Post-Game Talk: What Home Ice Advantage? | Leafs Beat LA in LA 3-1

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the home of Leafs Therapy and wild butthurt overreactions.
Consistency has been the problem. It's good to see Matthews just dominate at will though. I've watched enough hockey to know which players can and cannot do so. If he does it for an entire playoff season it would be a joy to watch, the city would appreciate how enjoyable playoff success is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duffman955
It's hard-to-tell because Matthews is somewhat crouched and the rule is that it has to be above the normal height of the shoulders, that is, the height of the shoulders when the player is standing fully upright.
It was clearly over his shoulder and he wasn’t crouched that much.
 
Can they review a missed penalty?

I’m not really sure why they can review a missed high stick of a puck that didn’t directly result in a goal, but since they did, why wasn’t it ruled a high stick? Touching the puck with your stick above the shoulder is a high stick and it was clearly above his shoulder.
Here's what the NHL rulebook says about a Coach's Challenge:

Rule 38 – Coach’s Challenge

38.1 General - The video review mechanism triggered by the Coach’s Challenge can only be utilized in GOAL/NO GOAL and delay of game– puck over glass situations and is intended to be extremely narrow in scope. In all Coach’s Challenge situations, the original call on the ice will be overturned if, and only if, a conclusive and irrefutable determination can be made on the basis of video evidence that the original call on the ice was clearly not correct. If a review is notconclusive and/or there is any doubt whatsoever as to whether the call on the ice was correct, the original call on the ice will be confirmed.

38.2 Situations Subject to Coach’s Challenge – A team may only request a Coach’s Challenge to review the following scenarios:

(a) “Off-Side” Play Leading to a Goal – A play that results in a“GOAL” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the play should have been stopped by reason of an “Off-Side”infraction by the attacking team (see Rule 83 – Off-Side);

(b) Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Offensive Zone Leading to a Goal – A play that results in a “GOAL” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the play should have been stopped by reason of any play occurring in the offensive zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage caused by the attacking team but did not. The one exception to this provision is when the puck strikes the spectator netting caused by either team and goes unnoticed by the on-ice officials; and

(c) Scoring Plays Involving Potential “Interference on the Goalkeeper” – Either: (i) A play that results in a “GOAL” call on the ice where the defending team claims that the goal should have been disallowed due to “Interference on the Goalkeeper”(as described in Rules 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4); or (ii) A play that results in a “NO GOAL” call on the ice despite the puck having entered the net, where the On-Ice Officials have determined that the attacking team was guilty of “Interference on the Goalkeeper” but where the attacking team claims: (A) there was no actual contact of any kind initiated by an attacking Player with the goalkeeper; (B) the attacking Player was pushed, shoved orfouled by a defending Player which caused the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or (C) the attacking Player’s positioning within the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had nodiscernable impact on the play.

(d) Penalty situations for “Delaying the game – puck over the glass” – When a minor penalty for delaying the game has been assessed under Rule 63.2 (iii) for shooting or batting the puckout of play from the defending zone. This will only apply to delay of game penalties when the shot/batted puck is determined to have subsequently deflected off a player, stick, glass or boards,etc., and not a judgment call. No challenge can be issued for a non-call, in other words, no challenge is to be considered when the On-Ice Officials deem that it was not a violation of Rule 63.2(iii). A challenge can only be used to rescind a penalty, not tohave one assessed. In the event of a failed challenge, an additional minor penalty (or double-minor penalty, asappropriate) will be assessed (in addition to the existing delay ofgame penalty).

Rule 38.2b covers the review of the high stick situation since that would normally result in a stoppage of play.in

And the way I read 38.2b, it would seem that a missed penalty could be reviewed in a similar situation but, as usual, I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like I missed a good game. Hydro went out an hour before game and I helped some neighbours get there generators going. Then a few pints at a camp and by the time I got back it’s was over. lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocker13
Top guys were the difference. Stolarz is back to early season form it seems. I liked theMarner Matthews and Tavares line defending against the man advantage at the end. They were urgent and sealed the game. Tavares has been remarkable.

That was a brilliant sequence by Marner - - comes up with the puck in the corner, then expertly flips it all the way down to the LA zone while not allowing the LA defender to get a clean look at it and somehow managing to avoid the icing.

The Marner haters who don’t actually watch the games and just look at the stat sheets will be completely oblivious to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkKnight and bax
The referee made a judgement call but once we saw the replay it was clearly a high stick. The issue is with the review team.
There was that one bad replay but there was also another good one, and Matty was crouched so it was tricky.

Looked 50/50 to me, so refs call would stand.
 
That was a brilliant sequence by Marner - - comes up with the puck in the corner, then expertly flips it all the way down to the LA zone while not allowing the LA defender to get a clean look at it and somehow managing to avoid the icing.

The Marner haters who don’t actually watch the games and just look at the stat sheets will be completely oblivious to that.
And this is the most ridiculous take on it. He flipped the puck down the ice, Tavares made a great play to get the puck. Simple as that
 
  • Like
Reactions: arso40 and ULF_55
If only you could try to be somewhat objective about the Leafs, my friend. Even just a little bit.

Realizing that it’s impossible for Toronto to go 82-0 during the regular season would be a good start.

And then being able to hold yourself back from organizing a Stanley Cup parade after they win the opening face off in a regular season game at the end of March would be the next step.
Objective.. I am not sure what angle you think I am coming from... I am not totally sure what angle you are coming from.

I mean, I haven't been alive long enough to see a Leaf Cup but I have been through the Ballard years.. If the last 8 years have told us anything, it is that the regular season means very little.

1st in the division seems important though.. something worth chasing. We have enough information to tell us what we are .. I won't rehash it.

I don't think we should go Stolarz back to back even though 1st is critical as we need him healthy. If he is going to be the number 1, he has my full support.
 
What a complete BS schedule the Leafs had this year. Most back to backs in the league.

9 games left and 3 back to backs left. One against Florida/Tampa - so we can't protect Woll there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Ad