WJC SF: Jan 3 GDT - Canada vs. Finland

[TK79]

Canada deffinetly deserved to win, but 4-0 is more than they deserved. I've been really dissapionted with the overall skill-level of the canadian forwards, and I doubt they have what it takes to beat Russia in the final. As for Finland, the team overachieved big-time to reach the semis. The defense is the worst I ever remember seeing for Finland in the WJC's. Tukonen and Korpikoski are just about the only forwards who have been able to create anything. The team MVP has easily been Tuukka Rask, who has a very bright future ahead of him.

 

[spook]

Pp

Sutter has got to let the guys on the PP be a bit more creative, i'm sick of watching Barker & # 6 shoot & shoot & shoot & shoot & shoot from the point.

We need to have guys like Cogliano, Bolland & Boyd shooting the puck more on the PP, whats with Bolland, one of the top scorers in the CHL yet he will not shoot the puck on the PP.

Disapointed at the fans booing USA againts Russia, like it or not, the USA protects us, without them those nasty Russians would have walked in and taken over Canada many years ago.

 

[Bill McNeal]

No, but if the ref allows them to hit with elbows and jump before contact, they will do it. Only the result matters, and of course it is more effective to hit like that if it is allowed.

What puzzled me though is that penalty to Rask. I'd like to ask the ref, what rule in the IIHF rulebook he based his decision on. I can't think of any.

http://www.iihf.com/pdfRules/IIHFRuleBookeng.pdf

According to p.93, Rask definitely should have been allowed to freeze the puck where he did so you are correct.

 

[Panopticon]

Laakso was certainly the top defenceman in Finland's team

I still don't get why Leinonen was the player of the game for the Finns. If anyone from the D should've gotten it, it was Laakso. Only players who might have deserved it more than Laakso were Rask and Tukonen, and I'm not even sure if they did.

I don't understand why Laakso is so underrated. He used to be overrated, but now, possibly because of that, everyone is expecting way too much from him.

So he's only been the most solid D-man in the team, the best goal scoring D-man (so far) in the tournament with 3 goals (with one really important one, I might add), the second best goal scoring player in the team (only behind Seitsonen who has 4 goals) and he still has no negative contributions in the +/- stats. OK, he's a total loser and he couldn't fill the shoes he was supposed to and all that... yeah...

BTW, I'm only talking about the Finnish media coverage here. The people overseas seem to appreciate him for what he is.

 

[cfrancis]

http://www.iihf.com/pdfRules/IIHFRuleBookeng.pdf

According to p.93, Rask definitely should have been allowed to freeze the puck where he did so you are correct.

The last point on that page also says any unnecessary stoppage of play by the goalie will be penalized for delay of game. I thought it was definitely an unnecessary stoppage. He made no save on the play and went out of his way to cover the puck and stop the play.

Canada needs to get back to bread and butter on the PP. Guys in front of the net and tons of traffic. The pretty goals are nice, but we need the ugly ones too

 

[Doomsday Device]

http://www.iihf.com/pdfRules/IIHFRuleBookeng.pdf

According to p.93, Rask definitely should have been allowed to freeze the puck where he did so you are correct.

It also says "The object of this rule is to keep the puck in play continuosly and any action by the goalkeeper which causes an unnecessary stoppage of play shall be penalized."

So, the ref must have felt it was unnecessary since there weren't any Canadian players in the immediate vicinity.

 

[Morbo]

And seeing the finnish D so far in this tournament answers the question what it wuold look like if your entire defense consisted of Aki Berg's.

No kidding.

 

[Zorbax]

I still don't get why Leinonen was the player of the game for the Finns. If anyone from the D should've gotten it, it was Laakso. Only players who might have deserved it more than Laakso were Rask and Tukonen, and I'm not even sure if they did.

I don't understand why Laakso is so underrated. He used to be overrated, but now, possibly because of that, everyone is expecting way too much from him.

So he's only been the most solid D-man in the team, the best goal scoring D-man (so far) in the tournament with 3 goals (with one really important one, I might add), the second best goal scoring player in the team (only behind Seitsonen who has 4 goals) and he still has no negative contributions in the +/- stats. OK, he's a total loser and he couldn't fill the shoes he was supposed to and all that... yeah...

BTW, I'm only talking about the Finnish media coverage here. The people overseas seem to appreciate him for what he is.

Leinonen deserved POG in that game, no doubt.

 

[Joretus]

It also says "The object of this rule is to keep the puck in play continuosly and any action by the goalkeeper which causes an unnecessary stoppage of play shall be penalized."

So, the ref must have felt it was unnecessary since there weren't any Canadian players in the immediate vicinity.

He had 3 canadians in couple of meters of him. That's more than necessary. Making excuses for such a bad call just makes you looking even worse.

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Sutter has got to let the guys on the PP be a bit more creative, i'm sick of watching Barker & # 6 shoot & shoot & shoot & shoot & shoot from the point.

We need to have guys like Cogliano, Bolland & Boyd shooting the puck more on the PP, whats with Bolland, one of the top scorers in the CHL yet he will not shoot the puck on the PP.

Disapointed at the fans booing USA againts Russia, like it or not, the USA protects us, without them those nasty Russians would have walked in and taken over Canada many years ago.

At the very least I thought the fans in Vancouver would use their heads and care more about our next opponent than the political/Jack Johnson angle. We had a better chance to win gold against the US than the Russians. That seemed to be lost on them. In Halifax Bob Goepfert got a standing ovation after the semi final game. A US player would get a standing O in Vancouver only if he was caught under the bus and killed on his way back to the hotel. This does not apply to every fan at these games only the morons continuing to boo.

 

[psycho_dad*]

He had 3 canadians in couple of meters of him. That's more than necessary.

Yeah it was necessary. Rask noticed the loose puck and no Finns were able to reach it, so he had to cover it. If he would have had a chance to play it out safely, he would have done so, like he always does if there is a chance.

It was a crap call, I think the ref had not read the IIHF rulebook well enough and went with his north american book instead. But by this I am in no way saying that call had anything to do with Finland losing...just pointing out a clear ref mistake.

Page 92 is quite clear about it.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Yeah it was necessary. Rask noticed the loose puck and no Finns were able to reach it, so he had to cover it. If he would have had a chance to play it out safely, he would have done so, like he always does if there is a chance.

It was a crap call, I think the ref had not read the IIHF rulebook well enough and went with his north american book instead. But by this I am in no way saying that call had anything to do with Finland losing...just pointing out a clear ref mistake.

The closest player to the play was a Fin defenseman who could have easily played the puck had Rask not frozen the play. One of the few good penalty calls by the ref and a dumb play by Rask. I thought the second penalty that put the Fins two men down was a bad call. IMO the Fin was just establishing position in front of the net and the Canadian lost his balance and fell.

 

[psycho_dad*]

The closest player to the play was a Fin defenseman who could have easily played the puck had Rask not frozen the play. One of the few good penalty calls by the ref and a dumb play by Rask. I thought the second penalty that put the Fins two men down was a bad call. IMO the Fin was just establishing position in front of the net and the Canadian lost his balance and fell.

They were both weak calls.

Rask was looking around if he could play the puck, but Canadian players were too close for comfort.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

They were both weak calls.

Rask was looking around if he could play the puck, but Canadian players were too close for comfort.

Was not a Fin d-man the closest to the play, or did we watch two different plays?

 

[psycho_dad*]

Was not a Fin d-man the closest to the play, or did we watch two different plays?

Finn d-man could have been the closest to the puck, but there were 2 or 3 canadian players nearby and heading in his direction. Goalies hold on to the puck when they feel pressured by the opponent, happens all the time, even if their own defensemen were closer to the puck. If they do not have a good chance to create a play or time to at least clear the zone, goalies will always hang on to the puck. They try to avoid risks, because if they give the puck to a defenseman who is pressured by two opponents, thats just an accident waiting to happen.

And to go 5 on 3 after such a call...

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Finn d-man could have been the closest to the puck, but there were 2 or 3 canadian players nearby and heading in his direction. Goalies hold on to the puck when they feel pressured by the opponent, happens all the time, even if their own defensemen were closer to the puck. If they do not have a good chance to create a play or time to at least clear the zone, goalies will always hang on to the puck. They try to avoid risks, because if they give the puck to a defenseman who is pressured by two opponents, thats just an accident waiting to happen.

But that is why there was a penalty. He had other options such as letting the dman play it, or tipping it into the corner himself. He backed himself into a corner and made a mistake, and quite frankly an arse of himself. If it had been three Canadians converging on Rask alone, I may agree that it may be a debatable call. But not in this case.

 

[optimus2861]

Goalies hold on to the puck when they feel pressured by the opponent, happens all the time, even if their own defensemen were closer to the puck.

Goalies hold on to the puck in or near the crease when it comes to them. Rask skated a good 10-15 feet out of his crease and was nearly at the bottom of the face-off circle when he froze it. I think most referees looking at that play would've made the same call. Even if you try to play the puck first and screw up, the ref won't let you off with freezing it to save yourself from an embarassing goal; I've been dinged a couple times on that (better the penalty than the goal though in that event!).

 

[Panopticon]

Leinonen deserved POG in that game, no doubt.

Why? Because he took some hits (badly) and gave up two goals?

 

[Lobstertainment]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch, The Americans arn't in the gold medal game yet.

I hate to say I told you so but...

 

[psycho_dad*]

Goalies hold on to the puck in or near the crease when it comes to them. Rask skated a good 10-15 feet out of his crease and was nearly at the bottom of the face-off circle when he froze it. I think most referees looking at that play would've made the same call. Even if you try to play the puck first and screw up, the ref won't let you off with freezing it to save yourself from an embarassing goal; I've been dinged a couple times on that (better the penalty than the goal though in that event!).

You dont play under IIHF rules, that's the difference. In north america that is a penalty pretty easily, but I can't recall ever seeing that happen in finnish league or any international tournament that is played under IIHF rules.

 

[Bill McNeal]

The last point on that page also says any unnecessary stoppage of play by the goalie will be penalized for delay of game. I thought it was definitely an unnecessary stoppage. He made no save on the play and went out of his way to cover the puck and stop the play.

Canada needs to get back to bread and butter on the PP. Guys in front of the net and tons of traffic. The pretty goals are nice, but we need the ugly ones too

True. I should completely read everything I post

I guess the question now becomes 'was the ref's opinion correct' which only complicates matters and becomes a judgement call. I can't remember the play exactly, so I can't remember if Rask was being pressured or not.

 

[Zorbax]

Why? Because he took some hits (badly) and gave up two goals?

First I want to say that I am not accustomed to abuse other players to bring out my favorite one. There are many ways to back up your favorites, obviously you have chosen your way already. There are surely many players worth to get that damn prize, if anybody else had got it I wouldn't mind.

You asked why?
Players take hits but also give those. He was physical and solid working hard as the whole team. He played well all around, in own end playing his opponent out of scoring chances. He could take a control with puck giving good passes in spite of canadian hard hit rain. His sharp shots (3) gave rebounds and good scoring chances to our forwards. It seems that somebody else has noticed these things too when get chosen. I make my opinion watching video and this is how I see it with my black&yellow glasses.

Gave up two goals?
First one took place just at the same time when Canada's PP ended. Two finnish forwards played out themselves in Canada's end and our two d-men had to face 3 canadians, who used their moment successfully. Another goal was PK where two our forwards played same man causing canadian #14 to walk in and score without any prevention, at the moment he was keeping canadian forward #27 out of our goal.

 

[jepjepjoo]

From the games first hit(straight to the head) by Canada every other of their hits should have been a penalty by IIHF rules. Elbowing,charging,hit directed to the head.. you name it



Still better team won

 

[Rick Middleton]

Games over folks. Move on.