate over and protest the initial call right away. Hence, the only thing left to review, in the ref's mind at least, was whether or not it crossed.

Nonsense about the whistle?

Shoooooooooo-mama!

Cmon Kypreos. We know its you.

 

[reffree]

I agree that the whole conversation was strange, but in a perfect world that goal was good. So even if it was awkward, the end result was the good one. It could have been worse.

 

[puckfan13]

He crosses the line from time to time but it's part of his game.

No he doesn't and it's literally not even close to being a part of his game. If anything he should be more mean and nasty, he shows almost zero inclination to do that typically. He concentrates on his first-class skating, agility and a good stick to defend.

 

[xMenace]

Looks like there's still no respect for the Cataractes..all about how Samuelsson scored the GWG and the french refs etc.. I congratulate the Cats for putting on a great effort despite not playing a single game since a while. I wasn't impressed by the Oil Kings at all..having a hard time beating a rusted Cats team..wait till they play against the Sea Dogs..they will suffer.

It was a very good game, and yeah, I wasn't overwhelmed by the Oil Kings' game either. I thought the Cats dominated much of the game and were faster and a bit more skilled. Their rustiness showed in their timing. It will be interesting to see if they can settle in for either of the next two games. To be fair the the WHL reps, they looked sluggish early and picked it up later. Overwhelmed by the experience? These are kids and its a young team; you see great teams underperform every year. But I really can't see them taking down the dogs. SJ is bigger, faster, deeper, and more skilled than the Cats.

I was mostly impressed by Ellis and Gormley. G seems to gave grown taller. Chaput stood out too as did Kabanov. I didn't ever think I'd see myself writing good about Kabanov, but he was strong in all areas, especially the tough ones. No names stood out for Edmonton, not as a dominant player, but their team game rarely broke down. I liked all their defensemen. I suppose this speaks to their team depth.

Overall? Cats had higher skilled high-enders, were faster, had poor timing and mental game, and Oil Kings had a better team game and better depth.

 

[Playmaker09]

The reviewer probably kept mentioning the whistle because it was the determining factor of whether this should've been a goal or not. Everyone in the building knew that the puck crossed the goal line. What we didn't know was if the whistle blew before it did (which it did). The ref seemed pretty confident that he blew the whistle after the puck crossed the line which was surprising because ten seconds earlier he didn't even know that the puck went in the net.

If the initial no-goal call was changed the refs need to single that on the ice. These aren't calls that they can keep secret from everyone. If they did reverse the call, the ref probably should've mentioned that to the goal judge. That way when he said they should go with the call on the ice they wouldn't think he meant the exact opposite of what he actually did.

Wouldn't the timing of the whistle be irrelevant if the original call was changed on the ice during the conference of refs? If they came to the conclusion that the original call was wrong then so was his timing of blowing the whistle. It's not like the split second it took for the puck to cross the line after that prevented anyone from keeping it out which is the reason the rule exists in the first place. Well at least that and the fact that they want to protect goalies from getting slashed/run over when the puck is immobilized (which wasn't the case and they got the call right after they discussed it).

Like I said, the ref at the booth was pretty lost himself, but what he wanted to review makes sense if he thought the puck crossed the line after being poked free from the goalie's control (in which case he intended to disallow the goal) while the linesman corrected him in saying that it went in of it's own momentum (which is what they wanted to review). It might be a stretch, but we won't know either way as he seemed to be a very poor communicator.

Aside from the linesman's right to overrule the call, I'm curious to know if they could use "intent to blow the whistle" the other way. What's stopping a ref who realizes his own mistake from saying that if he had seen the play like his linesman did, then he would have intended to blow it later than he actually did. Or maybe he got a little trigger happy?

In short, manipulate as many rules and exploit as many loopholes as you want, just get the call right. And in this case they did, no matter how illogical that conversation was.

It would be stupid to let what was already determined to be an incorrect call in the timing of the ref blowing the whistle be the determining factor in judging whether the goal is good or not.

 

[FiveForDrawingBlood]

I wasn't always sold on Reinhart, but seeing him in the playoffs and now tonight has completely changed my mind on him. It's a damn shame that he won't be there when the Flames are at the table.

Trade up...trade up

 

[2287]

Well...do you really think they went 50-15-7, scored 300+ goals, had a 22 game winning streak and became WHL champions playing like they did tonight?

I think the combination of coming off an extreme high in a very intense series, not playing in a week, nerves(young team that wasn't supposed to really do anything until next season) and not giving the Cataractes enough respect lead to a pretty poor game...but even in this poor effort, their defense stood strong and they really only needed one half decent period to score 3 goals and win the game.

I don't like the Oil Kings chances against the Sea Dogs but I'd expect them to look better in a loss against them than they did in the win tonight.

Considering Shawinigan was off for a month Edmonton can't using being off for a week as an excuse.

 

[2287]

Hopefully the Cataractes finish in 4th so that the Oil Kings don't have to play in another rigged game!

Did you forget about Edmonton's second goal which was scored right after a painfully obvious high sticking call was missed?

 

[Wheatking]

Considering Shawinigan was off for a month Edmonton can't using being off for a week as an excuse.

That's debatable. Yeah, Shawinigan had a lot more time off but that doesn't mean we completely ignore that a week off is still a long time.

A week off is just long enough to lose your legs while not even close to enough time to recover from rounds 3 and 4...which were all out war at times. I guarantee you the Cataractes went into last nights game feeling almost 100% while the Oil Kings probably have quite a few players playing through bumps, bruises and injuries.

Did you forget about Edmonton's second goal which was scored right after a painfully obvious high sticking call was missed?

It's one thing for a ref to miss a call. It's another thing for a ref to go up stairs(where it should be a guarantee that they get the call right) and the ref basically forgets what happened on the ice and gets the call wrong.

 

[OilerTyler]

Wouldn't the timing of the whistle be irrelevant if the original call was changed on the ice during the conference of refs? If they came to the conclusion that the original call was wrong then so was his timing of blowing the whistle. It's not like the split second it took for the puck to cross the line after that prevented anyone from keeping it out which is the reason the rule exists in the first place. Well at least that and the fact that they want to protect goalies from getting slashed/run over when the puck is immobilized (which wasn't the case and they got the call right after they discussed it).

I think we both know the call wasn't changed on the ice. The ref didn't even know that the puck crossed the line. If they still changed it for some reason they would've made the signal on the ice or at least told the goal judge.

It doesn't matter if the puck was on the line when the whistle went and would've gone in had it not. The whistle went. That's the end of it. That's how the rule has always worked and that can't change now. Especially in the Memorial Cup.

Like I said, the ref at the booth was pretty lost himself, but what he wanted to review makes sense if he thought the puck crossed the line after being poked free from the goalie's control (in which case he intended to disallow the goal) while the linesman corrected him in saying that it went in of it's own momentum (which is what they wanted to review). It might be a stretch, but we won't know either way as he seemed to be a very poor communicator.

Yeah, I agree that the whole conversation was very confusing. The goal judge and referee were on completely different pages. However, when the goal judge says "go with your call on the ice" the ref should do that.

Aside from the linesman's right to overrule the call, I'm curious to know if they could use "intent to blow the whistle" the other way. What's stopping a ref who realizes his own mistake from saying that if he had seen the play like his linesman did, then he would have intended to blow it later than he actually did. Or maybe he got a little trigger happy?

They can't use intent to blow the whistle the other way. It's impossible for the ref to intend to blow the whistle after he actually blew it. He can't change his mind after he blows it. Doesn't work that way.

In short, manipulate as many rules and exploit as many loopholes as you want, just get the call right. And in this case they did, no matter how illogical that conversation was.

It would be stupid to let what was already determined to be an incorrect call in the timing of the ref blowing the whistle be the determining factor in judging whether the goal is good or not.

No, they didn't get the call right. The whistle blew before the puck was in the net. That means it isn't a goal in any hockey league in the world. You can say that it would've been a goal if it weren't for the bad call (early whistle) but an even worse call after shouldn't be able to change what happened. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Did you forget about Edmonton's second goal which was scored right after a painfully obvious high sticking call was missed?

Missed calls happen. Free goals being given out don't.

 

[reffree]

Missed calls happen. Free goals being given out don't.

You're acting like the goal wasn't a good goal. If the goal was waive off it would have been because of an early whistle.

Agree with your first point, miss call happen.

 

[Sizemore24*]

That's debatable. Yeah, Shawinigan had a lot more time off but that doesn't mean we completely ignore that a week off is still a long time.

A week off is just long enough to lose your legs while not even close to enough time to recover from rounds 3 and 4...which were all out war at times. I guarantee you the Cataractes went into last nights game feeling almost 100% while the Oil Kings probably have quite a few players playing through bumps, bruises and injuries.

It's one thing for a ref to miss a call. It's another thing for a ref to go up stairs(where it should be a guarantee that they get the call right) and the ref basically forgets what happened on the ice and gets the call wrong.

The ref never missed the high stick...he was right there ans saw it...but decided to not blow the whistle becuz he was garbage... Linesman cost Lesieur a breakway too..

All-around awful game for both side by the refs.

Oil Kings looked quite avg and St-Johns are way too powerful for them.