I'm just having a hard time getting past Steve Ott. Other than that I love the Blues team (although I'm not a huge Hitchcock fan).Pulling for the Blues all the way, after never being able to catch a break for ages, they finally slayed the beast and beat the Hawks and moved on, hoping they get all the way to the finals, they were the West punching bag for a few years when they first came into the league, good for them and their fans.
Understood about Ott and Hitchcock. I'd like to see the Blues get to the finals and win it; they were part of the first expansion from 6 to 12 teams and were a Stanley Cup Finals punching bag the first three years of their history, getting demolished in the finals 4 zip all three years, they are the oldest NHL team to have never won a Stanley Cup, so it would be a great story if they could finally win one.I'm just having a hard time getting past Steve Ott. Other than that I love the Blues team (although I'm not a huge Hitchcock fan).
I'm pulling for the Blues too, I hope they get to the SCF finals and win it. Love their big 3 D men.Understood about Ott and Hitchcock. I'd like to see the Blues get to the finals and win it; they were part of the first expansion from 6 to 12 teams and were a Stanley Cup Finals punching bag the first three years of their history, getting demolished in the finals 4 zip all three years, they are the oldest NHL team to have never won a Stanley Cup, so it would be a great story if they could finally win one.
Ah, okay. Two reviews. Still - I have an issue here. To sound like a broken record because it pleases everyone who has to read it, Rule 69.1 states at the end of the first paragraph: "The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review." Therefore, the second the referee waived off the goal due to incidental contact (not goaltender interference, the minor penalty) initiated by Pavelski, the determination whether the Pavelski goal was good became moot. They had no goal to review.There were 2 separate reviews.The first review was for how the puck entered the net. They said that was legal. NBCSN didn't show the ref saying this. Then they reviewed for goalie interference.
I thought the interference was the right call. Pavelski was headed in with a lot of steam, I think he was going into Rinne with or without the shove from Gaustad.
Under that theory, the goal should have stood because the referee on-ice did NOT waive the goal off for incidental contact -- he waived it off for Pavelski playing it with his hand. Upon review, that aspect of the call was overturned because Pavelski touched the puck with his stick before the puck crossed the goal line.Ah, okay. Two reviews. Still - I have an issue here. To sound like a broken record because it pleases everyone who has to read it, Rule 69.1 states at the end of the first paragraph: "The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review." Therefore, the second the referee waived off the goal due to incidental contact (not goaltender interference, the minor penalty) initiated by Pavelski, the determination whether the Pavelski goal was good became moot. They had no goal to review.
A caveat I'll add here is that I know the GM meetings were supposed to include a discussion of potentially adding video review via coach's challenge for "goaltender interference" although I don't know what came of it. Whatever the case, the NHL really needs to clean up its definitions (goalie interference v. incidental contact v. contact with the goaltender - all terms used interchangeably in the rule book), allow referees to review their decisions without a coach's challenge, and be consistent in application.
Also, I think I changed my opinion on the cause of the incidental contact. Can't give Gaustad a pass and assume Pavelski wouldn't have stopped particularly because Pavelski was off balance due to reaching up for the puck, and he was further tripped up inadvertently by Weber just before falling into Renne. Really tough decision however one looks at it, and I'll probably change my mind again later.
The problem is that the rule is applied so inconsistently that no one knows what it means. Here's a goal from the Sharks' previous series that was upheld based on the "pushed or shoved by a defending player" exception:If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
After the review, I clearly heard the words "no goal" and "goaltender interference" come out of his mouth. The NHL disallowed the goal due to incidental contact after video review - something that the rule does not allow. It doesn't matter why he went to the booth, because he shouldn't have been there reviewing something he's not permitted to review.Under that theory, the goal should have stood because the referee on-ice did NOT waive the goal off for incidental contact -- he waived it off for Pavelski playing it with his hand. Upon review, that aspect of the call was overturned because Pavelski touched the puck with his stick before the puck crossed the goal line.
Maybe the ref would have waived it off for incidental contact if he hadn't made the playing it with a hand call. But is that enough to trigger the "exclusively on-ice judgment" rule, if there was no actual on-ice ruling on that point?
On the bigger issue, I don't think the rule book needs to be cleared up. The rule itself is relatively clear and straightforward:
The problem is that the rule is applied so inconsistently that no one knows what it means. Here's a goal from the Sharks' previous series that was upheld based on the "pushed or shoved by a defending player" exception:
https://www.nhl.com/video/lewis-deflects-home-goal/t-280310610/c-43641403
I don't see much difference between what Burns does here and the combo cross-check/leg trip Pavelski received last night. But I'm a Sharks fan, so I'll admit to some bias.
Amen to that; the Blues get #2 anyway.................Get rid of the damn coaches challenges. I hate them
Is the evidence he used Chicago or Pittsburg? Because then you just need to get two of the top 10 players in the league to do so. Which is easy.According to Felger, you don't need a good goalie, just put some tall stooge out there and let him play on his knees all night long. He was banging that drum all day today.
Wrong again.
First he was talking about the Bruins and how they are paying Rask too much, then he referenced Pittsburg and their rookie 3rd round draft pick who stood on his head vs the Capitals.Is the evidence he used Chicago or Pittsburg? Because then you just need to get two of the top 10 players in the league to do so. Which is easy.
I'm starting to get a real vibe about the Blues, similar to the 2011 Bruins team: manager/front office running out of chances, strong down the middle/on D, unheralded goalie coming up big in the playoffs, overcoming a lot of demons on their way through. The perfect part is that the Penguins could play the part of the Canucks in that situation.I can't actually believe that they took Chicago and Dallas to Game 7s and won both. Unreal. Hopefully they can keep it going.