Marshand on the two on zero rush?

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

    Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    What was he thinking?

    Blew a 2 on 0 almost took a penalty

    You go hard to the net with Bergie maybe get a tap in or a rebound

    I have never seen anyone ever do that!

    But I still like him he is a great kid and scores some big goals i am just talking about that one play

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    I'm sure he was thinking 'I'd better run a little interference here because Letang is so fast'. But it was too obvious. Luckily Letang tried to sell the call and the ref didn't bite. It was a very strange play

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    Honestly I thought he played it well and when Letang flings his glove across the ice and flops like a fish out of water he's never getting that call. I don't ever want to see Bergeron pass if he's on the break. He BARELY lost that puck and just as easily could have potted it. If you blow that play dead as a ref you're in trouble because it would have to be matching minors.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from gord11. Show gord11's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    Yea, Letang's dive on that play was a head-scratcher. That he would choose to suck for a penalty rather than chase Bergeron down, showed really weird, skewed judgement, emblematic of most of Pens players mindset that night.

     

    here's hoping for more of that tonight!

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?


    Should have been 2 minutes interference on Marchand.



     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rufus604. Show Rufus604's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to hangnail's comment:


    Should have been 2 minutes interference on Marchand.






    Got to call the dive then as well

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    I think the ref made the right decision. Lets the teams know that diving will not draw a penalty.

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to Rufus604's comment:

    In response to hangnail's comment:

     


    Should have been 2 minutes interference on Marchand.



     




    Got to call the dive then as well

     



    True

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    It was clever. Marchand knew it would take some serious balls to blow down a breakaway to call that penalty. He read the play and thought it'd be a breakaway or a 2 on 1 with letang taking away the passing lane. If I'm the ref I call it a 2 minute minor for obstruction interference. Glad they didnt. 

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    Agree on the interference call -- I think they either need to call nothing or call both guys.  Marchand definitely created some light interference, but Letang went down like a sniper shot him which I think probably irritates the refs.  

    While he clearly can't block the guy, Marchand does have some right to get to that lane first and force Letang to go around him.  That said, Bergeron was pretty free and clear on that one and I would prefer to see Marchand just go to the net for a rebound instead of worrying about Letang at all.

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    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.

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    Agree on the interference call -- I think they either need to call nothing or call both guys.  Marchand definitely created some light interference, but Letang went down like a sniper shot him which I think probably irritates the refs.  

    While he clearly can't block the guy, Marchand does have some right to get to that lane first and force Letang to go around him.  That said, Bergeron was pretty free and clear on that one and I would prefer to see Marchand just go to the net for a rebound instead of worrying about Letang at all.



    This is what i thought as well and the ref chose tha latter.Still a strange play by Marchand.

     
  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:


    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.

     
  14. 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:

     


    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'd have to look at it again but as I remember Marchand was more towards the center of the rink and then cut to the right boards to impede Letwat's progress.  He even waved to Bergie to take it solo because he had no intention of joining the play IMO.

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    Stupid play by Marchand and he got away with one.  He was not directly in front of Letang, and cut him off and initiated contact to slow him down (and yes it was a dive so the ref let both calls go).  The 1-0 allowed Vokoun to focus solely on Bergeron and I would have rather seen all 3 skating hard to the net to give Vokoun more to think about.  But, obviously in real time that is the play Marchand saw and probably thought the best chance to score was to let Bergeron get in alone.

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?


    Marchand's lucky Letang dove. I think it backfired on Letang and that if he never went down like he'd been shot the interference would have been called. Instead rather than calling the coincidental minors, the ref just let them play. If Letang had stayed on his feet, I guessing Marchand would have gone to the box.

     
  17. 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 dezaruchi's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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'd have to look at it again but as I remember Marchand was more towards the center of the rink and then cut to the right boards to impede Letwat's progress.  He even waved to Bergie to take it solo because he had no intention of joining the play IMO.

    [/QUOTE]

    Check out the exact wording of the rule provided by Nite just above. He was allowed to force Letang to go around him so he did. Nothing sinister. No missed call.

     
  18. 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:


    Marchand's lucky Letang dove. I think it backfired on Letang and that if he never went down like he'd been shot the interference would have been called. Instead rather than calling the coincidental minors, the ref just let them play. If Letang had stayed on his feet, I guessing Marchand would have gone to the box.



    Why? Regardless of whether Letang dove or not. He didn't break an NHL rule on the play. He continued to move in the same direction as Letang & blocked him without doing anything illegal.

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

     


    I'd have to look at it again but as I remember Marchand was more towards the center of the rink and then cut to the right boards to impede Letwat's progress.  He even waved to Bergie to take it solo because he had no intention of joining the play IMO.

    [/QUOTE]

    But he didn't move in a full lateral direction to cut him off. He continued to move forward & travel the same direction as Letang. That's a legal play.

     
  20. 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 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'd have to look at it again but as I remember Marchand was more towards the center of the rink and then cut to the right boards to impede Letwat's progress.  He even waved to Bergie to take it solo because he had no intention of joining the play IMO.



    Check out the exact wording of the rule provided by Nite just above. He was allowed to force Letang to go around him so he did. Nothing sinister. No missed call.

     




    I don't think they were moving in the same direction dez, I thought Marchand actually changed his direction to run the interference.  Not a big deal though it was a strategic move and it paid off.

     

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?


    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.

     
  22. 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 dezaruchi's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to hangnail's comment:

     

    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'd have to look at it again but as I remember Marchand was more towards the center of the rink and then cut to the right boards to impede Letwat's progress.  He even waved to Bergie to take it solo because he had no intention of joining the play IMO.



    Check out the exact wording of the rule provided by Nite just above. He was allowed to force Letang to go around him so he did. Nothing sinister. No missed call.

     

     




     

    I don't think they were moving in the same direction dez, I thought Marchand actually changed his direction to run the interference.  Not a big deal though it was a strategic move and it paid off.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    They were both skating towards the net though right? As the rule clearly states, he was allowed to "block" the path because he was in position ahead of him and moving in the same direction. 

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    Hang I think the key is that Marchand is allowed to cut in front of Letang if he gets there first and he did. I originally thought it was interference and a dive but after reading the wording it sounds more like just a dive.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi'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.



    Are north-south not directions? They were both still skating towards the net so he's allowed to force Letang to go around him. I'm surprised that I can't find Fraser's take on the play on Tsn. 

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

    Re: Marshand on the two on zero rush?

    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.

     

Share