Toggle sidebar

was this a blatant hook? led to dallas’ tying goal

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
You can see where Harley uses both of his hands to pull his stick loose; was it held by Johnson or a hook that caught equipment and was a hook the refs didn’t see?

Not a blatant missed call, not sure myself though after watching the replay numerous times.
 
Certainly not a hook. Looked like a hold that spun the Cbus player, but rather than continuing to play his position he tried to embellish for a call.

I'm more interested in the goalie having two sticks and tossing the player's stick aside. By the rulebook, I think the way he tossed it should be called as an automatic minor (if Dallas doesn't score on the play).
 
  • Like
Reactions: S1N4TR4
Looks like a situation where the ref either called both or called neither and he decided neither.

CBJ player looks like he clamps down on the stick to try and get a call and gets burned by it.
 
Definitely not a hook.

If anything, holding with the left hand.

I might have called one for holding, other for embellishment.
 
Not a hook. Slight hold with the left hand. The CBJ player grabbed the stick and dove. Would have been a weak call on the hold, so no issue with how it played out.
 
I don’t even think it was a hook at all…perhaps you could call and even up penalty there…he put the stick there with one hand, so you can always call a guy for putting the stick there , but the defending player, at a minimum should be called for embellishment, but it is closer to a flat out dive in my mind…stick is there, grab it and fall down to the ice while holding tight to stick…clear as day. I’m fine with the no call at all here though
 
It depends. If it is the first period or if it is a blowup it is definitely a penalty. If it is in the third period of the closed game it is definitely not.... As per the rulebook :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazlo Hollyfeld
He definitely clamps the stick and takes the theatrical route when he's already lost his position, but at the same time NHL referees usually don't care and call the hook anyway about 90% of the time.

It looks like there is an initial tug that spins his hips and that should have been enough to be a call. Dallas should not be able to take possession in this way, in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazlo Hollyfeld
Crede777 said:
I too would like to hear the explanation about the high stick goal. We have video of Dadonov's stick appearing to make contact with the puck above the crossbar. But then the refs said the call on the ice was confirmed rather than stands, so I think there's an explanation out there besides "we just didn't see it."
Click to expand...
The one side angle that was near level with the stick made it look like it wasn't above the crossbar. Also the trajectory of the puck after it hit the stick made it look like the puck wasn't coming from above the crossbar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffP
i didnt love this play or the dadonov tip.i it might surprise you, but im also not a ref and the avg feel of this forum is that you keep playing

i feel like we Have To Have better camera angles on these things, so maybe we can get rid of offside review and spend 15-20 on these instead
 
Satan said:
I also look forward to the Stars doing well in the playoffs. They've played more playoff games in the past 3 years than your organization has ever played - the CBJ franchise is the laughing stock of the NHL.
Click to expand...
No we're the darlings this year.

We won't speak about the 24 years prior. That's ancient history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom