How can that not be a penalty?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: How can that not be a penalty?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:

     

    Maybe sloppy yes but no heart ?  Everyone forgets there's another team on the ice . Neither team cannot be the dominant team for 60mins , not at this point in the season !
    If Bruins didn't have a pulse when Chicago might have been outplaying them they wouldn't have outhit Chicago.

    This is a very even series and bounces at dictating who wins or loses.



     The B's have their hands full but but they will rise to the occasion and game 6 will be a barnburner, game 7 here we come! [/QUOTE]

    There will be a game 7, there is no doubt in my mind. Funny how the wannabs are acting like Chicago dominated.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's such an even series.  Game 1 Bruins win if not for 2 lucky bounces.  Game2 Bruins won with n luck. Game3 not even close.  Game4 was a wash but the Bruins were the better team in the 2nd half plus the OT, Game 5 I'll say at least one was a lucky bounce and made the difference.

    How can the Bruins not have shown effort ???  I'll say it again,  there are 2 teams on the ice and each have had their moments equally.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: How can that not be a penalty?

    NedBraden,  you saying the Bruins are getting screwed on the penalty calls for the past 4 series , that's homerism.  If Chicago was so dominant the series would be over by now and last night they would have won the cup already !

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: How can that not be a penalty?

    In response to perrysound's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Surprised the B's didn't make more out of it though.  A certain amount of whining is good.  Referees do in fact listen.  They are human.  Those that whine the right way...get make up calls sometime down the road.

    Big difference between missing something, vs ignoring it.  No doubt in my mind, they saw it, knew it was an obvious penalty, but ignored it, only because it was a tight game, and it was late in the 3rd.  No way that doesn't get called in the 1st or 2nd.  The justice culture in the NHL, is a complete embarassement alongside the rest of the pro sport world.

    Having said that, it probably didn't change the outcome.  It "wasn't" why the B's lost. Rather, simply another screaming example of a hopelessly outdated, bushleague, ill-informed, mindless, refereeing mentality that starts with the league hierarchy, and is filtered down to ice level.  This one isn't a result of the refs, but the accepted culture.  Time for the game to grow up.

     



    Would the consistancy of calls from the Regular Season and the Plaoffs result in an entertaining style of hockey? I think it would, but my gues is the NHL doesn't think so. It was clear from the Toronto series that they were going to let a lot more go, and it seemed to work out pretty well. By far and large I think they have been fair in letting both sides get away with a lot, so it is balanced. Fewer whistles.

     

    In the Regular Season, sometimes the calls come so often that they take away from the flow of the game. When it comes to playoffs, the intensity gets ratched up a few more notches, so I guess they see the need to slow down the parade to the Box. I think it's BS, but as long as they are consistant, I will live wih it.

    I thought the Seidenburg call was boarderline. It was a tough check, that to me, seemed like the ones they let go. But for most part in the Series, it's been balanced.

    Now the last one was a penalty in any one's books. It would have made a very interesting ending, they didn't so we have to move on. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's about entertainment, or pacing the game.  I'm not complaining about refereeing in this game, this series, or the playoffs in general, more about the overall stupidity of it.

    I understand fully the logic, but it's incredibly flawed.  If you're consistent in the regular season, then a different level of consistency early in playoff games, then late in playoff games, and O\T....then you're wildly inconsistent.  No other way to look at it.
    Linesmen will never ignore an offside, depending on the score, and time of the game, yet referee's will conciously turn a blind eye to something that leads to a direct scoring chance. If it's a 3 on 1, with 40 seconds left in a tie game, the linesman instictively blows the whistle if one of those guys goes in ahead of the puck.  Every time.  Referee's aren't instructed to use that same level of judgement on a penalty infraction, and therein lies a problem.  Referee's aren't supposed to be handing out advatages, and when they get overly subjective, that's exactly what they're doing.  Linesmen never do that.  Again, it's not about being human.  The only time a linesman doesn't blow the whistle, is when he misses something.  If referee's did the same thing, I'd be fine.  They don't do it in baseball, football, basketball....they don't do it anywhere else but in hockey.  They say "let the players decide".  That's juvenile.  If the ref doesn't call a penalty he sees, it's not leaving it up to the players, it's "directly influencing the outcome".

    Pass interference is a penalty in the pre season, as well as the last play of the Super Bowl.  The reason you don't see that stuff happen every other passing play...is because the players know it's going to be called.  If the hockey mentality were transferred to football, the "passing" game would go up in smoke.  Based on the inconsistency of calling the pass interference penalty, that element of the game would change drastically, and for the worse.

    When referees start applying their craft like linesmen, when the establishment starts to encourage them that way.  The game will be better.  Once players "understand the perimeters", they'll quickly catch on, and there'll be no more penalties called then there ever were.

    Fact is, the referee's willfully gave that game to Chicago, as opposed to letting the players decide it, which works out to exactly the opposite result they think they're protecting.  A free 2 on 1 with no goalie is a goal. End of game.   No other way to look at it.  The game, the fans were cheated out of an exciting finish to regulation.  At worst, several more seconds.

    Not calling that penalty, because the establishment wants the "players to decide things" is irrational and incorrect.  It robs players the opportunity to "decide it themselves".  Time to catch up to the rest of the world.

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: How can that not be a penalty?

    I agree with calling a penalty a penalty no matter where the game is at time wise. The refs missed it & they've missed calls against the B's & they've missed off-sides where it turned into the B's favor. Sour grapes is sour grapes no matter how much sugar you add to it. Two things that drive me nuts is the fact a too many men, or puck over the glass are automatics. No discression is needed. This is where coaches need challenges. They have review of goals that can change the outcome. They need to have a review of plays that can do that also. 

    "Why is a puck called a puck? Because Dirty little bastar d was taken!"- Marty Brodeur

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: How can that not be a penalty?

    In response to NedBraden's comment:

    Are you kidding me? Chicago didn't dominate? They got under Chara;'s skin to get him off his game and the Kreijci line was utterly useless the entire game, doing nothing!

    We can't have our best players not playing well in a Cup Finals, dude.

    You homers here are a joke. It's like it's impossible for the other team to outplay the Bruins.



    Nope.  The Hawks had the first two periods, the Bruins the third.  Winning 2-1 isn't domination.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: How can that not be a penalty?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    I agree with calling a penalty a penalty no matter where the game is at time wise. The refs missed it & they've missed calls against the B's & they've missed off-sides where it turned into the B's favor. Sour grapes is sour grapes no matter how much sugar you add to it. Two things that drive me nuts is the fact a too many men, or puck over the glass are automatics. No discression is needed. This is where coaches need challenges. They have review of goals that can change the outcome. They need to have a review of plays that can do that also. 

    "Why is a puck called a puck? Because Dirty little bastar d was taken!"- Marty Brodeur



    and add high sticking to that list, Notice those are the penalties even the linesmen have a say or call.  Judgment calls as hooking, tripping and inference are the ones that are let go when it's late in the game. 

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: How can that not be a penalty?

    In response to NedBraden's comment:

    In response to BsLegion's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    NedBraden,  you saying the Bruins are getting screwed on the penalty calls for the past 4 series , that's homerism.  If Chicago was so dominant the series would be over by now and last night the would have won the cup !

     

     



    I did?  When did I say that? There were a few games where I felt the officiating was bad for BOTH sides, yes.  I find crappy officiating in any sport very annoying.

     

    It's annoying. It's the playoffs and they can't figure out who their best officials are? It's unacceptable.

    [/QUOTE]

    well maybe not under NedBraden , maybe under some of your other nicnames.

    For the record there are much worse than the 4 refs in the final, I think these are the best. No ticky tacky calls , my only complaint when it's 100% a clear cut penalty like Frolic on Krug they have to call it otherwise it plays with the  integrity of the game.  Everyone, even non-Bruins fans , TV commentators said that was a penalty.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: How can that not be a penalty?

    In response to bosbruins2011cup's comment:


    The bruins maybe need to sell the calls better like all of their opponents do against them? I haven't liked the officiating in this series and I am very biased but chicago has by far imo gotten the better shake of the calls. If the bruins don't win this series I won't use the officiating as an excuse but I haven't liked it one bit. At times its been NBA esque and thats a flipping shame in the stanley cup finals!



    Julien said he does not like that and if his own players do it they will be talked to.  Let's just say it's not in their DNA.  Dannycarter I think said why don't the Bruins complain about it after the game ? Julien will never say anything after a game unless it was a clear cut penalty that has you lose a game7 of the SCF then you might hear Julien come out and say something.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     

Share