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

[lucafen4]

The good thing that comes out of the SJ/Veg game... it's keeping most of the Maple Leafs Trolls occupied

[PenguinHunter]

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.

And lets not forget that Vegas was up 3-1 in the series as well. They didn't do enough to win the game or to close out the series in 3 potential chances.

[rataylor22]

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!!!

Your obvious extreme bias is showing.

Garbage call and garbage league. The NHL can't even be considered a professional sports league at this point.

[bondon]

Saying that penalties should be results-based is a huge yikes and just makes me more confident that pro sports needs robot officials.

I want to be clear though that I do agree that Vegas giving up 4 goals is terrible. But doesn't change the fact that the call was still bad.

[ericdaoust]

Not sure how much this has been talked about but Vegas had six forwards on the ice when they tied the game. Basically two scoring lines.

[blayze]

I'm torn on the call, but I've gotta say that was probably the most entertaining hockey game I've ever seen.

[audiopile]

Hey, I got one right!

Great game to watch, hope that Pavelski isn't hurt too bad. Feel for Fleury, he was fantastic.

[CascadeFilly]

Good call or bad, letting in 4 PP goals in under 5 minutes in the 3rd period of game 7 is ridiculous.

[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.

I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with there being a penalty called. I also have no problem with a major penalty being called; IF it's called like that every time. The problem is, that it's not. I don't think I am the only one out there who thinks that a major penalty would have absolutely NOT been called if the game was tied at the time. We have all seen, time and time again, that the refs are far more likely to call every single infraction in a meaningless pre-season game, whereas you need to cross the line in a much more severe or blatant fashion, in a close game 7 playoff game. The fact that the line shifts depending on how important the game is, is a serious consistency issue.

Yes Vegas collapsed. Yes, San Jose stepped up. But if that was all the result of a penalty being called in a situation which would have never happened had the score been closer, then that is a serious issue which needs to be addressed.

Rylant

[rataylor22]

I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with there being a penalty called. I also have no problem with a major penalty being called; IF it's called like that every time. The problem is, that it's not. I don't think I am the only one out there who thinks that a major penalty would have absolutely NOT been called if the game was tied at the time. We have all seen, time and time again, that the refs are far more likely to call every single infraction in a meaningless pre-season game, whereas you need to cross the line in a much more severe or blatant fashion, in a close game 7 playoff game. The fact that the line shifts depending on how important the game is, is a serious consistency issue.

Yes Vegas collapsed. Yes, San Jose stepped up. But if that was all the result of a penalty being called in a situation which would have never happened had the score been closer, then that is a serious issue which needs to be addressed.

Rylant

Correx

[chuckcouples]

I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with there being a penalty called. I also have no problem with a major penalty being called; IF it's called like that every time. The problem is, that it's not. I don't think I am the only one out there who thinks that a major penalty would have absolutely NOT been called if the game was tied at the time. We have all seen, time and time again, that the refs are far more likely to call every single infraction in a meaningless pre-season game, whereas you need to cross the line in a much more severe or blatant fashion, in a close game 7 playoff game. The fact that the line shifts depending on how important the game is, is a serious consistency issue.

Yes Vegas collapsed. Yes, San Jose stepped up. But if that was all the result of a penalty being called in a situation which would have never happened had the score been closer, then that is a serious issue which needs to be addressed.

Rylant

We are talking about two completely different things in that we all agree that sports officiating is not very good and is not getting any better. NHL reffing is very inconsistent. It always has been and it likely always will be as the game moves way too fast to be caught in real time with human eyes.

In this play in particular, the refs barely saw what happened but they saw enough to have seen a cross check. They then saw a guy lying unconscious on the ice because of the cross check. There is no ref in the world that is going to give a minor penalty for a cross check that ends up with a guy lying on the ice unconscious and bleeding. The current situation of the game has no bearing on the call that was made. The same call would have been made if the score was 3-3 in that game or if it was game 18 of the regular season.

The refs did not give out a major penalty because the cross check was bad enough to warrant it. They gave out a major penalty because an illegal action resulted in a guy lying unconscious and bleeding from his head.

[rataylor22]

It always has been and it likely always will be as the game moves way too fast to be caught in real time with human eyes.

This is an obvious cop out. Refs "feel the game" more than they "miss calls" and it's inexcusable.

[MZac]

Saying that penalties should be results-based is a huge yikes and just makes me more confident that pro sports needs robot officials.

I want to be clear though that I do agree that Vegas giving up 4 goals is terrible. But doesn't change the fact that the call was still bad.

I get what you're saying but the reality is the outcomes matter everywhere we look in life. I'm often torn in sports on whether the resultive injury should be considered when dispensing the penalty/fine/suspension. I mostly come around to thinking it must matter to some degree.

Let's not forget about the victim here. Pavelski is arguably San Jose's best forward and he left the game and did not return because of a direct action of a Vegas player. He may miss more time next series or may play injured. This put San Jose at a disadvantage in a really important game 7. It should be a factor imo and I think the refs made the right call here. 2 minutes would have been enough had pavelski got up uninjured and was able to play on the power play. But that wasn't the case, the more I think about it the more I don't mind the call.

[Daydream Nation]

Saying that penalties should be results-based is a huge yikes and just makes me more confident that pro sports needs robot officials.

I want to be clear though that I do agree that Vegas giving up 4 goals is terrible. But doesn't change the fact that the call was still bad.

Agreed. We can argue whether the cross check should have even been a penalty. We know that if Pavelski doesn't get hurt there is no penalty.

When Oshie got pushed into the boards by Foegele he should have rolled around on the ice until a major was called. That hit was more egregious because of the being near the board than Eakins'. Eakins hit wasn't dirty. It just had an unfortunate result.

[Godin]

It's bizzare that none of the 4 officials seen exactly what happened because if they did, they would have discussed it among themselves and came to their senses.