Pens get the Calls, the Bruins get the Win

[hf101]

Shanny has been a bit quiet of late but this one should have his attention.  The poor calls by the refs had this game out of control in the first period.

 

First of all there is the hit on Eriksson by Orpik.  In the referee's eyes Eriksson was fair game for Orpik ?  I dunno looked like it might have been a legal hit but Eriksson never touched the puck and Orpik clocked him one making contact with his head.  No call by the refs yet Chara ends up in the box for 2min. Sending the Penguins on the PP.   

 

http://youtu.be/nvteW6mvasA

 

The next dirty play the Penguins see only a minor penalty for Neal's deliberate kneeing on Marchand.  Instead of coming out of the Box and scoring a goal, Neal should have been assessed a game misconduct.  

 

http://youtu.be/GuVq-TZ7AJM

 

Thornton obviously felt the game was not being called by the book and in defense of his teammates made the ugly decision of taking out Orpik.  Orpik chose not to fight for his action against Eriksson.  Thornton has never had a suspension but he probably should have waited rather than let his emotions get out of hand.  The result is a couple of dirty punches resulting in Orpik being stretchered off the ice.  

 

Both Neal and Thornton will face suspensions.

 

A game like this is exactly the reason why the instigator rule is a penalty as you can't have plays like Thornton's actions to police the game.  But the referee's need to do a better job.  Make the calls!

 

Looks like Orpik is out of the hospital and can travel with the team, Eriksson didn't return to the game, no word on his condition.

 

Justice was served though the Bruins earned the 2pts.

[flyerrod]

A game like this is exactly the reason why the instigator rule is a penalty as you can't have plays like Thornton's actions to police the game. But the referee's need to do a better job. Make the calls!

 

I believe the polar opposite on the instigator. Since the inception of the rule, cowardly players are allowed to run free and not have to answer for their cheap shots. If Orpick had the courage( yeah right....) to drop the gloves and answer the bell then the actions taken later by Thornton do not occur. The refs lost control of this game by letting Orpick's hit go unchallenged and then only gave a 2 minute penalty for a knee to the head. That part I agree with you on.

[hf101]

I believe the polar opposite on the instigator. Since the inception of the rule, cowardly players are allowed to run free and not have to answer for their cheap shots. If Orpick had the courage( yeah right....) to drop the gloves and answer the bell then the actions taken later by Thornton do not occur.

 

But that is just it, Orpik wasn't going to drop the gloves so then you have a player such as Thornton taking the play into his own hands and that result is exactly why there is an instigator rule.  

 

If Orpik chose to man up and fight no instigator would have been called.  Strange though looking at the box score Thornton didn't get an instigator the way Rinaldo did this afternoon.

[Polaris922]

You guys are so biased here its ridiculous.

[hf101]

You guys are so biased here its ridiculous.

 

I do try to be fair. 

 

But hey look at the rules.  Orpik deserved at least a 2 min penalty for Interference.

 

Interference - 56.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck.

[Polaris922]

I do try to be fair.

But hey look at the rules. Orpik deserved at least a 2 min penalty for Interference.

Interference - 56.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck.

Officials have let hits like that go as a player goes to play the puck for decades. We all know players get hit ten feet from the puck and nothing gets called, let alone when it's right there. The puck caromed off the boards to within a stick length of Eriksson who turns to try taking it on the backhand. I still see nothing wrong here. His feet never leave the ice, his shoulder hits pretty squarely in the chest... Clean.

[jammer2]

@Polaris922  I believe I have a firm grasp of the Orpik hit. I've slowed it down well over 20 times to get a clear view of the entire play.

 

 

 My findings...

 

 A) Orpik had the right to hit Eriksson. The puck was passed from behind his own net, from a Bruin d-man...the puck rode along the boards, took a weird bounce...that bounce made Eriksson vulnerable. Just a millisecond before Orpik makes contact, I froze the play on my DVR, the puck is actually floating over Eriksson's stick, he did not possess the puck, but it was close enough to his stick and or body to make him vulnerable to a legal hit.

 

 B) Orpik did not intend to target Eriksson's head. As Orpik was lining up Eriksson for the hit, Eriksson lost an edge and was in process of falling (no one touched him, just lost his balance)...this act of falling put Ericksson's head in the line of fire, I believe 100% that Orpik was intending to contact the shoulder. It was bang/bang...but you can't fault Orpik for that hit, it happened so fast, he would never have been able to determine Ericksson never had possession. For all he knew, Ericksson could have corralled the puck and gone in for a break away. Orpik's job is to separate the man from the puck in this instance, and that is what he tried to do...not his fault Ericksson started to fall at the moment of impact. 

[nossagog]

First of all there is the hit on Eriksson by Orpik. In the referee's eyes Eriksson was fair game for Orpik ? I dunno looked like it might have been a legal hit but Eriksson never touched the puck and Orpik clocked him one making contact with his head. No call by the refs yet Chara ends up in the box for 2min. Sending the Penguins on the PP. . . .

Thornton obviously felt the game was not being called by the book and in defense of his teammates made the ugly decision of taking out Orpik. Orpik chose not to fight for his action against Eriksson. Thornton has never had a suspension but he probably should have waited rather than let his emotions get out of hand. The result is a couple of dirty punches resulting in Orpik being stretchered off the ice.

I respect your opinions HF, but I'll agree to disagree here. Ignore the fans and haters of either team:

"Orpik's hit on Eriksson was hockey play, could've been minor for interference, but well within context of game action. Orpik shouldn't necessarily be obliged to answer the bell to Thornton on that hit. It wasn't that egregious."

I've given my opinion of this "good" hit already elsewhere. But don't just take my opinion,because the above isn't the ramblings of a biased Pens fans, that was from Bob McKenzie, hockey analyst, paid to give honest unbiased opinions of professional hockey. We can use Zepruder film techniques to see whether Eriksson touched the puck, which it looks like he deflects and therefore not even an interference penalty, but the fact is that it was a hard hockey play which it seems unbiased fans and analysts do not see as dirty. Why would Orpik fight a goon for what was a clean play? Wasn't it just days ago that the Bruins coach railed about players retaliating for clean plays?

 

 

The next dirty play the Penguins see only a minor penalty for Neal's deliberate kneeing on Marchand. Instead of coming out of the Box and scoring a goal, Neal should have been assessed a game misconduct.

 

Actually you missed the next dirty play, but then again it was by a Bruin. You don't have to go any further than the video you posted. After the hit on Eriksson follow the play to the other side of the ice. Dupuis gets the puck along the boards enters the blue line moving to the middle of the ice and passes the puck to the right to Crosby. Chara, that innocent who never does anything wrong, comes from what the NHL actually DOES consider the blind side, not straight on but from the side away from the puck, and looks to deliver a hard high hit on Dupuis. This is the kind of hit the rules were change to prevent, its the Cooke hit on Savard, but the only difference is that Dupuis saw him at the last moment, fancy that, a player not admiring his pass, and was able to get back up so I guess that's okay.

So, does that mean that you do not penalize on intent, but on the result since Dupuis was not hurt but Eriksson was? <warning, reductio ad absurdum argument forthcoming> Well if that's the case, then you should agree that there should be no further action against Neal since Marchand got back up and continued playing his normal play of hitting people late and punching people in the head. Oh you probably missed that, in the second after the Iginla penalty when Matta played the puck forward and Marchand took a shot at his head? No penalty but that's okay, that's just physical Bruins hockey right?.(obviously I don't agree Neal statement, I think Neal SHOULD get 2 games). Or how about when he hit Engelland from behind after he got rid of the puck along the boards on a line change? No penalty so I guess that's just finishing his check in physical Bruins way?

Are the Pens angels? Nope. And neither are the Bruins. Chippy play cut both ways, and to make it sound like this happened because the ref's ignored things only the Pens were doing while yourself ignoring everything that the Bruins were doing simply is not looking at the whole picture. The "Pens get the Calls" makes it seem that you only saw the highlights you wanted to see and did not actually watch the rest of the game.

Edited December 8, 2013 by nossagog

[hf101]

"Orpik's hit on Eriksson was hockey play, could've been minor for interference, but well within context of game action. Orpik shouldn't necessarily be obliged to answer the bell to Thornton on that hit. It wasn't that egregious."

 

McKenzie doesn't always get it right.  The referee's imo would have been better off making a 2min "bogus" call for interference - (my opinion it was interference and should have been called)  It wouldn't be the first time the refs make up a call when they see a player injured.  

 

I'll throw this out there because I believe it -  that if a Bruin made the same hit on Crosby and Crosby went down same as Eriksson there would have been a call for at least interference.  I think some players get the benefit of those calls and others don't especially when a player is down on the ice.  Had Ericksson laid out flat would the whistle had blown for a penalty?    I'd say yes.    The league should try to protect it's stars, except for diving.  I'm not one that is really in favor of this type of open ice hit to an unsuspecting player.  I think a player should have at least a second to have accept a pass without drilled in an open ice hit.  But that is a different discussion.

 

Actually you missed the next dirty play, but then again it was by a Bruin. You don't have to go any further than the video you posted. After the hit on Eriksson follow the play to the other side of the ice. Dupuis gets the puck along the boards enters the blue line moving to the middle of the ice and passes the puck to the right to Crosby. Chara, that innocent who never does anything wrong, comes from what the NHL actually DOES consider the blind side, not straight on but from the side away from the puck, and looks to deliver a hard high hit on Dupuis. This is the kind of hit the rules were change to prevent, its the Cooke hit on Savard, but only difference is that Dupuis saw him at the last moment, fancy that, a player not admiring his pass, and was able to get back up so I guess that's okay.

 

You are right about Chara, I missed that as I'll admit I was only looking at the hit on Eriksson... other than Chara did sit for 2min.   

 

OH wait.. just saw a txt...  Chris Kelly suffered a broken ankle after a slash by Dupuis.    I'll keep the title of the topic 

[B21]

@Polaris922  I believe I have a firm grasp of the Orpik hit. I've slowed it down well over 20 times to get a clear view of the entire play.

 

 

 My findings...

 

 A) Orpik had the right to hit Eriksson. The puck was passed from behind his own net, from a Bruin d-man...the puck rode along the boards, took a weird bounce...that bounce made Eriksson vulnerable. Just a millisecond before Orpik makes contact, I froze the play on my DVR, the puck is actually floating over Eriksson's stick, he did not possess the puck, but it was close enough to his stick and or body to make him vulnerable to a legal hit.

 

 B) Orpik did not intend to target Eriksson's head. As Orpik was lining up Eriksson for the hit, Eriksson lost an edge and was in process of falling (no one touched him, just lost his balance)...this act of falling put Ericksson's head in the line of fire, I believe 100% that Orpik was intending to contact the shoulder. It was bang/bang...but you can't fault Orpik for that hit, it happened so fast, he would never have been able to determine Ericksson never had possession. For all he knew, Ericksson could have corralled the puck and gone in for a break away. Orpik's job is to separate the man from the puck in this instance, and that is what he tried to do...not his fault Ericksson started to fall at the moment of impact. 

 

So your the unbiased Flyer fan! I was wondering which one it was...

 

The fact that there are those pinning this at least in part on Orpik for not fighting Thornton after a clean hit is telling.

[nossagog]

 

 

I'll throw this out there because I believe it -  that if a Bruin made the same hit on Crosby and Crosby went down same as Eriksson there would have been a call for at least interference.  I think some players get the benefit of those calls and others don't especially when a player is down on the ice.  Had Ericksson laid out flat would the whistle had blown for a penalty?    I'd say yes.    The league should try to protect it's stars, except for diving.  I'm not one that is really in favor of this type of open ice hit to an unsuspecting player.  I think a player should have at least a second to have accept a pass without drilled in an open ice hit.  But that is a different discussion.

 

 

You are right about Chara, I missed that as I'll admit I was only looking at the hit on Eriksson... other than Chara did sit for 2min.   

 

 

 

You mean like when Crosby got Stekel'd in the Winter Classic or when he got checked into the boards from behind by Hedmen right after that caused his concussions?  I don't think either was a penalty, so where is benefits you are talking about. How about when Chara decided to punch him in the head in the playoffs last year after the whistle when hes coming back from a concussion, nope no penalty there either. 

 

Hey speaking of Stekel, can Neal simply use the Stekel excuse, "Ah, I was just going to the bench and didn't see him lying there.  Its not my responsibility to avoid him"

 

And yes, Chara did sit for two minutes, but nothing to do with the hit on Dupuis. After the hit and the whistle he then went after Kunitz with a crosscheck to the wrists and a punch to the head. That's where he got the two minutes.

Edited December 8, 2013 by nossagog

[nossagog]

McKenzie doesn't always get it right.  The referee's imo would have been better off making a 2min "bogus" call for interference - (my opinion it was interference and should have been called)  It wouldn't be the first time the refs make up a call when they see a player injured.

 

By the way, I'm on the border with the call the penalty to defuse the situation even if not a penalty.  IMHO, I think that this would have just escalated the situation because now the Bruins feel that their player was hurt on an illegal play. I don't see the benefit.

[hf101]

You mean like when Crosby got Stekel'd in the Winter Classic or when he got checked into the boards from behind by Hedmen right after that caused his concussions?  I don't think either was a penalty, so where is benefits you are talking about. How about when Chara decided to punch him in the head in the playoffs last year after the whistle when hes coming back from a consuccsion, nope no penalty there either. 

 

Hey speaking of Stekel, can Neal simply use the Stekel excuse, "Ah, I was just going to the bench and didn't see him lying there.  Its not my responsibility to avoid him"

 

And yes, Chara did sit for two minutes, but nothing to do with the hit on Dupuis. After the hit and the whistle he then went after Kunitz with a crosscheck to the wrists and a punch to the head. That's where he got the two minutes.

 

I can't defend Chara's play, nor why the league continues to look the other way with him.  

 

You did did make a valid point to my title as I made it believing that the whistle should have blown for for the non interference made by Orpik on Eriksson.   Add that to I think Neal should have gotten a game misconduct for kneeing Marchand.  Since posting and your response there is also the non slash call on Dupuis which broke Kelly's ankle.  So that is 3 non calls vs 1 - I'll keep the title. 

 

I realize Crosby didn't get the calls a couple of years ago, but it doesn't mean he wouldn't get the call today as I think he would.  And I have no issue with that.  

[nossagog]

I can't defend Chara's play, nor why the league continues to look the other way with him.  

 

You did did make a valid point to my title as I made it believing that the whistle should have blown for for the non interference made by Orpik on Eriksson.   Add that to I think Neal should have gotten a game misconduct for kneeing Marchand.  Since posting and your response there is also the non slash call on Dupuis which broke Kelly's ankle.  So that is 3 non calls vs 1 - I'll keep the title. 

 

I realize Crosby didn't get the calls a couple of years ago, but it doesn't mean he wouldn't get the call today as I think he would.  And I have no issue with that.

I used the Stekel/Hedmen example because it also resulted from injury without penalty, since it may be similar enough with the Eriksson thing.

The problem with using Crosby(or Malkin) as examples of favoritism is that if you watch all of their games(I know its hard as a Flyers fan), you see all of what they put up with that isn't called, and wonder how people complain about the stuff that IS called. And then everything that THEY do is put under a microscope, and called favoritism if not called. It gets tiring.

[hf101]

I used the Stekel/Hedmen example because it also resulted from injury without penalty, since it may be similar enough with the Eriksson thing.

The problem with using Crosby(or Malkin) as examples of favoritism is that if you watch all of their games(I know its hard as a Flyers fan), you see all of what they put up with that isn't called, and wonder how people complain about the stuff that IS called. And then everything that THEY do is put under a microscope, and called favoritism if not called. It gets tiring.

 

I get your point.  And there is the difficulty for a referee in calling a play a penalty vs a dive.  It still should have been an interference call, imo.

 

At least in the play by Chara on Dupuis, Dupuis had the puck, Ericksson didn't and never did. 

[nossagog]

I get your point.  And there is the difficulty for a referee in calling a play a penalty vs a dive.  It still should have been an interference call, imo.

 

At least in the play by Chara on Dupuis, Dupuis had the puck, Ericksson didn't and never did.

But there's the thing, Orpik was making the play based on the puck going to Eriksson, I'll let you come up with the number of seconds, or fractions thereof, before the hit that the puck misses Eriksson's stick(or deflects, still not sure). How is Orpik to predict or respond to that. If he tries to miss the hit, he probably deviates slightly and then it becomes knee on knee. He was committed to the hit based on Louie accepting the puck. Does this mean that anytime the puck bounces over a players stick as he's about to be hit, there is a penalty because he didn't actually touch the puck? Can you imagine the calls there? Can I lift my stick to dummy a pass and then draw a penalty if I get hit?

[hf101]

How is Orpik to predict or respond to that.

 

That is where it is Orpik or any other players responsibility in making the smart play, granted Eriksson has to pay attention, But Eriksson shouldn't expect to be hit before he has the puck as he should be able to make the play.

[nossagog]

McKenzie doesn't always get it right.  The referee's imo would have been better off making a 2min "bogus" call for interference - (my opinion it was interference and should have been called)  It wouldn't be the first time the refs make up a call when they see a player injured.  

 

 

 

How about Kerry Fraiser from C'Mon ref on TSN.ca(http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=438513)

 

Players often seek out retribution for hits, even those deemed legal, that are delivered to one of their teammates. Following a "big" hit, the temperature of the game can immediately elevate to the near boiling point. At such times, the referee's primary job is to take whatever measures necessary to control the environment. To do that, he has to have a "feel" for the game and what is required. A better job could have been done by the refs in that regard after Orpik delivered a hard, legal open-ice check that knocked Loui Erisksson out of the game on the very first shift.

 

Credit must be given to the referees for not overreacting to Orpik's legal check and then sending Zdeno Chara to the box for his retaliatory cross-check at the first stoppage of play 21 seconds in. The fuse was lit, however, and the refs could have been more proactive in bringing the temperature down and containing the ongoing illegal push-back demonstrated by some of the Bruin players.

Edited December 8, 2013 by nossagog

[hf101]

@nossagog

 

ok.  I'll just agree to disagree.  I think the hit by Orpik should have been called for interference, even if it is borderline by other's standards.  There is no way Eriksson could have made a play, that is interference by the rulebook.  

[jammer2]

@hf101  The puck was in the general vicinity of Ericksson, it cruised over his stick right before the impact.....thus making him legal to hit. He did not touch it, did not cradle it, but the pucks mere presence so close to his body and stick made the hit legal....although the contact with the head was not legal of course, no matter how much lack of intent there was. Just my take.

[hf101]

@hf101  The puck was in the general vicinity of Ericksson, it cruised over his stick right before the impact.....thus making him legal to hit. He did not touch it, did not cradle it, but the pucks mere presence so close to his body and stick made the hit legal....although the contact with the head was not legal of course, no matter how much lack of intent there was. Just my take.

 

 

but that is not what the rule book states.  

 

56.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck.

 

In the vicinity is not the same as having possession, I'm not why the rule should be stretched to that point.  Orpik assumed he would have possession this is where I disagree on the non call.

[Polaris922]

@jammer2

Thanks for your review. I agree wholeheartedly.

@hf101

If you call every hit when the puck is in a player's reach or feet but not actually on their stick, we might as well string a net and play badminton. I get your angle, but you can't seriously think watching that puck bounce right over Eriksson's stick that he's not fair game. Watch the next Flyers game with a critical eye, and see just how much contact there is just for being in the vicinity of the puck, not in control of it.

[hf101]

@Polaris922

 

I'm not seeing where the puck bounced right over the stick, if you have a better video of it I'd like to see it.  Again the rules state possession.  Intended possession is not part of the rule.

[jammer2]

@hf101  I would propose that in the vicinity constitutes possession. You see this all the time, in the playoffs, teams have a game plan of hitting a d-man everytime the puck is around him. The play I see a lot is pushing the puck at the d-man's feet and plastering him. The fact the puck is in and around him makes him fair game. You don't have to touch the puck or stickhandle to be in possession.  

[B21]

but that is not what the rule book states.  

 

56.2 Minor Penalty - A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player who interferes with or impedes the progress of an opponent who is not in possession of the puck.

 

In the vicinity is not the same as having possession, I'm not why the rule should be stretched to that point.  Orpik assumed he would have possession this is where I disagree on the non call.

 

The rule book states a lot of things that aren't interpreted literally.

 

How many times does a player standing a foot or two behind the red line blast the puck into the zone offensive zone and not get an icing call.  At least half are probably icing but since the player is close and the puck "may" be touching the stick as it crosses the red line the refs let it go.

 

The literal interpretation is so typical here.  If it further helps anything to do with an argument against the Pens it must be a literal interpretation of the rules.  Any other team? Nah.