How has he been on the first line. I saw he got an assist last night, but unfortunately i was unable to watch the game again!
I was keeping an eye out, he's a bit raw yet. He is very strong on the puck, as advertised, but a downside to that is that he clearly hasn't played against NHLers much - carried the puck into trouble a lot.
He also took three penalties, all of them very borderline. Big part of the BS reffing. So when you see his total ice time, consider that he was in the box for 6 minutes - and he's our best penalty killer.
Kid has potential, but stepping into Giroux's shoes is tough - at one point Jagr carried the puck into the zone past him and left it, didn't really pass, just left it. Couts either missed the puck or didn't expect it, and the Habs carried the play the other way. I have to assume that Roo would have scooped it right up.
I was watching the Canadiens-Flyers game and in the first period, a Montreal goal was disallowed while the Canadiens were on a 5-on-3 advantage because Erik Cole was in the crease. Although he made minimal (or no) contact with Sergei Bobrovsky, the goal was called back because he didn't have "room" to make the save.
In the second period, Harry Zolnierczyk scored for the Flyers although there seemed to be contact with Carey Price in the crease, similar to the disallowed Montreal goal. It was called a goal right away and not even talked over by the refs!
Why would the referee not disallow the Flyers goal since Montreal had a disallowed goal on a similar play?
Shawn: I had to piece together the action in front of Carey Price's goal crease between Zac Rinaldo of the Flyers and Habs defenceman Alexei Emelin just prior to Harry Zolneirczyk's scoring play. Unfortunately we don't have an isolated camera look at the top of the goal crease. If my reconstruction of the play is accurate I have no problem with the ref's decision to count Zolneirczyk's goal.
Based on my review I likewise concur that the Habs goal (video link) should not have counted during the 5-on-3 advantage. Let me explain why.
The nature of contact in the crease appears much different in the Zolnierczyk goal compared to the significant presence Erik Cole exerted on his own in Sergei Bobrovsky's crease. Both plays are described in rule 69—interference on the goalkeeper and is the reason why my call on both plays is the same as the ones made by the referees working the game.
We have become accustomed recently to watching players go hard to the net and even crash or charge the goalie. Let's not mistake obvious and forceful contact in these situations with the often subtle nudge or light contact when a goalie is within his crease. Light contact, while deemed "incidental" is just cause for a goal to be waived off. When "incidental contact" on the goalie is determined, no time penalty is assessed but the goal is disallowed.
Last edited by MiamiScreamingEagles: 12-17-2011 at 11:09 AM.
Reason: Site rules prevent full articles from being displayed