<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T1B8dONsrik?si=C8ghQjydiSvupCS9" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Cheap shot for sure.
Don't like to see anyone take a shot like that. Not even Marchand.
Think the NHL will have a look at the new angle video and sling a little justice. The vid I saw last night didn't show anything other than what looked like a solid check.

Embed didn't work but the video is available through the link.

I agree, Bennett is a POS as he’s been known to do that before.

Refs also have been very pro FL, the disparity in Power Plays is crazy.

How that was not goalie interference is beyond me, easily a cross check call at a minimum negating the goal.

Can you believe the 'Canes over the Rags last night? That was a YUGE 3rd period.

Most fans think they know the rules, but they don't know actually the rules. Add in the NHL's inability to respond with a real explanation, and you have a bunch of speculation.

People are arguing that 69.1 makes it a non-goal.

Here is the last paragraph:

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with his own goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it would be disallowed.


But I believe the league applied rule is 69.7, which is this:

69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

The goal was technically scored off a rebound, therefore 69.7 above applies, and incidental contact is permitted.

The rule probably was not intended to cover that goal, it was intended to allow a struggle in the crease for a loose puck. But for now, this is the rule, and the goal was 'good'.

Refs should be held accountable with a post game interview with the media just like everyone else.

The refs, in general, do a very good job. The off-sides that they miss are typically too close to see live, or the referee's vision is obscured.

The punch by Bennett was almost impossible to see from the back side of the play, so it gets missed, but I do not understand how four referees missed the McDavid high-stick on Hughes (it cut his cheek, so the linesmen are allowed to call a penalty on the play).

As a start, the league needs to explain the review decisions made in Toronto during the playoffs. Why was Bennett's goal ruled 'good', which rule was applied, etc. They should also disclose what plays were reviewed for subsequent punishment. (was Bennett's punch to Marchand reviewed?)

I see no benefit to having referees come to the podium and say, 'I did not see it'. That will be their explanation for every missed call.

Also, there is zero chance that referees will allow that to happen, their collective agreement does not require it, and it never will.

While I have no love for Marchie & I am a believer in 'you get what you give'; Bennet's cheap shot was down & out 'dirty pool'. That's the kind of crap none of us want in the game.

As far as the 'missed' high stick on Hughes - the ref whose name shall remain anonymous* is an analogue of MLB's umpire, Angel Hernandez (as inconsistent as they come) told Hughes to go to the bench as he was bleeding - the on-ice officials should/could have huddled-up & reviewed for the possibility of a major penalty for that factor alone.

Calls will be missed & as per "1990C4S" - the refs, in general, do a very good job.

Cheers
JB

*Kelly Sutherland - definitely in the lower half of the class

Kelly Sutherland fought wearing a helmet because a) it messed up his hair, and b) he wanted to be recognized. :rolleyes:

Referees can't 'review' to see what happened, but they should have called a high sticking major penalty, which does allow for a review. That's standard procedure now. For a good referee.

Interesting the Bennett/Marchand occurance. Was this the passing of the torch from one POS to another? The NHL looks extremely bad by not sitting Bennett for a game or two IMO as he is a repeat offender. However, Marchand got what he deserved, karma is a dish well served here.

Watched a bit of the Edmonton/Vancouver game, the crosschecking is off the charts. Didn't know that you could crosscheck someone 4 times and knock a player down, then continue crosschecking them while they were face down on the ice with no penalty.

I may be asea on this one. The guy I remember was Kerry Fraser (Captain Hairspray) & his signature 'bouffant' hairstyle (probably to give the illusion he was taller than his purported 5'-8ish frame) who retired around 2010. He was one of the last NHL refs to go 'helmetless' as he was covered by a grandfather clause which allowed him to forgo the bucket. He too, was not without controversy during his officiating career.

Can Marchie & Da Broons stave off elimination; will Canucks take advantage of the 'oinklers' shaky goaltending & take a stranglehold in their series?
Gonna be a fun night for us hockey junkies!

Cheers
JB

I'm hoping the "Canes take the Rags to a game 7. There ain't nuthin' like a Cup playoff game 7.

First off, good to see you join in with a well documented opinion.
Second, I agree with you that there is no point in subjecting the refs to an inquisition after each game. They are human, they make mistakes, its part of the game.

That said, there is NO EXCUSE for "Player Safety" who has the benefit of all the angles and videos to not punish Bennett. They can rule against a player even when there was no call on the ice (and have done so many times). IMO, "Player Safety" not punishing the sucker punch is a travesty and dereliction of duty. I will avoid the speculation as to why they didn't protect a player who was mugged. There are many who have their theories but it doesn't matter why. It only matters that they should be held accountable for the lack of action.

Correct, mea culpa.

One more point on referee availability. Teams make players 'available' based on good games and 'interesting' stories. We NEVER get the player that coughed up the puck for the game losing goal, we never get the goalie with a .650 save percentage, we never get the superstar held pointless for six straight games.

If the highly paid 'stars' can't face the music, why should the referees?

'oinklers' vs Canucks to night - still a 'pickum'. The Lanche are in tough in their series; no team wins 3 straight (although a possibility) against the calibre of the remaining competing squads at this stage of the play-offs. "Flat's" 'Rags' & the Canes tilt should provide plenty of fireworks. Does Rempe still figure in the mix?

Enjoy the evening Gentlemen
Cheers
JB

Although we don't always agree, I greatly respect your experience and opinion.

Do you have any guesses why Player Safety totally ignored the incident after having all the additional views to review and analyze?

The Rangers confirmed part of my eastern bracket. Now I need the B's to pull off a miracle and win the next two to make the Rangers/Bruins Conference final.

It looks like the Stars are the better odds versus the Avs - my pick
The Canucks/Oilers? Its anybody's guess

In other news, there seems to be another penalty/no penalty call tonight which was a big help in the Rangers going from down 3-2 to up 4-3. NY fans will think it was the right call. The Canes fans?
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1715910779.jpg
After what I've seen the last week or so, there seems to be no rhyme or reason to how goalie interference or crosscheck/roughing calls are made.

I've been reading some of the opinions and most are saying that they don't think Bennett was trying to intentionally hurt Marchand. :confused:

I think that's crap.

But even Brad said something like "that's hockey". There was also this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nhl/bruins-brad-marchand-not-angry-at-sam-bennett-says-trying-to-hurt-opponents-is-part-of-playoff-hockey/ar-BB1mw8wU

But I don't see a direct quote from Marchand saying that players deliberately try to hurt others.

My best guess is that the 'review period' (God knows how long that is, 24 hours?) had expired before the back-side video was shown.

Watching the hit live I knew Marchand was hit in the head, I just couldn't see how. I watched it over and over, at least ten times before I saw the punch. From the from side it's extremely hard to see, from the back side it's obvious.

I suspect that complaints/requests for reviews from the affected team are the starting point for most DOPS reviews, and from concussion protocol removals. Marchand was not removed from the game, so no complaint from the Bruins, nothing from Marchand, means 'carry on'.

Here is the quote. Good on Marchand for this.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/bruins-brad-marchand-returns-to-practice-ahead-of-game-6-vs-panthers/

I think in this context Marchand means 'remove from the series' or 'make them less effective', not 'maim for life'.

Bennet's intent is unknown. Defend? Injure? Protect his broken finger? Who knows? And who cares? He plays very hard, you should never be surprised when he crosses the line.