Khelandros
Registered User
- Feb 12, 2019
- 4,669
- 5,079
Russia: Biggest choke/collapse ever?
- Thread starter TopG
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Couple of points here:
rules are rules, say what you want but they might the right call. Camera in this instance was considered to be a structural object. It is above the ice surface.
from a psych standpoint here, 6-3 might of been a curse for Russia because at that point the pressure to score is immense. We don’t know what would have happened, sure I like their odds but don’t think that a 3 man advantage doesn’t weigh on the mind of any player.
Look we were definitely lucky on the 2nd and I’d say 4th goal, and the call aswell. Blowing a late 2 goal lead tho isn’t great regardless.
rules are rules, say what you want but they might the right call. Camera in this instance was considered to be a structural object. It is above the ice surface.
from a psych standpoint here, 6-3 might of been a curse for Russia because at that point the pressure to score is immense. We don’t know what would have happened, sure I like their odds but don’t think that a 3 man advantage doesn’t weigh on the mind of any player.
Look we were definitely lucky on the 2nd and I’d say 4th goal, and the call aswell. Blowing a late 2 goal lead tho isn’t great regardless.
Czechboy
Náš f*cken barák!
- Apr 15, 2018
- 30,454
- 28,256
despite cheering for canada i thought that the play deserved to be a penalty. nevertheless, i think the rule is in place because it's impossible to extrapolate the trajectory of the puck when it's path has been interrupted.
even if that puck had a 95% chance that the momentum would have carried it out of play had the camera not been there... pucks are also unpredictable and can flop and curve in unexpected ways, so i can see how the rule is in place to prevent hypothetical arguments about elevation angles and drag.
this way is simplest. the puck hits a foreign object and it's dead.
even if that puck had a 95% chance that the momentum would have carried it out of play had the camera not been there... pucks are also unpredictable and can flop and curve in unexpected ways, so i can see how the rule is in place to prevent hypothetical arguments about elevation angles and drag.
this way is simplest. the puck hits a foreign object and it's dead.
AlwaysSunnyInTampa
I need about tree fiddy
Came here to say this. 5 star post by a 5 star man indeed.
Quality as usual from you bro
Jussi
Registered User
heynowbababooey
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 2,810
- 3,052
Surely there must be a NHL play offs-series where a team is up by 3 games to 0 but the other team has won 4-3.
Surely extremely rare but it must have happened some time.
Surely extremely rare but it must have happened some time.
The year Eberle scored to win it for Canada...after tying it end of game
Russians had an empty net and missed...player on the bench laughing about it...
Russians had an empty net and missed...player on the bench laughing about it...
I’d like to see where this rule is. Even ray on the broadcast said “the camera is positioned behind the glass”. I’m not denying Russia blew the lead. But there’s no denying they got jobbed.
According to the United Nations Commission on Sports Calamities, the biggest collapse in hockey history is officially certified as Canada's 5-3 loss to Russia in the 2011 World Junior Hockey Championships.
GreatSaveEssensa
The Dark Side Of The Goon
So which one is it? In the history of the World Juniors, or in the last 20 years? They are not one and the same
Mario le Magnifique
Habs apologist, closet Pens fan
They consider the jumbotron a structural object, so what gives with your interpretation of the rule. Jumbotron aint part of the structure.
Henkka
Registered User
Czechboy
Náš f*cken barák!
- Apr 15, 2018
- 30,454
- 28,256
Future GOAT
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2017
- 3,549
- 2,501
I thought we already put this to bed that by iihf rules that was in fact not delay of game.
Why are people still pretending that Russia lost because of that? They were already losing when the non penalty was correctly not called. Russia lost, GG and move on with your life.
Why are people still pretending that Russia lost because of that? They were already losing when the non penalty was correctly not called. Russia lost, GG and move on with your life.
Last edited:
The thread-title is the biggest exaggeration ever. Being two goals up against Canada with plenty of time left losing is not some miraculous meltdown.
However, since it is juniors and you are likely to represent your country 1-2 times before you are overaged defeat must feel worse than in adults tournaments where there is always the next year.
However, since it is juniors and you are likely to represent your country 1-2 times before you are overaged defeat must feel worse than in adults tournaments where there is always the next year.
McGuillicuddy
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2005
- 1,297
- 204
Yes the thread title is a bit of a non-starter. 2-goal leads are blown just about every day. 3-1 is pretty much the most dangerous lead in hockey. This was not a choke job by the Russians. Russia got a bit lucky early (many PPs, especially the inexplicable Hayton call) that helped them build a lead, and then they got unlucky late with the Camera call. Easy come, easy go. In between Canada got some clutch goals that were the difference.
I'm tired of people talking like the "6-on-3" was a sure thing to tie the game. It was actually a 5-on-3 plus the extra attacker from the pulling the goalie. That means every time Canada got the puck on their sticks they could fire potshots at that empty net without having to worry about icing or the goalie sending it back up. It is just as likely that Canada scores an easy empty net goal on a long shot as it is that Russia scores the tying goal.
I'm tired of people talking like the "6-on-3" was a sure thing to tie the game. It was actually a 5-on-3 plus the extra attacker from the pulling the goalie. That means every time Canada got the puck on their sticks they could fire potshots at that empty net without having to worry about icing or the goalie sending it back up. It is just as likely that Canada scores an easy empty net goal on a long shot as it is that Russia scores the tying goal.
Last edited:
Samcanadian
Registered User
- Dec 13, 2011
- 2,849
- 183
I agree with this. Sure a 6 on 3 sounds like great odds for Russia to score the equalizer, but one clean draw and a clearance could've ended the game just as easily.
Joined Dec 28 to criticize Hayton and followed up with 100+ posts shitting on Canada. You are either lying or deranged. I'm betting on both.us Canadians never dive....
Rocko604
Sports will break your heart.
No. That title still belongs to 2011 Canada.
Russia should have had a 6 on 3, but they were still on the PP and could have tied it up. Instead, they took stupid penalties. And even if they get that call and go 6 on 3, who says they score? End of the day, they were up by 2 with 11 minutes left and let Canada score 3 unanswered in under 5 minutes.
Russia should have had a 6 on 3, but they were still on the PP and could have tied it up. Instead, they took stupid penalties. And even if they get that call and go 6 on 3, who says they score? End of the day, they were up by 2 with 11 minutes left and let Canada score 3 unanswered in under 5 minutes.
