10/28 - Kings @ Bruins

[Maximus]

WTF

 

[patinorange]

Sad.

 

[veritas]

 

[LogansDad]

I can't even be mad about that.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

Yeah that was ridiculous.

Terrific game.

 

[cshea]

I’ve never seen that actually work. Damn.

 

[charlieoscar]

Whichever Bruin iced the puck with 0.9 seconds remaining is the blame.

 

[TFP]

Did the clock even start?

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Terrible lazy icing by Krug costs the game. Just wait a second before throwing it away.

 

[patinorange]

Whichever Bruin iced the puck with 0.9 seconds remaining is the blame.

That was a really lazy unnecessary play.

 

[ngruz25]

So wait, the clock didn't start? How? Did space and time break or something?

 

[Maximus]

That was a really lazy unnecessary play.

Krug cost us both goals tonight.

 

[charlieoscar]

There was 0.4 seconds on the clock when the icing was called but they added 0.5 seconds back. The goal was scored with 0.4 seconds left.

 

[NYCSox]

If Pasta had deliberately taken a faceoff penalty then Bergy would have replaced him. That's what someone on the coaching staff should have advised.

 

[TFP]

If Pasta had deliberately taken a faceoff penalty then Bergy would have replaced him. That's what someone on the coaching staff should have advised.

That’s....a very interesting strategy. Would it make Pasta ineligible for the shootout though?

 

[NYCSox]

I don't think so as games often end during a PP and I'm pretty sure no one has ever pointed out that the player in the box was suddenly ineligible.

 

[LogansDad]

Rule book says all players will be eligible unless they get a Game or 10 Minute Misconduct, so doesn't look like it. Unless they would consider it unsportsmanlike or something.

Edit: Also, I just learned that a team can decline to take part in the shootout. It counts as a shootout loss for them.

 

[TFP]

Actually it wouldn’t even be Pasta who gets the penalty since he could he get kicked out first then the D man could come in and get the actual penalty.

 

[LogansDad]

On an icing he stays in the dot though, doesn't he? I thought they made that change a few years ago because teams were having a winger go in and purposefully get kicked to waste more time to let them get their legs back.

 

[Ed Hillel]

On an icing he stays in the dot though, doesn't he? I thought they made that change a few years ago because teams were having a winger go in and purposefully get kicked to waste more time to let them get their legs back.

They had a timeout, right? Use it, put Krug in to just dive on the puck.

 

[LogansDad]

That works, too.

 

[TFP]

On an icing he stays in the dot though, doesn't he? I thought they made that change a few years ago because teams were having a winger go in and purposefully get kicked to waste more time to let them get their legs back.

I don’t think so. If that’s the case let the D man go in from the start and get the penalty.

 

[LogansDad]

I don’t think so. If that’s the case let the D man go in from the start and get the penalty.

This is the rule:

When a team commits an icing infraction, any face-off violation will not result in the center being removed. The center will be warned by the Linesman that the team has committed their first face-off violation and any subsequent violation will result in a bench minor penalty for delay of game - face-off violation being assessed.

I imagine if the Bruins were actively trying to get a penalty, they would put their least useful shootout player at the dot to take the penalty though. I don't think that was a thought that entered their minds tonight, though.

 

[pedro1918]

Not important at all, but I keep thinking about what Jack said going into OT. It was something like "We'll now play 5 minutes of overtime. Or maybe a little less."

Nailed it.