Marshand on the two on zero rush?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to hangnail's comment:

    Put it this way.  I thought Marchand's non-call was more of an interference call than Crosby's actual interference call on Bergie.  I thought that was a pretty ticky-tack call.



    The rules disagree with your take though Hang.

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to hangnail's comment:

     


    Should have been 2 minutes interference on Marchand.



     



    Why? He had position on Letang. He is under no obligation to get out of Letang's path. That's why there was no call.

     



    I saw the replay only once on the NHL network and it looked like to me Marchand was trying to stay onside which made it appear as if he interfered with Letang.  Marcahnd was ahead of both Begreron and Letang .
    Letang embellished it and that's what the refs saw.

     

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    I think Brad made a great play there. I don't think he interfered at all. He got into his lane to slow him up, but he didn't grab, hook or trip him. I think for M-a-r-C-h-a-n-d to have the presence of mind to realize that Letang probably would've caught up to them, the B's not get a shot on goal at all. He took away the 2-0 that he thought wouldn't materialize & just let it be a breakaway. And if the refs did decide to call interference & not the dive would've caused a lot of issues. 

    56.1 Interference -A player is allowed the ice he is standing on (body position) and is not required to move in order to let an opponent proceed. A player may “block” the path of an opponent provided he is in front of his opponent and moving in the same direction. Marchand did this perfectly.




    Exactly !  Marchand was ahead of both Bergeron  and Letang, looking for the pass to go in alone , he was there first .  Also his motion to stay onside caused him to go a little sideways as to not cross over the blueline before Bergeron that held on to the puck.

     

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to red75's comment:

     


    I can't find a vid of the replay, but I recall it as a lateral motion, and not blocking him off from in front in a natural motion. That he was ahead but slowed to skate to the side to block Letang. As I understand the interference ruile, that wouldn't qualify for the exemption you highlighted above.

     



    OK. Unless because I'm a goalie I only think lateral as moving straight across. I maybe mis-interpting what lateral actually means. Marchand at no point moved straight across to cut Letang off. He moved in a forward angular motion, which is allowed. There's also nothing in the rule book that says you need to keep up a constant speed.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    In response to red75's comment:

     


    I can't find a vid of the replay, but I recall it as a lateral motion, and not blocking him off from in front in a natural motion. That he was ahead but slowed to skate to the side to block Letang. As I understand the interference ruile, that wouldn't qualify for the exemption you highlighted above.

     



    OK. Unless because I'm a goalie I only think lateral as moving straight across. I maybe mis-interpting what lateral actually means. Marchand at no point moved straight across to cut Letang off. He moved in a forward angular motion, which is allowed. There's also nothing in the rule book that says you need to keep up a constant speed.

     




    Like I said, I haven't seen it since it happened so I may not be recalling it correctly.

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to hangnail's comment:

     

    Put it this way.  I thought Marchand's non-call was more of an interference call than Crosby's actual interference call on Bergie.  I thought that was a pretty ticky-tack call.

     



    The rules disagree with your take though Hang.

     




    It's funny though because on both of those plays while I was watching it live, I thought the refs got them both wrong.  When Marchand waved his hand I knew he was telling Bergie to go solo, and he was going to set the pick...and Bergie had just gained the red line when he dumped the puck and it was maybe 1-2 seconds later that Crosby hit him.  I was shocked that was called.

     

    Oh well, looking forward to another big game tonight.  Cheers boys (and red).

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    I know the first time I saw it, I thought 'yikes, Marchand could easily get called there'.  It looked like he really went out of his way to get in Letang's path, instead of following Bergeron forward towards the net.  

    But even more conspicuous, was Letang's attempt to sell it.  I think red is right.  I think Marchand may have been in danger of being called (whether he broke the letter of the law or not), but Letang's oversell made the whole thing look ridiculous.  The ref wasn't going to buy Letang sprawling across the ice like he had been tasered.  That level of acting works against you, like it should.

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    http://player.theplatform.com/p/BxmELC/nbcsportsembed/select/I42bOW7MhZE_

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Weiner Scent! --

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    One more question for red...Do you guys call Bob Beers, Bob "Beer" up in your neck of the woods?




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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to hangnail's comment:

    One more question for red...Do you guys call Bob Beers, Bob "Beer" up in your neck of the woods?






    Now you're just picking on us. Seems fair though I suppose. 

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to DrCC's comment:

     

    http://player.theplatform.com/p/BxmELC/nbcsportsembed/select/I42bOW7MhZE_

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Weiner Scent! --

     




     

    Thanks Dr.  That's definitely interference!! Plus it was Marchand's glove that went flying!!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to hangnail's comment:

     

    One more question for red...Do you guys call Bob Beers, Bob "Beer" up in your neck of the woods?




     



    Now you're just picking on us. Seems fair though I suppose. 

     




     

    Haha I know you guys are easy targets dez!!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to hangnail's comment:

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    http://player.theplatform.com/p/BxmELC/nbcsportsembed/select/I42bOW7MhZE_

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Weiner Scent! --

     




     

    Thanks Dr.  That's definitely interference!!

    [/QUOTE]

    It definitely wasn't. Only one of us is right. See you in court. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    Marchand intentionally skated towards Letang and made contact with him.  That's interference.  Marchand's path wasn't directly to the net.  He motioned to Bergeron and veered to the right.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    In response to hangnail's comment:

     

    In response to DrCC's comment:

     

     

    http://player.theplatform.com/p/BxmELC/nbcsportsembed/select/I42bOW7MhZE_

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Weiner Scent! --

     

     




     

     

    Thanks Dr.  That's definitely interference!!



    It definitely wasn't. Only one of us is right. See you in court. 

     




    Haha ok man enjoy the game tonight.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    I think the fact that Letang's glove went flying was the icing on the cake for that play.

     

    It was Marchand's? I need a video replay, I thought it was Letang's.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Canadianfan6. Show Canadianfan6's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    Marchand intentionally skated towards Letang and made contact with him.  That's interference.  Marchand's path wasn't directly to the net.  He motioned to Bergeron and veered to the right.


    Agree Marshand should have gone in with Bergie!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    Marchand is allowed to veer sideways, forcing Letang to choose a new path, provided he continued moving forward. He got position on him and used it. The onus is on Letang to go further outside or try to jump back inside..........or simply skate into Marchand. 


    "wow,check out all of the losers in here......"

    -Gerry Dee
     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    Dez would Letang get an interference call if he bowls over Marchand to get to Bergeron? I'm honestly not sure on that one.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to hangnail's comment:

    One more question for red...Do you guys call Bob Beers, Bob "Beer" up in your neck of the woods?






    He would be called Bob "pick up a 24 will yah?".

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Canadianfan6. Show Canadianfan6's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    Dez would Letang get an interference call if he bowls over Marchand to get to Bergeron? I'm honestly not sure on that one.


    Yes but they probably wouldn't call it since Bergie has a break away

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to lambda13's comment:

    Dez would Letang get an interference call if he bowls over Marchand to get to Bergeron? I'm honestly not sure on that one.



    No, I believe it would be considered incidental contact if they both arrive at the same time to a patch of ice. Now if Marchand was able to get there and stop for a few seconds then Letang would be forced to go around or be guilty of interference if he bowls him over. 

     

Share