Pacific Semi: (2) San Jose Sharks vs Vegas Golden Knights

[hockeymanG23]

The guy who only played 7 minute is the hero.

This was the 2nd best playoff moment I remember. #1 biased is when the Flyers came back from 3-0 in the series and 3-0 in the third period. It was simply epic. I don’t know if I am going to be able to sleep. That was epic! Playoff hockey at its best!

I know it was a week call that resulted in the 4 PP goals. But 4 PP goals in one 5 minute penalty, I wonder if that has ever happened before.

I love Couture as a player. He took over the leadership of the team when Pavelski went to the locker room. True leadership right there!

Wish I had recorded that game so I could watch it again.

This was the best. First team in decades to come back from a 3-0 series deficit and Simone Gagne's play pulled them out of a 3-0 game deficit to win that series. Its up there with Primeau's OT goal for me and damn, its shitty how both their careers ended so again I gotta say, really hope Pavelski comes out of that alright. Honest player and by all accounts a classy guy.

[Godin]

Too bad the referee's had to be a factor again with a brutal call. 5 minute penalty for a shove that 4 guys missed. Nothing will change though.

[bondon]

Awful call. Complete joke and if I were a Golden Knights fan I would be irate. Human error strikes again. I hope the Sharks lose.

[Pengwin7]

The Eakin call?

The Eakin call was appropriate. It's a hit to the head(/neck, /shoulder) area of a defenseless player.
There was no reason for Eakin to two-hand his stick across the lower neck of Pavelski.

In football, teams actually aren't permitted to make head or neck area contact with the long-snapper on punts (any longer) for this same reason.

Pavelski (& the Sharks) are down 3-0 to Vegas at that point.
He has to do everything to be offensive, bury himself down and win that draw... which, he DOES. (Go Pavelski!!!)
Eakin, meanwhile, is simply looking to take a player out of the play - maliciously.
If one slow-frames it, they'll see Eakin actually charge his upper body & push off hard directly into Pavelski's upper body.
This can knock a player backwards dangerously - which happened - which is the whole concept of the NFL/NCAA's crackdown on defenders firing through the long-snapper.

That should be 5, with or without the blood.
And the NHL could just as well make the same of football going forward, because face-off centers are in defenseless positions... it's the same low-win concept as snapping a punt.
Just because Eakin is also starting in same position doesn't make it more "fair".

It's also pre-meditated.
Faceoff centers (the veteran ones) DO pre-plan their face-off actions before a draw.

Eff Eakin. (A player I've always liked)
Eff the Knights.

Pavs and the Sharks move on!!!

[bondon]

Are we seeing the same video?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1120906609574780935

He cross checks him in the chest. I'm not saying it's not a penalty but a 5 minute major? That's purely because he's lying on the ice bleeding. Even the supervising official said that it was because the hit caused "significant injury".

[Godin]

This play probably happens on 50% of faceoffs and that was probably the first time in 55 years of watching hockey that ive seen a player penalized for it. If you werent calljng shoving penalties all game or all series, then why in game 7? May be he worst penalty call of the year.

[Rylant]

The Eakin call?

The Eakin call was appropriate. It's a hit to the head(/neck, /shoulder) area of a defenseless player.
There was no reason for Eakin to two-hand his stick across the lower neck of Pavelski.

In football, teams actually aren't permitted to make head or neck area contact with the long-snapper on punts (any longer) for this same reason.

Pavelski (& the Sharks) are down 3-0 to Vegas at that point.
He has to do everything to be offensive, bury himself down and win that draw... which, he DOES. (Go Pavelski!!!)
Eakin, meanwhile, is simply looking to take a player out of the play - maliciously.
If one slow-frames it, they'll see Eakin actually charge his upper body & push off hard directly into Pavelski's upper body.
This can knock a player backwards dangerously - which happened - which is the whole concept of the NFL/NCAA's crackdown on defenders firing through the long-snapper.

That should be 5, with or without the blood.
And the NHL could just as well make the same of football going forward, because face-off centers are in defenseless positions... it's the same low-win concept as snapping a punt.
Just because Eakin is also starting in same position doesn't make it more "fair".

It's also pre-meditated.
Faceoff centers (the veteran ones) DO pre-plan their face-off actions before a draw.

Eff Eakin. (A player I've always liked)
Eff the Knights.

Pavs and the Sharks move on!!!

The issue with the call, is the consistency with which the refs call the game. In the NHL, whether or not this is a 5 minute call is based on what the score is, and whether or not a 5 minute call will presumably change the outcome of the game. Ask yourself this: Is that a 5 minute major call if there is 10 minutes left in the third period of game 7 if the game is tied? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, if that was the case, I am not sure a minor penalty would have even been called. Under the circumstance, the ref feels that he can safely call a 5 minute major because they are down by 3. This call is not likely to change the outcome of the game, and the ref can come out of this looking as though he made the tough call. Of course, in hindsight, that didn't happen.

We all know that consistency with the refereeing is brutal in the NHL. If you show a clip of an infraction to 100 referees and ask them if they would call a penalty in that situation, you should have the majority of the refs agreeing on whether or not they would make the call. The response should absolutely not be, those refs asking you "Umm, depends. What's the score? Is this a playoff game? Is this Game 7? Is this an exhibition game?" That's the issue.

Rylant

[ericdaoust]

Eakin hit Pavelski in the chest. Bad call but I understand the reaction considering how so much happened so quickly.

[ShawneePanthers]

Yeah, after looking at the Pavelski hit like 6 times, I dont understand how Eakin gets 5 minutes. At best that's 2 minutes.

Either way, it completely shifted the momentum of the game. Kudos to the sharks for scoring 4 powerplay goals but a large portion of that was the way VGK collapsed after the hit deflated the team and fired up the sharks.

I was waiting for Gallant to call a timeout after the second, then the third, then the fourth sharks goal... he needed to do that right then and there, and not at the end of the game.

[lucafen4]

The Refs told the Knights bench 'oh it looks bad' - as in Pavelski. They didn't see the hit. They called a 5 based on the results.

Open the discussion to penalties entering review to determine 2 or 5 or 5 & game.

[ShawneePanthers]

Disappointed in Fleury and the penalty killers for giving up 4 so quickly, but even more disappointed in Gallant for not breaking the momentum and calling a timeout during the powerplay after 2 goals in.

[Godin]

The issue with the call, is the consistency with which the refs call the game. In the NHL, whether or not this is a 5 minute call is based on what the score is, and whether or not a 5 minute call will presumably change the outcome of the game. Ask yourself this: Is that a 5 minute major call if there is 10 minutes left in the third period of game 7 if the game is tied? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, if that was the case, I am not sure a minor penalty would have even been called. Under the circumstance, the ref feels that he can safely call a 5 minute major because they are down by 3. This call is not likely to change the outcome of the game, and the ref can come out of this looking as though he made the tough call. Of course, in hindsight, that didn't happen.

We all know that consistency with the refereeing is brutal in the NHL. If you show a clip of an infraction to 100 referees and ask them if they would call a penalty in that situation, you should have the majority of the refs agreeing on whether or not they would make the call. The response should absolutely not be, those refs asking you "Umm, depends. What's the score? Is this a playoff game? Is this Game 7? Is this an exhibition game?" That's the issue.

Rylant

Well said.

[lucafen4]

it's also a good sell high on Labanc... 4PPP. heh... I actually think this is more his break out.

[chuckcouples]

We all know that consistency with the refereeing is brutal in the NHL. If you show a clip of an infraction to 100 referees and ask them if they would call a penalty in that situation, you should have the majority of the refs agreeing on whether or not they would make the call. The response should absolutely not be, those refs asking you "Umm, depends. What's the score? Is this a playoff game? Is this Game 7? Is this an exhibition game?" That's the issue.

Rylant

While I agree completely with the bolded part, I disagree with the 2nd part of this. If you show a referee that a player cross checked an opponent in a way that caused the opponent to end up lying unconscious on the ground bleeding, the majority of them are calling a major penalty. Say what you want but outcomes matter. If Pavelski remains standing then it likely is not a penalty but the fact is that Eakin's cross check put Pavelski on the ground unconscious means that a major penalty is the right call.

[MZac]

Agreed that outcomes/results of actions matter in every aspect of life.

Drunk driving VS drunk driving causing death. Cross checking VS cross checking causing injury.

Maybe I'm bias because San Jose advancing keeps me alive in my playoff pool. But blaming the call? The players let in 4 goals. Kill a penalty. Then they tie it anyways. Put it away in overtime. Take some ownership Vegas players, you didn't do enough to win that game.