flyercanuck Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Canada with a 6-3 win over the Slovaks after trailing 2-0 and 3-1. Anthony Camara gets 5 and a game for a textbook hockey hit because Luza doesn't know to keep his head up and gets injured. (this was after the refs confirmed with Camara the hit was legal) Hopefully they bring in NA refs for Canada/US game or the game will be played almost entirely shorthanded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) @flyercanuckIt looked to me as if Camara got his left arm up into the neck / jaw of Luza. The IIHF indicates there will be no supplementary discipline for Camara however Lipton's hit is being reviewed. Canada could be down 2 against the USA.After that hit Scheifele and Reilly played a solid game for Canada. Murphy seems to be a wasted roster space. Edited December 28, 2012 by hf101 added info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 @hf101Camaras arm is exactly where it's supposed to be, as a hockey player, His left arm is actually behind him on the hit, but comes forward at the collision. And under hockey 101 Luza's head is not. The guy is actually lowering his head as Camara is coming in for the hit. He's doing exactly what you're taught NOT to do from the first time you have a stick in your hand. Then the refs decide there's a penalty FIVE minutes later???? After assuring Camara there isn't? Typical IIHF refs. I wouldn't expect anything different. And the call was charging, not head contact. Camara doesn't take a stride for at least 20 feet. No discipline? They owe him an apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 @flyercanuckCalling penalties after a player is injured is pretty much a given these days. Especially with the IIHF who call everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 @hf101 No arguement there. Doesn't make it right though. If Luza doesn't get hurt on that play, there is no penalty. And you shouldn't be penalizing a guy for hitting hard...they should penalize luza for playing stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 @flyercanuck 100% agree...totally clean hit, like you said textbook...that's how you are supposed to make contact. A real safe way to seperate a guy from the puck and still avoiding head contact. They do owe him an apology. Just cause somebody gets strechered off, does not mean the hitter did anything wrong, it's a contact sport. I know what 101 is talking about though, a strecher in a IIFH stanctioned game means repercussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 JC Lipon will not play against the USA on Sunday as he faces a 1 game suspension.http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/story/?id=412414 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Did anybody see the USA vs Russia game? I saw the result but not how the teams played. Any good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 USA played tough against the Russians and Canadians, took too many penalties, their PK is probably one of the best of the tourney as they have yet to give up a goal on 5 on 3. However they have not been able to score much as both Makarov and Subban had great games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 @Polaris922 The US/Russia game was really fun to watch. Gibson has been great in net for them. I think their gremlin forwards are hurting them a bit...not in skill, just in size. Canada/USSubban finally played like he does in the OHL against the US and was every bit as good as Gibson. The goalies were the show in this game, with Canadas superior forwards making the difference in goals. I thought Seth Jones was absolutely horrible for the US in the first 2 periods, especially in his own end, but played a solid 3rd period. There were some really dumb penalties taken in the game by both sides, but the US had a total meltdown with over 4 minutes left in the game when they were still in it. RNH took a knuckleheaded one with just over a minute left, and just seconds after ringing one off the crossbar. Drouin looks like the puck is tethered to his stick when he has it, man can that kid dangle. 2 goals in 2 games against the big boys may give Jones a hint his team isn't the runaway best. Maybe do your talking ON the ice son.The US has to beat the Slovaks or they're done. Even if they win they'll likely have to beat Sweden, Russia and Canada to win gold. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 Canada unveils it's "A" game and totally dominates Russia. Boone Jenner looked like he was toying with children on a couple of shifts reminiscent of Girouxs "shift" against the Bruins. Subban was rock solid again as was Russias goalie who prevented it from being a total blowout. And Nail "Canadas dirty" Yakupov had yet another quiet game and had yet another teammate ejected for dirty play. Karma is a funny thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I've been watching what I can, mostly on replays. I think it's crap that RNH can be in this thing as he's a pro at a much higher level than most of the kids in the competition, but then again, he's the right age so I dunno... torn on it I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I've been watching what I can, mostly on replays. I think it's crap that RNH can be in this thing as he's a pro at a much higher level than most of the kids in the competition, but then again, he's the right age so I dunno... torn on it I guess. The rules are the same for everyone and have been the same for ages. It's the U20 championship. The criteria is age. The fact that RNH was good enough at 18 to play pro is irrelevant. Nothing to be torn about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 @Polaris922I think it's bs that Canada is usually missing 5-10 of their best players while the US/Russia/Sweden usually have all of theirs. I think it's bs that the US has a "developmental" team that practices together all year while Canada spreads its juniors over the entire CHL to only practice together a few weeks during this tournament AND develops Americans, Swedes and Russians only to see them make comments like "Canadas dirty" or "We hate Canada". I think it's bs that the championship is one game, where anyone can win, as opposed to say a best of 5, where the best team would win most of the time. It's an Under 20 tournament...that's the only criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 The rules are the same for everyone and have been the same for ages. It's the U20 championship. The criteria is age. The fact that RNH was good enough at 18 to play pro is irrelevant. Nothing to be torn about.@Polaris922I think it's bs that Canada is usually missing 5-10 of their best players while the US/Russia/Sweden usually have all of theirs. I think it's bs that the US has a "developmental" team that practices together all year while Canada spreads its juniors over the entire CHL to only practice together a few weeks during this tournament AND develops Americans, Swedes and Russians only to see them make comments like "Canadas dirty" or "We hate Canada". I think it's bs that the championship is one game, where anyone can win, as opposed to say a best of 5, where the best team would win most of the time. It's an Under 20 tournament...that's the only criteria.I think my hangup goes back to the amateur vs pro argument that used to be when the Olympics were played that way is all. I LIKED the idea of the tournaments for kids without pro careers to show their stuff and shine is all. RNH is a great talent, and the playing field is fair, sure, I just like the amateur idea. That's what tears at me, not him in particular, great player that he is. Why are the Canadians missing 5-10 of their best players? I've been reading articles about the tournament and don't see much about that other than the occasional suspension. I must be missing your point about the developmental team for the US. Most of them come from college and OHL teams, so they're spread out as well. The only Canada's dirty comments I saw were from Russia. Most of what you are unhappy about I can't see justification for, unless I'm completely misunderstanding your points. As for the one game status, that's every world championship we see.. hockey, soccer, basketball, you name it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 @Polaris922RNH isn't the only "pro" in the tournament. He's the only NHLer. JT Miller on the US for example is an AHLer..Canada is usually missing 5-10 players because they're usually in the NHL. For some reason or other it's rare for US/Russia/Sweden to have their best in the NHL at 19. I mean it's rare for a Canadian too, but there's usually a few of them. The dirty comment came from Yakupov who played junior here in Sarnia and will play professionally for Edmonton. Classy.As for the one game, it's not how NA hockey determines their champs. Anyone can beat anyone once. Beating them 3 of 5 or 4 of 7 is a lot more difficult. How many times have you seen a team win the first game of a playoff but lose the series? Obviously time constraints don't allow for a best of 7. But it is a better way of determining the best team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 @flyercanuckExactly, exactly right in every respect.If the Swiss had beaten the Russians, which they should have (they played a great game), would that make them a better team? The Russians would very likely win a 3,5,or 7 game series vs the Swiss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 @Podein25 I really think fc has an excellent point here, the best goalie wins most of the time in this tourny. I have however, been quietly second guessing some of the choices personnel wise, as well as some of the stragety employed. I guess my biggest question comes on defense. For a few years now, we have had a big bruising d-man line-up, but they have been consistantly outskated by smaller quicker forwards. Perhaps, it's time to leave the Scott Harringtons at home and bring fast offensively gifted blue liners like the USA had. Don't really want to pin all our problems on poor Scott (cause I do believe he will make an excellent pro d-man)....but a LOT of his physical game is taken out of the equation due to the strict officiating in international play. Sure, he still has the great reach, but if you are not contribuitng offense from back there, it puts Canada at a disadvantage. Two years in a row we went with the big huge blueliners, twice we have been burned by smaller diminutive forwards (and smaller d-men like Ghost who join the rush and create odd man situations). Against Canada, the smaller guys like Gaudreau and Grimaldi were all over the ice, creating turnovers in passing lanes and being pains in the arse...the alwlays seemed to break up the clean break out, and that is where our problems started...no clean break outs. Perhaps the days of the 6'5 giants have passed, and the little gremlin forwards and d-man who skate like the wind are the way to go...just saying. They seemed to be quite effective in relation to how the tourny is called. We need to adjust is what I'm saying. In the end, with a single game knock out, fc was dead on the money....the team with the best goalie will win most of the time. If the USA has a Gibson next year, we might just meet the same fate. Not much you can do about the other team having superior goaltending, but you can make your defense more efficient, faster and thus have cleaner break outs AND generate more offense from back there. Morgan Rilely did not take his game to the next level like a lot of the USA d-men did. Dougie Hamilton, as talented as he is, was nullified in the physicality dept, so his effectiveness was lessened after all the penalties in games 1 and 2 of the pre-lims. He was always looking over his shoulder and not just reacting. McCabe scoring 2 goals from the back end was a fluke, he could play another 100 games and not do that again, so that was just a tough break....and I don't fault Subban, esp on the first goal (which gave the USA a ton of confidnce and a big momentum lift) which was comical as far as sight lines went for Malcom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I also believe Canada has been burned (their own falut mind you) by the long rest caused by the semi final bye. Next year, the bye is gone, which might just be a blessing for Canada, keep us on our edge and keep the skating legs going. We have looked really flat coming out back to back years off the bye...sometimes in hockey, the legs are just not there like a team who has just played....a couple of early goals and you just can't get the momentum back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 @jammer2I'm not certain about your points on the D. We had Murphy who is one-dimensional (and sucks IMO) and he did nothing. Harrington was likely our best D-man until the game against the USA, where he was terrible. Same with Ouellette. He was great IMO, but terrible against the US when it mattered. And we had Rielly, the Leafs latest Golden Boy and "ranked #1" by Brian Burke, LMAO!What we don't seem to have is big and mobile. I was disappointed as a whole by Hamilton, although he was great vs Russian in the round robin.I don't know why the US seems to be developing amazing D-man. Trouba was a beast, and Jones will be a star, but all their guys were great. It has to reflect well on their National Development Program that they keep churning out these dynamic D-men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 The one thing I'm really proud of is the 14 straight years with a medal...incredible consistancy from year to year and generation to generation even. When they were not kicking out Golds, they were sucking it up and playing hard to get the last win....that matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 @Podein25 I was just talking in the most basic of generalities there. On the surface, it looks like the USA has found a nice formula to win with these specific rules and reffing. I know Scott was good at times, that Jones is anything but small, but in generalities, the smaller faster d-men won the day, where harder to defend against and most importantly, were able to have quick clean efficient break outs that lead to territorial advantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 @Podein25 I thought Conner Murphy was an unsung hero for the States, didn't hear much about him, but he was always involved and moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 @jammer2I meant Ryan Murphy from Canada, he of the Kitchener Rangers. Here's a guy who was specifically picked for his mobility (the kid can skate I'll give him that - he might be faster with the puck than without it! - but he lacks a brain)What I saw was poor transition from D to Forwards in our end and in the neutral zone. Really large gaps. That's only partly the fault of the D-men. The forwards and the coaches also have responsibilities. Look at the Swedes play. Impressive puck support from the forwards at all areas of the ice. I didn't see that from us, except maybe vs Russia. It's just not as simple as the D, which you know of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 @Podein25 Oh yeah, it starts with the d on lthe break out, but like you said, no puck support, the huge gaps inbetween our zone and the neutral zone has to fall at the feet of the forwards. The puck support was simply not there, and that is everyones fault. USA looked a lot fresher and much more jump to their steps. Agreed, Ryan Murphy was a big let down, I knew that was who you were talking about. I just mentioned Conner because he did not get mentioned enough, he's been a rock back there. Problem is, I don't know if Canada would have let a guy like Ghost or Conner make their team, and they played a big role in the USA success. We need quick nimble d-men who can join a rush and create odd man rushes....and you just don't get that from a Harrington. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.