GDT: Sochi Part 2: Dis Gon Be Gud

[Sens1Canes2]

So if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't complain one bit... right?

I take pride in trying my best not to be biased. My best friend growing up hated that as captain, I would sometimes admit to the ref that, yeah, I know it was/wasn't a penalty but I'm over here talking to you because the coach told me to.

Also as a former ref, I feel like I know what I'm talking about.

Your question sounds like you're basing your feelings on the fact that the US lost, not on what actually transpired. Believe me, women's hockey is not high on my list of priorities.

 

[Novacane]

Right, because wanting to discuss a less than conclusive game-deciding penalty is "taking a loss so badly". That's even completely disregarding the call, which was a cross-check, which didn't even happen. Is it really a stretch to say the referees botched a call in this game?

The bolded is the true problem with the officiating throughout the entire game. There were not two referees, just one. One referee having to keep track of all the action on the large ice. That's just...dumb. And a lot of her calls showed just how stupid that system of officiating is.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

1. Incidental skate to skate contact is not a penalty.
2. That was clearly not a cross check.
3. While falling down, there is no earthly way that Knight had both the mental AND physical wherewithal to both decide AND execute to intentionally place her skate in such a way so that the Canadian player would fall down as well.
4. Furthermore, even if you want to assert that it IS possible for her to have done so, look at her eyes and arms/hands. She is CLEARLY trying to make a clean stick play.
5. Therefore, at best, this is incidental skate to skate contact that occurred as the result of two players each trying to make a stick/puck play. No penalty should have been called.

If someone has you beaten, the onus is on you not to commit a foul. You can't just skate right into the back of the opposing player and think "hmmm we'll see what happens."

Besides that...I don't really believe that you believe anything you write. This being the internet and all.

 

[daikan]

So it's a light skate-to-skate touch.

Too bad. I was cheering for the Americans after that awful slashing call.

 

[RodTheBawd]

Has anyone explained the slashing call? Is there a rule difference there between men and women?

Regarding the breakaway "penalty," whats the reason for not calling a penalty shot? Outside of "oh ****, that was a bad call, lets not make it worse by giving the penalty shot," I don't know what could explain it.

 

[nobuddy]

I'm not trolling. I honestly don't see how you can argue that it is anything specific other than incidental skate to skate contact. I mean you could ARGUE tripping, but any argument would be based upon something that would fall under incidental skate to skate contact.

 

[nobuddy]

Has anyone explained the slashing call? Is there a rule difference there between men and women?

Regarding the breakaway "penalty," whats the reason for not calling a penalty shot? Outside of "oh ****, that was a bad call, lets not make it worse by giving the penalty shot," I don't know what could explain it.

A good point. You could argue that she was denied a reasonable scoring chance on a breakaway, and it says something about the call itself that this wasn't the way that it was called.

 

[RodTheBawd]

I'm not trolling. I honestly don't see how you can argue that it is anything specific other than incidental skate to skate contact. I mean you could ARGUE tripping, but any argument would be based upon something that would fall under incidental skate to skate contact.

I'm with you on it being a phantom call, but there isn't a ref in all of hockey that wouldn't make the call if skate to skate contact occurs, regardless of it being incidental. They wouldn't apply that on a breakaway unless they were side by side.

I still haven't seen a replay that shows the actual contact. Unbiased Hilary Knight claims they never touched.

 

[nobuddy]

I'm with you on it being a phantom call, but there isn't a ref in all of hockey that wouldn't make the call if skate to skate contact occurs, regardless of it being incidental. They wouldn't apply that on a breakaway unless they were side by side. I still haven't seen a replay that shows the actual contact.

Yeah, I agree the vast majority of officials make a tripping call there. But it's just so ****ing ****** to end an Olympic tournament on a phantom call.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I would guess that if a US player was taken down in that manner and no call was made, there would have been a lot of fans screaming about a no call, so I see both sides of the discussion. I didn't see it live, but based on what I see here, it's a tough one. We are looking at slow mo and still shots, where-as a ref is seeing it at full speed and sees a player on a breakaway with another coming from behind and what "looks" like a push in the back and getting skates tangled up.

I do think it was a marginal call, but also can see why they called it. Tough break at that point in the game though. Oh well, I always believe that if you don't want it to come down to the refs, then don't let yourself be in that position to begin with.

 

[Brock Anton]

I would guess that if a US player was taken down in that manner and no call was made, there would have been a lot of fans screaming about a no call, so I see both sides of the discussion. I didn't see it live, but based on what I see here, it's a tough one. We are looking at slow mo and still shots, where-as a ref is seeing it at full speed and sees a player on a breakaway with another coming from behind and what "looks" like a push in the back and getting skates tangled up.

I do think it was a marginal call, but also can see why they called it. Tough break at that point in the game though. Oh well, I always believe that if you don't want it to come down to the refs, then don't let yourself be in that position to begin with.

A lot of the rabble stems from 'The Slash' against the U.S. moments before. Without that call, this one likely doesn't happen.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

A lot of the rabble stems from 'The Slash' against the U.S. moments before. Without that call, this one likely doesn't happen.

Fair point

 

[Navin R Slavin]

The slash call was ********, but the American ladies gave this game away. Too bad.

--hank

 

[What the Faulk]

To change the course of the conversation somewhat, Chip got himself in some hot water with a comment he made earlier.

ice_chip
Good warmup. The big one is tomorrow.

Tweeted just minutes after the game was over. Lots of folks were not happy with it.

And then there's this:

ice_chip
Hockey/hoops day. Canes practice this morning at RCI. To Chapel Hill for hoops tonight. Could be doing a little more of that.

Not sure if he means because hockey season is winding down or that he's moving on, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Brock Anton]

Kind of a stupid thing to tweet, but he's not wrong. A lot more people in both countries will care about the game tomorrow more than the one today.

 

[What the Faulk]

Probably so, but the brevity of it makes it ambiguous and almost belittling to the women from both sides. I think it's more careless than classless. Still, you have to have common sense when you build your job on having an audience, and not alienate a percentage of it.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

i'm sure all of the offended people would be just as excited for tomorrow's game if it were latvia vs switzerland, lest they show their true xenophobic colors.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

Re. Chip's tweet...

Please. Women's ****ing hockey? Give me a break. People get angry over the truth.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

There were only 4 replies to Chip's tweet. Not a big deal.

 

[TheOllieC]

There were only 4 replies to Chip's tweet. Not a big deal.

There were many more before.

https://twitter.com/search?q=@ice_chip&src=typd&f=realtime

 

[Sens1Canes2]

Where'd they go? It asks me to sign in and i can't remember any of my usernames or passwords...i only use it on iPhone and iPad. Never twitter.com.

 

[What the Faulk]

Yeah, there's at least 50 responses including people tweeting at the N&O and the team PR staff.

Chip ****ed up, whether or not it's the truth. He's a representative of a larger organization. He needs to watch what he says.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

Yeah, there's at least 50 responses including people tweeting at the N&O and the team PR staff.

Chip ****ed up, whether or not it's the truth. He's a representative of a larger organization. He needs to watch what he says.

Perception-wise....I guess. But really, who can argue? Are we (not this group but society as a whole) really so sensitive that THIS is a big deal? I mean...people care more about the men's hockey than the women's. Whoa! What an insult!

Drives me nuts.

 

[the halleJOKEL]

as a #tweter, that is a finely crafted #twet and i am mad that i didnt think of and am not in a position to use it as well as #chipdid

 

[daikan]

O **** Tim ****ing Peel is reffing the Swe-Fin semi-final.