• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Olympic Hockey Spoiler Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
USA might have been better off with that being correctly called a penalty shot instead of a regular penalty that gave Canada the 4-3 PP. Of course not calling that slash that wasn't really a slash would have helped Team USA too. Blowing 2 goals leads late in game is never a good thing, they deserved to lose.
 
Habspatrol said:
Apparently the refs had warned someone that they'd be getting called for slashing if they whacked at the goalies pads.... but that was a really weak call imo.

As for the "make up call." In OT or tight games you'll see refs make weak calls to even it up even if the original penalty was legit. It's usually the ref that didn't call the first penalty that thinks it may have been a bit weak.
Click to expand...



If your last paragraph is accurate, there's no need for me to care about outcomes I guess. This is the pinnacle event and the pinnacle game for these girls. If you have refs that don't trust each other and fabricate calls to "even" things up in a 4 on 4 OT game....well that's a shame.


cmaleski2 said:
Blowing 2 goals leads late in game is never a good thing, they deserved to lose.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Does that mean Canada deserved to lose when they allowed the late goal in Vancouver's Gold medal game? Or is just 2 goals that makes a deserving loser. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Well, let me rephrase then...not a single USA player or coach should bellyache about anything that happened in overtime because it was their fault that the game even got to OT. They had a chance to close out the gold and didn't get it done. Once you blow your shot to close it out, you are begging to let it slip away.
 
There's only 1 Referee in international women's play, is there not? So unless the linesmen(women) are making up for each other's "weak" icings or something....
 
Last edited:
Just to flip the script, I presume all of Canada would have taken the "you shouldn't have been down 2 goals to begin with" attitude if that puck that the USA almost cleared into CAN's empty net (as a result of the linesman's impediment) would have gone in? ;)
 
This is what happen when you put so many Hahvahd players (and a Hahvahd head coach) on the same team! The team that won the Gold has four Cornellians.

'Nuff said!
 
Last edited:
Some of Canada would have I assume.

Bottom line is that you best win when it there to be won. Team USA failed to accomplish that. It happens in sports all the time, what makes it compelling to watch.
 
cmaleski2 said:
Bottom line is that you best win when it there to be won. Team USA failed to accomplish that. It happens in sports all the time, what makes it compelling to watch.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. That's why I wait until the end to decide who "deserves" to win or lose. In fact, they always figure it out and I don't have to think about it at all! :)
 
I don't know whether to admire the stifling defense that was on display in that game or be worried that game was a set back for international hockey. That last thing you want to see with the world watching is a game like that where 4 players are falling back towards the goalie and even with the larger ice there is no space at all in any scoring areas in the offensive zone.

When your team wins its pretty no matter what, so Canada is right to celebrate the victory and enjoy it. But that game was tough to watch.
 
Last edited:
cmaleski2 said:
I don't know whether to admire the stifling defense that was on display in that game or be worried that game was a set back for international hockey. That last thing you want to see with the world watching is a game like that where 4 players are falling back towards the goalie and even with the larger ice there is no space at all in any scoring areas in the offensive zone.

When your team wins its pretty no matter what, so Canada is right to celebrate the victory and enjoy it. But that game was tough to watch.
Click to expand...

Tough to watch? CMal you know hockey better than that. Tight checking and not firewagon hockey by any stretch but still a pretty decent game with both teams skating well. If you were hoping for a 7-6 offensive explosion it wasnt happening no matter who you cheer for.
 
Doncha think it's only fair that if Canada gets to have it's own Olympic team that the rest of the states should also be able to have their own Olympic teams.
 
I didn't feel like he game was nearly as close as the score seemed to indicate. The USA never really had any kind of decent scoring opportunities or puck possession.


Terribly boring game to watch, luckily it only lasted 2 hours. I SO WISH NHL games went by so quickly.


*So, Faulk played 2 shifts (?) and never skated again in the 2nd and 3rd periods. TOI was 1:15.
 
Last edited:
I don't know CanadaCanes...that game had me longing for an NHL game where both teams can't ice 18 players all with the talent, skill, and desire to play fundamental tight checking defensive hockey in front of top notch goaltending and where plays along the boards don't seem miles away from the goal. I don't need high scores all the time, but both of these team's defensive play was bordering on TOO good. Either that or these offenses haven't figured out ways to get through all star defenses where there are really no weak links.

Neither team played any kind of trapping style, so it wasn't like it was a full blow commitment to defense. But if EVERY game between elite international teams looked like that all the time it wouldn't be a lot of fun to watch. Not saying there was anything wrong with the game and the result, but to me it wasn't one of those games I will be telling my grandkids about.
 
Last edited:
cmaleski2 said:
I don't know CanadaCanes...that game had me longing for an NHL game where both teams can't ice 18 players all with the talent, skill, and desire to play fundamental tight checking defensive hockey in front of top notch goaltending and where plays along the boards don't seem miles away from the goal. I don't need high scores all the time, but both of these team's defensive play was bordering on TOO good. Either that or these offenses haven't figured out ways to get through all star defenses where there are really no weak links.

Neither team played any kind of trapping style, so it wasn't like it was a full blow commitment to defense. But if EVERY game between elite international teams looked like that all the time it wouldn't be a lot of fun to watch. Not saying there was anything wrong with the game and the result, but to me it wasn't one of those games I will be telling my grandkids about.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, I thought both teams battled hard and had chances to win, in a 1-0 game the goalies usually steal the show and I thought both Quick and Price were really good all game long. The Sweden-Finland game was not much better in terms of offensive flow, Finland seems to do really well at clogging everything in the middle of the ice in the shooting lanes and Canada did much of the same keeping everything to the outside.
 
There is a certain beauty to having 5th and 6th DMen and rosters filled with forwards who are too slow, small, or lazy to backcheck effectively, it leads to more scoring opportunities! :lol

I know we talk about how great it would be to increase the size of NHL rinks. Personally I don't like that idea at all. I know it gives the speed and skill players more room to work, but it also moves perimeter play WAY out on the perimeter and to me just creates longer passes and shots that are more easily blocked by better players. I like NHL rinks just the way they are....they can keep the International rink size in Europe please. I would possibly be swayed to consider the hybrid rink size they use in Finland....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top