NHL 2010-2011 Season

Originally Posted by z7f9q

Click to expand...

Looks like sour grapes to me. The Canucks have nobody to blame but themselves for the position they're in.

Really? Given teh power play discrepancy at the United Center, it's a miracle we were even able to take it to overtime.

I'm not taking away from the fact that the canucks were ******* horrific in game four and not much better in game 5. Game six....the calls in that game were beyond abysmal. There's no objective stance you can take at that game and conclude that we weren't shafted regarding penalty calls. Still, the canucks didn't bury their chances.

I think that's what gillis is saying - we're not trying to deny that our team hasn't been playing well. The god-awful officiating is just the icing on the cake. Add to that the fact that the referees chosen in the post-season are supposedly the "best" of the best, and you start running out of explanations...

Originally Posted by geoffmartin17

Click to expand...

Really? Given teh power play discrepancy at the United Center, it's a miracle we were even able to take it to overtime.

I'm not taking away from the fact that the canucks were ******* horrific in game four and not much better in game 5. Game six....the calls in that game were beyond abysmal. There's no objective stance you can take at that game and conclude that we weren't shafted regarding penalty calls. Still, the canucks didn't bury their chances.

I think that's what gillis is saying - we're not trying to deny that our team hasn't been playing well. The god-awful officiating is just the icing on the cake. Add to that the fact that the referees chosen in the post-season are supposedly the "best" of the best, and you start running out of explanations...

This could go either way. The no call on Torres, the no call on Hamhuis's cheapshot on Bolland followed by the misconduct penalty AGAINST Bolland....there's been some pretty bad calls on both ends.

And as I said before, if you're team loses two times in a row by a combined score of 12-2, you shouldn't be blaming the refs.

For those games no one was blaming the refs. Last night... there were some missed calls. But it wasn't like Hossa kicked a puck in and it didn't go into the net and got called a goal. Nothing of that sort. The penalty shot wasn't really a penalty shot, Bolland probably hacked his way through 3 or 4 Sedin sticks and the Bieksa thing was the same as the Torres hit and no call. Which is fine, we've been saying since game 3 it wasn't a penalty on Torres either, but some consistency please. Also **** Ron McLean, dude spends a week calling for Torres's head, exact same hit goes the other way and the first thing he says pre-OT is "I don't think that's a suspension". ****. You.

Anyway. I am not sure if I can stomach watching game 7. If I do, and they lose, I'll be depressed and angry at the universe for at least a week afterwards. I know I have a couple of friends who are going to see a movie. I get the feeling they'll just be anxious and wondering what's happening though.

Originally Posted by Lord-Barrington

Click to expand...

This could go either way. The no call on Torres, the no call on Hamhuis's cheapshot on Bolland followed by the misconduct penalty AGAINST Bolland....there's been some pretty bad calls on both ends.

And as I said before, if you're team loses two times in a row by a combined score of 12-2, you shouldn't be blaming the refs.

Why did i even bother ******* posting if you aren't going to read it?

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Click to expand...

For those games no one was blaming the refs. Last night... there were some missed calls. But it wasn't like Hossa kicked a puck in and it didn't go into the net and got called a goal. Nothing of that sort. The penalty shot wasn't really a penalty shot, Bolland probably hacked his way through 3 or 4 Sedin sticks and the Bieksa thing was the same as the Torres hit and no call. Which is fine, we've been saying since game 3 it wasn't a penalty on Torres either, but some consistency please. Also **** Ron McLean, dude spends a week calling for Torres's head, exact same hit goes the other way and the first thing he says pre-OT is "I don't think that's a suspension". ****. You.

Anyway. I am not sure if I can stomach watching game 7. If I do, and they lose, I'll be depressed and angry at the universe for at least a week afterwards. I know I have a couple of friends who are going to see a movie. I get the feeling they'll just be anxious and wondering what's happening though.

Man, I'm happy I'm not in Vancouver right now. People must be on edge. It's making Montreal's tribulations seem totally irrelevant in comparison.

Regarding the reffing, it's been bad in this series but it hasn't been unfair. I don't care what anyone says, it just hasn't. Missed calls on both sides and a lack of consistency, but no one has gotten the short end of the stick. Furthermore, no one should whine about "missed calls" in an OT period. Calls in OT will only come for the most egregious actions or for things like too many men on the ice or delay of game that you can't let slide. Teams know this and play accordingly. Look at the amount of clutching on grabbing in an OT period compared to regulation. Guys know they can get away with more and they taje liberties.

I think the reply to that is that bad calls / reffing going against chicago in games 4 and 5 didn't cost them. Game 3 was the only contentious game they lost (they were never really in games 1-2), and it very much went both ways in that game. They scored first in that game on a bad penalty. While it may have been bad, I don't think it's been so egregious as to have been a "series-changer" though the penalty shot last night might have been. Really, though, the Nucks needed to bury their chances and get a 2 goal lead at some point. And from a wide view of the whole series no one could ever debate that if they lose, they lost it themselves. Absolutely unforgivable to not show up for 2 games. I'm actually considering not buying centre ice next year and only watching them when they're on CBC or TSN if they lose this, my emotional investment into a team that consistently gives me the finger for believing in them is just too much and it's not worth the letdown every spring.

Luongo to start game seven. It's the right call in my opinion.

The call that gave Frolik a penalty shot was a good call. When Hamhuis dove, he put his stick into Frolik's path and Frolikcontinued his move into Hamhuis's stick which is both legal and smart. If a player puts his stick in front of your legs and you skate through it and trip, you're drawing a penalty. The only way that play would have been legal is if Hamhuis had made contact with the puck BEFORE he made contact with Frolik, which he didn't.

Video evidence:

I think Gillis is wasting his time complaining about officiating. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he is just doing this to take the heat away from his players as a type of mind game.

Originally Posted by Stazy

Click to expand...

Luongo to start game seven. It's the right call in my opinion.

Yea why not, don't they have him for like 10 more years anyway

Originally Posted by Lord-Barrington

Click to expand...

The call that gave Frolik a penalty shot was a good call. When Hamhuis dove, he put his stick into Frolik's path and Frolikcontinued his move into Hamhuis's stick which is both legal and smart. If a player puts his stick in front of your legs and you skate through it and trip, you're drawing a penalty. The only way that play would have been legal is if Hamhuis had made contact with the puck BEFORE he made contact with Frolik, which he didn't. Video evidence:
Dude of course it's not LEGAL, it's a 2 minute penalty for tripping. Had he hit the puck before the skate it would have been no penalty, but he hit the skate first. To call a penalty shot the player needs to be on a clear breakaway. Takedown needs to be from behind. That's how it's always been. Hamhuis took him down from the side. That's why it was the wrong call. Again, it's not the WORST call in history, it's not like "lynch the ref" level of bad call, but it was the wrong call. At the time, to be honest, I was sort of hoping it WOULD be a penalty shot because a PS is over and done. A 2 minute PP allows a team to build momentum if they play well. Unfortunately I don't think Schneider played the shot that well. Didn't start out far enough out.

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Click to expand...

Dude of course it's not LEGAL, it's a 2 minute penalty for tripping. Had he hit the puck before the skate it would have been no penalty, but he hit the skate first. To call a penalty shot the player needs to be on a clear breakaway. Takedown needs to be from behind. That's how it's always been. Hamhuis took him down from the side. That's why it was the wrong call. Again, it's not the WORST call in history, it's not like "lynch the ref" level of bad call, but it was the wrong call. At the time, to be honest, I was sort of hoping it WOULD be a penalty shot because a PS is over and done. A 2 minute PP allows a team to build momentum if they play well. Unfortunately I don't think Schneider played the shot that well. Didn't start out far enough out.

I won't say you're dead wrong there because you aren't. The question of when to give a a PS is another issue altogether and I agree that the Frolik call was borderline. In theory penalty shots are supposed to be given to guys who were on clear breakaways and were dragged down but in practice if you had a clear path to the net and were taken down, you might get one. Same thing happened in the Lightning/PEns game tonight.

I just watched that and Conner was pretty clearly directly out in front of the guy who pulled him down. That was, incidentally, maybe the worst penalty shot attempt I have ever seen. I can remember a worse one but I think it was in a shootout. Anyway, I feel terrible for poor Mike Gillis. Seriously, what could he have done to better set up the Canucks for a run at the cup? Nothing. He keeps Schneider so that they have not just one, but TWO excellent goalies to take some pressure off the starter during the reg season so he doesn't have to play like Kiprusoff. He shores up the already solid D depth to ensure that injuries aren't utterly crippling. He toughens up the third line. He adds pieces at the deadline to get a little bit stronger and grittier up front. And his players all let him down. Seriously, I don't think there was any possible way he could have done this better short of perhaps signing Brendan Morrison out of camp.

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Click to expand...

I just watched that and Conner was pretty clearly directly out in front of the guy who pulled him down. That was, incidentally, maybe the worst penalty shot attempt I have ever seen. I can remember a worse one but I think it was in a shootout. Anyway, I feel terrible for poor Mike Gillis. Seriously, what could he have done to better set up the Canucks for a run at the cup? Nothing. He keeps Schneider so that they have not just one, but TWO excellent goalies to take some pressure off the starter during the reg season so he doesn't have to play like Kiprusoff. He shores up the already solid D depth to ensure that injuries aren't utterly crippling. He toughens up the third line. He adds pieces at the deadline to get a little bit stronger and grittier up front. And his players all let him down. Seriously, I don't think there was any possible way he could have done this better short of perhaps signing Brendan Morrison out of camp.
I agree with your assessment of Gillis. I just hope that ownership doesn't axe him. As I mentioned earlier, Vigneault will be fired, even reluctantly by Gillis, if they don't advance to the third round. Otherwise, they may both be gone.

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Click to expand...

Seriously, what could he have done to better set up the Canucks for a run at the cup?

Moved them to the States. The NHL doesn't want a Canadian #1 seed going ANYWHERE in the playoffs.