Refs (again)

[Panteras]

I think the issue is your entire argument hyper focuses on whoever is getting penalized, be it the guy committing the high stick or the one delivering the hit that makes head contact.

In the case of the stick, there’s no fault for the player getting hit with the stick because a high stick isn’t really something you can prepare for. It just…happens. In a split second.

On the other hand, a body check is something you are always expected to be prepared for given the nature of the game. There are actions players can and do take to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable positions to get hurt from body contact. If Gudas is going for a puck, he is expected to be prepared for getting hit because it’s a legal tactic within the game. You are obviously not expected to be prepared for a stray high stick that is impossible to see coming.

No, my focus is on the arbitrary penalization of unintentional head contacts.

Dude you can get hit in the face unintentionally by an elbow or a shoulder as well in a split second as well. For example look at Eichel…he fell in the last second there and could’ve completely eaten Tkachuk’s arms…

Again, we would agree that Tkachuk would’ve clobbered his face unintentionally there it’s just an unfortunate play. But we would call an automatic penalty if in a similarly unfortunate unintentional play tkachuk would’ve high sticked Eichel….

 

[4thline]

And you’re not responsible for your hits and shoulder and elbows? Like literally you have more control of your body than you do of a stick dude…..there your whole premise falls apparat.

Where should the blade of your stick be to be used effectively in the sport of hockey? Where are shoulders?


Write the paragraph. What should Barbashev have been penalized for, what behaviour is that infraction trying to prevent on the part of the person being called, and what is the result of trying to alter that behaviour in that manner

 

[nORRis8]

Yeah but when Vegas has instigated and taken liberties, there’s been nothing

Again it’s not affecting the outcome but if we’re purely talking about after the whistle/away from the play stuff, there definitely seems to be a much quicker trigger for the Panthers

Tkachuk got two misconducts tonight. One for a routine scrum that Vegas initiated and another for weakly knocking the stick out of a guy’s hands

Hill has gotten no punishment in two games for blocker punches and blatant slashes. Panthers had 3 separate PKs as a result of post-whistle activity in game 1

Both teams have had their moments but only one has been punished in any way

Very accurate.
League is a joke.
The Finals should be the most watchable of all hockey, entertaining. Two games in the refs have made a point of the Panthers being a step behind.
Being that it's Vegas and the refs are calling 3 10 minute misconducts on the Panthers best player for basically retaliating.... can't help but have an uneasy feeling of favoring the gamble capital of the worlds team

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Lomberg could've had 6 penalties alone in that 3rd period.
Stop all the complaining.

Tkachuk's and Barbashev's hits were both clean.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

No, my focus is on the arbitrary penalization of unintentional head contacts.

Dude you can get hit in the face unintentionally by an elbow or a shoulder as well in a split second as well. For example look at Eichel…he fell in the last second there and could’ve completely eaten Tkachuk’s arms…

Again, we would agree that Tkachuk would’ve clobbered his face unintentionally there it’s just an unfortunate play. But we would call an automatic penalty if in a similarly unfortunate unintentional play tkachuk would’ve high sticked Eichel….

Again, you can’t prepare for a high stick. To limit those incidents, you have to put the onus on the player carrying the stick to keep it under control. Especially at this point, your stick really can’t be used for much more than puck handling and some stick on stick checking.

On the other hand, two bodies colliding is a perfectly legitimate part of the game. Therefore, the responsibility is shared by both the player making the hit and the one getting hit.

You seem to be in this weird headspace of attempting to make a very simple concept as trivial as possible so as to elongate an extremely flawed argument.

For you to call it “arbitrary penalization of unintentional head contact” is bizarre. There’s so many things you have to ignore to take that stance.

 

[Panteras]

Where should the blade of your stick be to be used effectively in the sport of hockey? Where are shoulders?


Write the paragraph. What should Barbashev have been penalized for, what behaviour is that infraction trying to prevent on the part of the person being called, and what is the result of trying to alter that behaviour in that manner

If you want to crack down head shots and concussion, call principle head contact a penalty. It’s as simple as that. Even if it’s an unintentional play because that is also the case with high sticking.

 

[Beezeral]

Lomberg could've had 6 penalties alone in that 3rd period.
Stop all the complaining.

Tkachuk's and Barbashev's hits were both clean.

The porblem isn't the 3rd period when the game was over, the problem is the 1st period where the refs put their finger on the scale with a soft penalty call and then ignoring multiple obvious penalties that immediately preceded goals for the Knights.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

If you want to crack down head shots and concussion, call principle head contact a penalty. It’s as simple as that. Even if it’s an unintentional play because that is also the case with high sticking.

A player getting accidentally high sticked is 0% responsible for getting high sticked or able to prepare for getting high sticked.

A player either in possession or about to get possession of the puck has the ability to prepare for body contact, as there are rules governing when body contact is allowed and when it isn’t. And a player in possession of the puck is generally eligible to be hit.

If your only concern is getting rid of injuries/concussions, then that would just lead to eliminating hitting altogether.

 

[4thline]

If you want to crack down head shots and concussion, call principle head contact a penalty. It’s as simple as that. Even if it’s an unintentional play because that is also the case with high sticking.

No it's not. Under that ill-thought out change the only way for Barbashev (or any puck carrier) to avoid being penalized is to bail on the puck completely - removing their ability to brace for contact and forcing them to yield possession, which provides incentive for morons to lead with their head when defending.

Have you played organized contact hockey without a cage?

 

[Panteras]

Again, you can’t prepare for a high stick. To limit those incidents, you have to put the onus on the player carrying the stick to keep it under control. Especially at this point, your stick really can’t be used for much more than puck handling and some stick on stick checking.

On the other hand, two bodies colliding is a perfectly legitimate part of the game. Therefore, the responsibility is shared by both the player making the hit and the one getting hit.

You seem to be in this weird headspace of attempting to make a very simple concept as trivial as possible so as to elongate an extremely flawed argument.

For you to call it “arbitrary penalization of unintentional head contact” is bizarre. There’s so many things you have to ignore to take that stance.

Think about what you’re saying for a minute…..

You are admitting that high sticking is arbitrary unintentional incidents that you can’t prepare for, yet that’s what you think we should clamp down on. Yet the ones we do have more control over are the ones that should have more free reign…lol

And I guess that’s where we fundamentally disagree and differ. If we agree that high sticking incidents are 99.9 % of the time unintentional for both parties and that hits are something we know are coming, how can you put more onus on the ones that are totally more out of our control than the one incident we know what we’re doing? Hahaha okay

 

[Icarium]

The porblem isn't the 3rd period when the game was over, the problem is the 1st period where the refs put their finger on the scale with a soft penalty call

Maybe Lomberg the Neanderthal should try not shoving people in the head?

 

[NewAgeOutlaw]

As a neutral fan I do sympathize with Cats fans because Tkachuk plays a very Malkin-style game when it comes to agitating and that doesn't do either man favors when it comes to getting sympathy from the refs.

It is just one of those live by the sword/die by the sword aspects of hockey.

 

[RickyLafleur]

The officiating might be inconsistent at times but every single team gets their turn at getting screwed.

No team is getting any special treatment or getting screwed more. Only losers complain about refs.

Well duh. Why would the winners complain? They already won. From a neutral fan perspective, referees are shit, and get worse every single year. It's frustrating to watch and it's pretty obvious but there are always people here who will defend the NHL no matter what, despite being last among the big 4 leagues.

 

[Panteras]

No it's not. Under that ill-thought out change the only way for Barbashev (or any puck carrier) to avoid being penalized is to bail on the puck completely - removing their ability to brace for contact and forcing them to yield possession, which provides incentive for morons to lead with their head when defending.

Have you played organized contact hockey without a cage?

No it won’t, people will still hit. People will just be more responsible with their hits or go for a poke check instead. I’m not against what Barbashev did, I’m just trying to understand that if we put the onus on Gudas and realize that Barbashev hitting Gudas on the face was unintentional, then why TF does Barbashev get a penalty if his stick bounces of the boards into Gudas’ face??

No, I’m not a dumb man child trying to prove my manhood to other losers, I always have worn a cage.

 

[sabresfan65]

What difference do 10 minute misconducts make when the game is out of hand?

Those players doing that stuff are no longer around to continue doing those things.

 

[FU Shoresy]

You sure as hell sound super bitter in your post but sure you’re not mad.
Except Eichel didn’t get hit in the face….like dude it’s the elephant in the room difference and you absolutely refuse to acknowledge it it’s bizarre hahaha

Not sure where the bitterness comes from. All I've posted in this thread is that it was a clean hit. Eichel was hit in the head. Head/face are pretty much the same. Both clean hits. Seriously give your balls a big tug! Your not winning any arguments here. Your embarrassing yourself.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

Gudas put himself into the hit and the outcome was the result of how low he was in relative to the guy he was looking to make body contact with. The onus is Gudas for his poor body position, not Barbashev, who has every right to brace and protect himself from contact. It's not Barbashev's fault a 6 foot man looking for contact made himself 5'5 and ran himself headfirst into a hit.

100% this was a self inflicted wound, so it’s kind of cringey when you see people claiming it was a “great reverse check.” It was one of the few circumstances where a shot to the head was totally legal… Gudas caused his own shot to the head. it’s almost the same circumstance as to why Eichel’s check goes from a nice solid open ice hit to “obliteration.” If Eichel doesn’t totally trip and dive head first into the oncoming train, his helmet doesn’t pop off and he doesn’t go flying and it doesn’t look nearly as dramatic.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Think about what you’re saying for a minute…..

You are admitting that high sticking is arbitrary unintentional incidents that you can’t prepare for, yet that’s what you think we should clamp down on. Yet the ones we do have more control over are the ones that should have more free reign…lol

And I guess that’s where we fundamentally disagree and differ. If we agree that high sticking incidents are 99.9 % of the time unintentional for both parties and that hits are something we know are coming, how can you put more onus on the ones that are totally more out of our control than the one incident we know what we’re doing? Hahaha okay

Because the player getting hit can prepare for body contact as there are rules governing when it is allowed. High sticking is never allowed and it’s impossible to prepare for.

I think if you stepped back, and actually n gave some consideration to what people are actually saying to you, you wouldn’t “fundamentally disagree”. You’ve pigeon holed yourself into a very goofy stance.

 

[Panteras]

100% this was a self inflicted wound, so it’s kind of cringey when you see people claiming it was a “great reverse check.” It was one of the few circumstances where a shot to the head was totally legal… Gudas caused his own shot to the head. it’s almost the same circumstance as to why Eichel’s check goes from a nice solid open ice hit to “obliteration.” If Eichel doesn’t totally trip and dive head first into the oncoming train, his helmet doesn’t pop off and he doesn’t go flying and it doesn’t look nearly as dramatic.

I suggest you watch the hit again, the helmet falls off due to the whiplash, that was as clean as can get shoulder to shoulder. Not an inch of Tkachuk’s body touches Eichel’s face or head which can’t be said about Barbashev on Gudas.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I actually did not know that, and just comes to show I guess, at least from the amount of hockey that I watch, I’ve never seen it used for a non call. A follow up doesn’t necessarily have to be from a shot, it could be from a myriad of hockey plays such as swing your stick for a poke check and the stick bounces upwards etc. Point is, from my experience watching the sport, 99.9% of high stick calls are from players unintentionally doing so after normal hockey plays.

The basic idea behind how they generally call high sticking is - you can't be careless with your stick. If you have such little control of your stick that it bounces up and hits someone in the face while you're poke checking them, then it absolutely should be a penalty. There's no legitimate hockey reason your stick should be above the crossbar on most plays, so it's on you to prevent that from happening.

But, if you're successfully performing a legitimately hockey play (aka shooting, dumping the puck in, passing, etc) and the natural motion of playing the puck brings your stick up that high where it makes high contact with a player moving through the path of your stick, then it's more of an "incidental contact" type of situation and no penalty should be called. And taking a big shot or dumping the puck in when a player is close enough to get hit by your stick is risky, so players tend to avoid doing that and we don't see many incidents where this comes into play in a given season.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

And you’re not responsible for your hits and shoulder and elbows? Like literally you have more control of your body than you do of a stick dude…..there your whole premise falls apparat.

How many people saying the same thing are you going to tell have a premise that’s “falling apart” before you consider it’s your premise that’s the problem?

 

[4thline]

then why TF does Barbashev get a penalty if his stick bounces of the boards into Gudas’ face??

No, I’m not a dumb man child trying to prove my manhood to other losers, I always have worn a cage.

So you've never played hockey at a level where reckless stick use had non-penalty consequences.
Things are making more sense now.

I'll make things as dirt simple as possible. If unintentional high-sticks weren't penalties there would be little to no reason for players to try and keep control of their sticks, leading to more players getting hit in the face with sticks. There's very little good reason for a stick to be at face height. Those reasons are exempted from the penalty.

 

[pcruz]

I'm pretty sure the NHL did get together with refs to get tighter with the calls.
I think there was perhaps an aura following the Panthers through the first 3 rounds and it was made a point to put it under the microscope.
We're not losing because of the refs. But it is no doubt that they're a bit different this year it seems compared to other finals.

I can't remember when's the last time these many misconducts have been handed out in a single game that didn't include some major brawl or something.

I wonder if it had something to do with multiple elbows to the head of opponents in the first 3 rounds, of which there were little to no consequences.

All this has done is highlight the Florida Toronto series that had the lowest penalty minute total in decades.

Florida hasn't changed their style in any way, but the way they have been officiated has ebbed and flowed drastically.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

No it won’t, people will still hit. People will just be more responsible with their hits or go for a poke check instead. I’m not against what Barbashev did, I’m just trying to understand that if we put the onus on Gudas and realize that Barbashev hitting Gudas on the face was unintentional, then why TF does Barbashev get a penalty if his stick bounces of the boards into Gudas’ face??

No, I’m not a dumb man child trying to prove my manhood to other losers, I always have worn a cage.

But there’s nothing Barbashev did that was “irresponsible”. He’s making contact on a guy with the puck. And the way he’s headed into the contact is perfectly legal.

The issue 100% arises because Gudas puts himself in a terrible position. I don’t like seeing guys get hurt, but when the problem arises from the player who is getting hit, the guy and the team throwing the hit don’t deserve to pay a price for it.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

I feel oh so bad for the Panthers. The refs have really been tough on them lol.