Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby Pitts on Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:43 pm

The Snapshot wrote:There is no way Bailey does not know Kunitz is there. In fact, you can argue that he is dropping his shoulder to initiate contact with Kunitz - and his stick movement, coming up from under to lift Kunitz's stick is proof that this was the case.

Kunitz just beat him to the punch in terms of initiating.

That call was made because Bailey was weak enough on his skates and dumb enough to be unprepared for the contact.

I'll accept a "it looked so bad we need to make a call" minor. Braydon Coburn would not agree with that call though.

Agree 100%. This was a play where both players were aware of what was about to go down. But, one was prepared better.
Pitts
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 18,352
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:22 am
Location: Working ....

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby offsides on Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:44 pm

silentom wrote:Efforts like that from players like Cooke is what wins playoff games. Kudos Cookie!


:thumb: He was definitely in beast mode. Him and TV were the two biggest reasons for the win.
offsides
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 10,393
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:48 pm
Location: Man Cave in Washington, PA

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby slipshod on Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:48 pm

Vokoun is playing under much more control than he was. When he was in that terrible stretch he was flying out of the crease and out of position all of the time.
slipshod
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:17 am

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby pressure=9Pa on Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:03 pm

I expect a Kunitz suspension, for no other reason than that the NHL takes the result as a major factor in their determinations, which is absurd. In thinking back to the Islanders-Pens game a few years ago with 200+ PIM, Talbot(?) was ready to take a cheap shot that had it worked, would have resulted in a season long suspension, or perhaps longer. Because Max saw it coming, it was 2 minutes. Because Bailey went into the boards so akwardly, CK will pay a price.
pressure=9Pa
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,913
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:46 pm
Location: Northern Indiana

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby ExPatriatePen on Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:10 pm

pressure=9Pa wrote:I expect a Kunitz suspension, for no other reason than that the NHL takes the result as a major factor in their determinations, which is absurd. In thinking back to the Islanders-Pens game a few years ago with 200+ PIM, Talbot(?) was ready to take a cheap shot that had it worked, would have resulted in a season long suspension, or perhaps longer. Because Max saw it coming, it was 2 minutes. Because Bailey went into the boards so akwardly, CK will pay a price.


Beetle Bailey wasn't injured on the play. Didn't he even take additional shifts later in the game? (Not sure but iirc he did)
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,719
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby marek on Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:44 pm

Rule 41 - Boarding

41.1 Boarding – A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player or goalkeeper who checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently in the boards. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.

There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless position and if so, he must avoid or minimize the contact. However, in determining wheter such contact could have been avoided, the circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule.

Bottom line the refs judgement in this case was flawed. Yes Bailey was checked but he initiated the contact. Kunitz could have been the one crashing into the boards. Kunitz did not "push" him into the boards. It was shoulder to shoulder contact, nobody was in a defenseless position.

The only thing that should be suspended are Baileys acting lessons. He's won an Emmy already with that performance.
marek
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,747
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:44 am
Location: The Farms, La Jolla California

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby bafcats on Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:50 am

Chris Kunitz wasn't given a boarding penalty on the play. He was given a checking from behind penalty.

43.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

And now that I'm looking at the rules, how he got a game misconduct for it makes a lot more sense (within the context of the rulebook, anyway). According to rule 43.2, there is no provision for a minor penalty. If you get called for checking from behind, it's an automatic major. And furthermore, rule 43.5 states that "a game misconduct penalty must be assessed any time a major penalty is applied for checking from behind." So the both of those were a given as soon as the call was made. How Bailey acted after hitting the boards had nothing to do with it (on the ref's end, anyway). We'll just have to see how Shanahan calls it.
bafcats
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby It'sagreatdayforhockey! on Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:22 am

murphydump55 wrote:
sil wrote:Btw, I heart the way Murray plays.


the guy is a beast, just pure, brutal strength!!

He made a couple clears in front on the PP that may have saved goals. A simple shove that sent Moulson flying and down to the ice. It's what we've been lacking.



Plus he actually saved a goal on an open net early in the game. It was the first real scoring chance in the game IIRC, and one of the islanders came down the left side, got a shot, another player had a rebound chance on the left side and then it popped out to Tavares right in the crease with an open net. Murray makes a great stick lift and gets him out of there or it is 1-0 early just after losing Sid. Who knows where the game goes from there.
It'sagreatdayforhockey!
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,710
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:16 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby since1970 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:40 am

bafcats wrote:Chris Kunitz wasn't given a boarding penalty on the play. He was given a checking from behind penalty.

43.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

And now that I'm looking at the rules, how he got a game misconduct for it makes a lot more sense (within the context of the rulebook, anyway). According to rule 43.2, there is no provision for a minor penalty. If you get called for checking from behind, it's an automatic major. And furthermore, rule 43.5 states that "a game misconduct penalty must be assessed any time a major penalty is applied for checking from behind." So the both of those were a given as soon as the call was made. How Bailey acted after hitting the boards had nothing to do with it (on the ref's end, anyway). We'll just have to see how Shanahan calls it.


....thanks for posting the rule....obviously the wrong call here based on the rule "not aware of impending hit", if Bailey wasn't aware he was going to be hit why did he drop his soulder slightly and try the old shoulder down then up check to get leverage, if this is given anything other than a cursory look by the league I'll be shocked, this is a great example of results based officiating, which the NHL has mastered. Bailey basically took on more than he could handle in Kunitz in a dangerous part of ice.
since1970
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:06 pm

Re: Game 36 vs. Isles - Thoughts from the Morning After

Postby relantel on Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:13 am

Like Benz this morning railing about the legitimacy of the Kunitz call, where he keeps calling it boarding. I.e. how the heck can Pens fans believe the call wasn't warranted, and trying to compare it to the Malkin injury or the Coburn hit on Dupuis.

Hello, Benz: They didn't call boarding. They called checking from behind. Stop comparing apples to oranges.
relantel
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 16,946
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:24 am
Location: The card table

Previous

Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

e-mail