2014 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread

[Habsy]

Who said it was inconsequential?

I'll take a team's starter out against us any day of the week.

It's highly disingenuous to imply that the Habs wouldn't have beaten Tampa with Bishop in net though. The Habs were the better team going in. While Tampa did win their last 4 games, the Habs were 15 of 19 heading into the playoffs. The were the hot team going in.

 

[Habsy]

Not true at all.

Yes, true. All.

The Habs had possession because of an equally obvious infraction. The "what if" game can be played all day. But if calls are being ignored all night then you keep on the path.

Similar instances happened in LA and St. Louis yet Sens fan remarkably quiet. Surely it's an outlier as only the Habs benefit from late PP.

Correct call my ass. It was an application of the literal definition. The Tampa player couldn't get out of the net and Price ran into him. Even then Price was away from contact and swimming all by himself by the time the goal actually went in.

I would be livid had the call gone against the Habs. The call looked ridiculous. That said however, it was indeed the correct call. Fraser described it perfectly. He also said Price is well aware of the rule and uses it to his advantage. He further said there is nothing wrong with him using it to his advantage as long as it is in the rule book.

You need to get off your butthurt. Maybe standing up will help?

Price gets treated like gold. I've never seen anything like it.

As mentioned, Price knows the interference rules probably better than any goalie in the league (per Fraser). He's smart and uses all the tools available to him. Chastising him over it is akin to chastising a good lawyer that knows the law.

 

[Habsy]

See, proof I don't do it often. Can't even spell the word.

The Bruins will be heavy favorites going into the series, and they should be, as President Trophy winners.

I'd love nothing more than for Detroit to perform a miracle because I believe that would be the Habs path of least resistance to the Cup Finals.

 

[corksens]

Clearly being prevented from getting out of the net is an interference call then, right?

I mean, that is the literal definition of the penalty.

 

[Habsy]

He wasn't prevented from getting out of the net. He could have gone out the other side of the net. The puck was on the left of the net and PK was allowed to be there. Killorn could have gone the other way.

You also forget that Killorn put himself into the net. There is no justification for him being there and therefore he is the one interfering. Killorn DOES NOT have a right to the blue paint or the inside of the net. You seem to think he does.

 

[mbow30]

He wasn't prevented from getting out of the net. He could have gone out the other side of the net. The puck was on the left of the net and PK was allowed to be there. Killorn could have gone the other way.

You also forget that Killorn put himself into the net. There is no justification for him being there and therefore he is the one interfering. Killorn DOES NOT have a right to the blue paint or the inside of the net. You seem to think he does.

ya, just give up the charade and admit that the goal shouldn't have been called back.

it was a ridiculous call.

 

[corksens]

Killorn did the right thing - dove into the net to avoid contact with Price on his scoring opportunity. Subban comes into the play and backs into Killorn (to protect the net, or not) and prevents Killorn the ability to get out of the crease. Price slides over and trips himself on Killorn. If the refs blew the play down right then and there I wouldn't have much of an argument. Missed scoring chance, but if contact is made and that is the "right call" then blow it dead.

But they don't. They let play continue, Price gets all mixed up and a goal is scored.

No reason to disallow the goal at that point.

 

[Habspatrol]

I'm not the one that thinks punches in a scrum = disallowed goals.

But whatever.

The Stamkos punch wasn't in a scrum... he skated up to him and sucker punched him in the face. No call.

You're in full emo more on any disallowed goal vs the Habs... right call or not. You continually ignore the fact that they have by far the most disallowed goals in the league. That's why I keep posting the crying babies for you. Babies are the exact same, they don't care about reason or logic. They don't have any objectivity at all... they just know that they don't like what is happening to them right now and they cry about it.

 

[mbow30]

the stamkos punch was brutal and should have been called, but then so were the dives be emelin.

 

[Habspatrol]

Pretending that Bishop being out was inconsequential is simply idiotic.

The Habs got the job done with a sweep and deserve credit for taking advantage of the situation.

An answer to my posts and PMs would be greatly appreciated. I know how down on another poster you were for weaseling out of paying you on a bet so I'm sure you're not planning on doing that.

 

[corksens]

The Stamkos punch wasn't in a scrum... he skated up to him and sucker punched him in the face. No call.

You're in full emo more on any disallowed goal vs the Habs... right call or not. You continually ignore the fact that they have by far the most disallowed goals in the league. That's why I keep posting the crying babies for you. Babies are the exact same, they don't care about reason or logic. They don't have any objectivity at all... they just know that they don't like what is happening to them right now and they cry about it.

I've seen four good goals called back against the Habs in the past year and a bit. Good goals scored at critical times. Damn right I'm going to complain.

Silfverberg vs. MTL last season (regular season)
Smith vs. MTL (this season)
Tampa player...can't remember the name (this season)
Killorn vs. MTL (playoffs).

What cock are these refs gobbling?

 

[Habsy]

the stamkos punch was brutal and should have been called, but then so were the dives be emelin.

There was a ton of stuff let go on both ends.

The late call was because the Hab was trying to clear the zone and was prevented from doing so because of the trip. Again, had Tampa scored because of it, the ref would have heard it (internally) from the league.

Fraser once said that refs do indeed get written up for bad calls and missed calls internally. Their record over the season determines whether or not they get playoff games. Their further playoff record determines if they get later rounds.

We as fans think it goes unnoticed by the league. It doesn't. Ineptitude eventually costs the refs playoff pay.

 

[Habsy]

I've seen four good goals called back against the Habs in the past year and a bit. Good goals scored at critical times. Damn right I'm going to complain.

Silfverberg vs. MTL last season (regular season)
Smith vs. MTL (this season)
Tampa player...can't remember the name (this season)
Killorn vs. MTL (playoffs).

What cock are these refs gobbling?

And I have seen many more good Habs goals called back. Two in one game I was at live... and by a French Ref L'Ecuyer (suck it Red Deer Ronnie).

You really think the Habs never get the shit end of the stick and we are just delusional when we bitch about it. It's pretty dumb.

 

[Habspatrol]

Not true at all.

The Habs had possession because of an equally obvious infraction. The "what if" game can be played all day. But if calls are being ignored all night then you keep on the path.

Correct call my ass. It was an application of the literal definition. The Tampa player couldn't get out of the net and Price ran into him. Even then Price was away from contact and swimming all by himself by the time the goal actually went in.

Price gets treated like gold. I've never seen anything like it.

That just goes to show that you either chose not to read the rule or you've chosen to ignore the wording of rule.

 

[Habsy]

ya, just give up the charade and admit that the goal shouldn't have been called back.

it was a ridiculous call.

Why?

I've already admitted that I'd be pissed. I think it should have counted.

However, when numerous Refs and former refs say it was the correct call as the rule is worded you can't say it was a ridiculous call. What you can say is it is a ridiculous rule.

 

[Habsy]

Killorn did the right thing - dove into the net to avoid contact with Price on his scoring opportunity. Subban comes into the play and backs into Killorn (to protect the net, or not) and prevents Killorn the ability to get out of the crease. Price slides over and trips himself on Killorn. If the refs blew the play down right then and there I wouldn't have much of an argument. Missed scoring chance, but if contact is made and that is the "right call" then blow it dead.

But they don't. They let play continue, Price gets all mixed up and a goal is scored.

No reason to disallow the goal at that point.

Rule 69.3 begs to differ.

 

[corksens]

That just goes to show that you either chose not to read the rule or you've chosen to ignore the wording of rule.

He's getting up and out of the crease and contact is made. Ran into him or not doesn't matter. Call the play dead at that point.

Don't let it continue then waive off a good goal that wasn't impacted by any contact whatsoever.

 

[Habsy]

The Stamkos punch wasn't in a scrum... he skated up to him and sucker punched him in the face. No call.

You're in full emo more on any disallowed goal vs the Habs... right call or not. You continually ignore the fact that they have by far the most disallowed goals in the league. That's why I keep posting the crying babies for you. Babies are the exact same, they don't care about reason or logic. They don't have any objectivity at all... they just know that they don't like what is happening to them right now and they cry about it.

Exactly,

Habs lead the league in disallowed goals, mainly due to Gallagher, and he thinks their is a bias in favor of the Habs? It's pretty ridiculous.

 

[corksens]

Exactly,

Habs lead the league in disallowed goals, mainly due to Gallagher, and he thinks their is a bias in favor of the Habs? It's pretty ridiculous.

Again, feel free to post that stat.

 

[Habsy]

He's getting up and out of the crease and contact is made. Ran into him or not doesn't matter. Call the play dead at that point.

Don't let it continue then waive off a good goal that wasn't impacted by any contact whatsoever.

This I agree with.

My argument was, if Killorn impeded Price enough, which he did knock him off balance (thanks to Price), then he should have blown the whistle for either a penalty on Killorn or incidental contact.

However, rule 69.3 is there for just these circumstances, when the ref does not blow it down.