I really hope that the penalties are corrected tomorrow, tonight was a joke.. then again, so was missing three open nets by the Bolts
You say that as if the refs are obligated to call a certain amount of penalties in a game. That's not how the league is run, nor should it be. How about this scenario about Game 1; the Bolts were really undisciplined. Sean Bergenheim's penalty was pure frustration.
Originally Posted by The Cheat
Of course, there was no call by the ref's because it was against the Penguins on the opening game of the playoffs. We can't have that now...
Wow. To think that this is a real thought process by a rational person is simply absurd.
I guess the refs should also be crucified because when Kovalev was clearly tripped by Pavel Kubina right before the first goal, they knew he would soon get up and score. So that is why there was a non-call when Kovalev was tripped. Right? I mean, using that logic, it makes perfect sense.
To be frank, I find this referee-based excuse making to be embarrassing. It happens with every team. Wasn't Boudreau complaining about Downie and Stammer diving all of the time just a couple months ago? Unreal people...
I think theres a lot more gray area in the high sticking calls that people here are letting on. I remember earlier this season a pen getting hit in the face with a high stick and the refs saw it but decided to call it no penalty, even after confering amongst themselves. They ruled that it was part of a follow through. So there are exceptions and when you have a players head almost parallel with the ice the whole "above the shoulders" part of the rule I would assume would be taken into context. Where St Louis was hit was in no way above where his shoulders would be if he were standing, it would be by his shins or knees.
So now they're saying it's a slash? That swing of the stick doesnt break a stick, it would never be considered a slash except because his face happens to be there. It was purely accidental, one only needs to actually look at it and also take the player delivering it into consideration.
I like many others had a knee jerk reaction at first that it was a missed call but when I reflect on it afterwards I realize they did get it right. I do believe the later high stick on downie is more likely a missed call but it's not the sexy missed double minor so people don't seem to care about it that much.
when a player accidently swings his stick in the air and catches someone in the face it's always called, so i don't see why it wouldn't apply if the player was on the ground. obviously you can't call it high sticking, but if an accidental high stick gets called they should call this type of play too. i don't know if it could be called slashing though, as it's called when a player intentionaly swings his stick at another player. interesting play, i guess there's nothing in the rules to cover it.
Ive seen you post this twice. And no it hasnt. NHL Network said it should have been called. Another Ref said it should have been called.
Maybe its been "virtually unanimously called correct" by the local Pittsburgh news stations, but thats about it.
It should have been a penalty. You have to be in control of your stick. Its the players responsibility. It should have been a high stick or a slashing depending on which way they wanted to call it.
And frankly, if you think its a good non call, then I hope Downie puts every Penguin on their behind on Friday and two hand chops them in the face. See if you think its the right non call then.
Every show I've watched has said it should not have been called...including everyone on NHL network. There is absolutely no chance it should have been a high stick when St. Louis is falling down, on the ice, and everything is chaos. Good non call, unfortunate for Marty.