OT: 2022 NHL Playoff Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

krup

Heisman Winner
Feb 5, 2003
11,439
5,476
113
The Rangers prowess is predicated on the east west pass. Tampa has the horses and game plan to stop that dead. That’s why the Rangers couldn’t do anything 5 v 5. If you noticed throughout the games, Tampa had a ton of odd man rushes off turnovers, on you guessed it, misguided east west passing.
I think that is another example where Gallant was outcoached. Yes, the Rangers prefer to play an east-west game, but in the CAR series they realized the goaltending wasn’t as strong so they started taking more shots instead of trying to create the perfect chance. When TB started successfully stopping the cross ice passes the Rangers should have adjusted to taking more shots and concentrating on creating traffic around the net, trying for deflections and looking for rebounds. It’s what Tampa did to adjust to Shesterkin stopping every shot he could see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tico brown

tico brown

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2005
14,147
9,058
113
Rangers had no business being this far into the playoffs with this young team. They just ran out of gas but gained valuable experience for the future. Let’s hope this experience gets them into future Finals/ Cups instead of being a fluke.

Gallant got them there. Let’s see what he does with this team.
 

robcac26

Senior
Nov 30, 2012
2,414
1,924
113
Second goal in the playoffs where a goal was scored after player makes contact with goalies' glove standing in the paint.
It didn't interfere with his ability to make a save though because the puck was already passing him at the time contact was made, which is why the goal stood.
 

miker183

All Conference
Sep 14, 2014
2,563
1,980
113
It didn't interfere with his ability to make a save though because the puck was already passing him at the time contact was made, which is why the goal stood.

Not sure I agree. When the puck deflected you saw Shesterkin's glove move, which would indicate somewhat simultaneous contact.

Regardless, when having difficulty scoring goals, you can't get burned 21 seconds later on the equalizer. So, goal, no goal doesn't change that they didn't take care of business.
 

Section124

All American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2002
6,484
3,476
113
Fast start in Game 1 for the Avs. Tampa got a lucky goal. 2-1 Avs mid 1st period. This should be a great series. Avs offense with a shaky goalie. Tampa’s experience and great goalie. I’m going to sit back and enjoy this series.
 

Section124

All American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2002
6,484
3,476
113
When was the last time a team was as deep as Colorado?
I said back in December no one was going to be able to stop the Avs. They are deep. However, Tampa is a little older but a great match up. In the reverse of the Bolt-Rangers series, the Avs were coming off 9 days rest. They looked a little off. I expect them to only get better as the series progresses. Kuemper is the only concern. He lets in garbage goals all the time.
 

ClassOf02

Heisman Winner
Sep 30, 2010
10,165
9,557
113
Colorado just on an entirely different level. They are toying with Tampa. Could change, but hard to see how the Avs lose this series right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section124

Section124

All American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2002
6,484
3,476
113
It’s not a series until the road team wins a game. If the Avs hold on, Tampa will be ready at home the next 2 games. Avs are a machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TM94goRU

TM94goRU

All American
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2020
8,763
7,781
113
The Lighting have been so dreadful, I have to think the altitude might be assisting the Avs. Tampa looks spent, three strides slower than Colorado.
 

RU848789

Legend
Jul 27, 2001
54,382
31,091
113
Metuchen, NJ
Yes, the Avs are very good, but Tampa is still the 2-time defending champions, so all this talk of this series being over was way premature, just like it was after the Rangers went up 2 games. Happy to see TB win tonight, as I simply want to see it go 7 and have someone win it in OT...
 

Section124

All American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2002
6,484
3,476
113
Officially a series now. Road team with a OT win and Avs up 3-1 now with the chance Friday night to win the cup in Denver. Let’s see how Tampa responds. Nothing better than 7 game series but think the Avs win it in 5.
 

robcac26

Senior
Nov 30, 2012
2,414
1,924
113
The Lightning are saying the winning goal should have never happened because Colorado should have been penalized for too many men. I haven't been able to find a good replay of that line change yet though.
 

mikemarc1

Hall of Famer
Nov 28, 2005
22,910
13,883
113
The Lightning are saying the winning goal should have never happened because Colorado should have been penalized for too many men. I haven't been able to find a good replay of that line change yet though.

too many men is a judgement call. Pretty much is only called when it’s blatantly obvious.

certainly could have called it but then the Avs would have had a beef since it was so borderline.

think refs made correct call
 

robcac26

Senior
Nov 30, 2012
2,414
1,924
113
too many men is a judgement call. Pretty much is only called when it’s blatantly obvious.

certainly could have called it but then the Avs would have had a beef since it was so borderline.

think refs made correct call
Eh it's really not supposed to be a judgment call, the rule is pretty black and white. The only part that is supposed to left to interpretation is when a player is accidentally hit by the puck during a line change. However, line changes like this one happen in every game and overtime of the Stanley Cup Finals is not the time to suddenly start cracking down on something that has been loosely enforced forever, so while Tampa is technically correct, I don't think their complaint is very credible.

Great, thank you!
 

Knight Owl

Senior
Jul 27, 2001
1,670
1,112
113
Eh it's really not supposed to be a judgment call, the rule is pretty black and white. The only part that is supposed to left to interpretation is when a player is accidentally hit by the puck during a line change. However, line changes like this one happen in every game and overtime of the Stanley Cup Finals is not the time to suddenly start cracking down on something that has been loosely enforced forever, so while Tampa is technically correct, I don't think their complaint is very credible.


Great, thank you!
That’s a beer league change…and may have even been called in beer league. Nate was still in the middle of the ice. Wowsa.
 

mikemarc1

Hall of Famer
Nov 28, 2005
22,910
13,883
113
It wasn’t a penalty. If you wanna interpret the rules to make that a penalty fine,, but then the lighting had 7 players on the ice at the time. Look at the replay.
 

robcac26

Senior
Nov 30, 2012
2,414
1,924
113
It wasn’t a penalty. If you wanna interpret the rules to make that a penalty fine,, but then the lighting had 7 players on the ice at the time. Look at the replay.
You're allowed 5' from the bench. The last Lightning player to get to the bench was maybe just barely outside the 5' when his replacement hops on, there's no way that change gets called. There's a much better case for Colorado's change being called because MacKinnon was much further than 5' from the bench when Kadri hopped on. There's not much to "interpret" in the rules, that's literally what it says. This usually isn't strictly enforced though unless it immediately affects the play, which is why I'm fine with it not being called, although if it was called I wouldn't have a problem with it and Colorado really wouldn't be able to gripe about it either. Really you could argue it did affect the play because Kadri received the pass just after getting on the ice too early.
 

Knight Owl

Senior
Jul 27, 2001
1,670
1,112
113
You're allowed 5' from the bench. The last Lightning player to get to the bench was maybe just barely outside the 5' when his replacement hops on, there's no way that change gets called. There's a much better case for Colorado's change being called because MacKinnon was much further than 5' from the bench when Kadri hopped on. There's not much to "interpret" in the rules, that's literally what it says. This usually isn't strictly enforced though unless it immediately affects the play, which is why I'm fine with it not being called, although if it was called I wouldn't have a problem with it and Colorado really wouldn't be able to gripe about it either. Really you could argue it did affect the play because Kadri received the pass just after getting on the ice too early.
The dude wasn’t within 15 feet when Kadri jumped on…more like 20 feet away I would guess.
 

RUinBoston

Senior
Aug 17, 2006
1,154
735
113
Eh it's really not supposed to be a judgment call, the rule is pretty black and white. The only part that is supposed to left to interpretation is when a player is accidentally hit by the puck during a line change. However, line changes like this one happen in every game and overtime of the Stanley Cup Finals is not the time to suddenly start cracking down on something that has been loosely enforced forever, so while Tampa is technically correct, I don't think their complaint is very credible.


Great, thank you!
In fact it is specifically written to be a judgement call:

"At the discretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5’) limit of the players’ bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed."

If the other player is clearly coming straight off, and is not in any way involved in the play, and the puck is no where near the bench, refs generally are just not going to call this. Maybe they might if you are trying to make a change out of a bad man down situation, or stuck in your own zone situation, but this was pretty benign. The only reason Colorado scored was because TB was stuck in their own end for so darn long their defense was completely wiped and basically just let Kadri waltz by.
 

robcac26

Senior
Nov 30, 2012
2,414
1,924
113
In fact it is specifically written to be a judgement call:

"At the discretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5’) limit of the players’ bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed."

If the other player is clearly coming straight off, and is not in any way involved in the play, and the puck is no where near the bench, refs generally are just not going to call this. Maybe they might if you are trying to make a change out of a bad man down situation, or stuck in your own zone situation, but this was pretty benign. The only reason Colorado scored was because TB was stuck in their own end for so darn long their defense was completely wiped and basically just let Kadri waltz by.
The part that is discretionary is whether or not the player coming off is within 5' of the bench, since it is an imaginary line and isn't going to be exact. It doesn't say in the rule that it is only a penalty if it affects play. Like I said, it is a bit nitpicky to complain about this not being called, but I have certainly seen more benign changes called.
 
Last edited:

Section124

All American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2002
6,484
3,476
113
The part that is discretionary is whether or not the player coming off is within 5' of the bench, since it is an imaginary line and isn't going to be exact. It doesn't say in the rule that it is only a penalty if it affects play. Like I said, it is a bit nitpicky to complain about this not being called, but I have certainly seen more benign changes called.
Although McKinnon was more than the 5', you can see he clearly gave up on the play and the puck was no way near him/the bench. That is why I think the play was OK. If that puck was near him, definitely would have been a penalty.
 

robcac26

Senior
Nov 30, 2012
2,414
1,924
113
Although McKinnon was more than the 5', you can see he clearly gave up on the play and the puck was no way near him/the bench. That is why I think the play was OK. If that puck was near him, definitely would have been a penalty.
Well that certainly is why the nearby offical didn't bother calling it, I'm just saying that it was still technically against the rules, and even though MacKinnon wasn't involved in the play anymore, Kadri certainly did get involved soon after hopping on the ice earlier than he should have. You can have a player all the way in your defensive zone start to mosey on over to the bench while the play is in the attack zone, but the player on the bench still can't hop on until the guy he is replacing is within 5'.
 

RUinBoston

Senior
Aug 17, 2006
1,154
735
113
In fact it is specifically written to be a judgement call:

"At the discretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5’) limit of the players’ bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed."

If the other player is clearly coming straight off, and is not in any way involved in the play, and the puck is no where near the bench, refs generally are just not going to call this. Maybe they might if you are trying to make a change out of a bad man down situation, or stuck in your own zone situation, but this was pretty benign. The only reason Colorado scored was because TB was stuck in their own end for so darn long their defense was completely wiped and basically just let Kadri waltz by.
Another thing to remember is that the 1st overtime period is like the 2nd period...teams are guarding the 'far' ends of the ice from their bench. Therefore TB, having been stuck in their own zone, had to make the 'long' change, and Colorado had the 'short' change. So if it looked like Colorado got off the bench much faster than TB, well, it's because they did...they had like 30 feet less distance to go.
 
Last edited:

robcac26

Senior
Nov 30, 2012
2,414
1,924
113
The draft’s 1st round tomorrow night on espn

who do the devils select at 2?
Gonna be interesting, Wright has been considered the #1 prospect in this draft for years, but his stock has fallen this year and apparently Slafkovsky has closed the gap. Some scouts have recently described Wright to be lacking competitiveness (actually they said "compete" but that's not a noun, so I'm paraphrasing to the correct word), and playing seemingly uninspired this year. Bob McKenzie polls 10 scouts to come up with his rankings and in the most recent list, he had 5 scouts choose Slafkovsky as #1 and 4 choose Wright. I think the Devils go with whichever one Montreal leaves on the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TM94goRU

TM94goRU

All American
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2020
8,763
7,781
113
The draft’s 1st round tomorrow night on espn

who do the devils select at 2?
Slafkowsky if available. I think Montreal was just trying to get an extra asset from the Devils.

If he is not, I expect him to be, I would look to trade the pick. There is a chance a player like David Pasternack is available. If not go with Shane Wright or Logan Cooley.

I still think Rogalski should have been fired. Although I hear his being here might make Husso a Devil. It will be interesting for the next week to 10 days. Free agency starts the 13th.
 

krup

Heisman Winner
Feb 5, 2003
11,439
5,476
113
Slafkowsky if available. I think Montreal was just trying to get an extra asset from the Devils.

If he is not, I expect him to be, I would look to trade the pick. There is a chance a player like David Pasternack is available. If not go with Shane Wright or Logan Cooley.

I still think Rogalski should have been fired. Although I hear his being here might make Husso a Devil. It will be interesting for the next week to 10 days. Free agency starts the 13th.
If the Devils let Debrincat get traded to another team, the GM should be fired before close of business that day.

Imagine how many goals he would score playing with Hughes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.