Jump to content
News Ticker
  • News Around the NHL

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

pilldoc

Pavelski Hit - Did Eakin deserve 5 min. Major and misconduct?

Pavelski Hit - Did Eakin deserve 5 min. Major and misconduct?  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Pavelski Hit - Did Eakin deserve 5 min. Major and misconduct?

    • Yes it was the right call and appropriate penalty
      2
    • Yes it was a penalty but it should NOT have been a Major Penalty
      10
    • NO... it was a legal hockey hit and an unfortunate injury to Pavelski
      3


Recommended Posts

So you know there will be lots of talk/discussion regarding the Pavelski hit.

 


So what say the masses?  Obviously it changed the entire game and series around.  What would have been a certain victory for the Knights now goes in the complete opposite direction and becomes a historic come from behind victory for the Sharks.

IMO, I don't think it is worth a 5 min major.  The cross check was not out of the norm and it was just an unlucky off balance fall as Pavelski bounced off Stastny as he fell to the ice.  It was an unfortunate injury and nothing malicious about it.  I think the officials made a gross over judgement call here.

 

The controversy that will be debated all summer is that the refs don’t actually signal for a penalty until after they see how bad Pavelski is damaged.  There was no initial penalty called.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 5 was excessive. I mean it was a cross check, that picture is in the rule book as to what a cross check looks like- so I have no qualms about blowing that play down sending & Eakin off for 2 minutes. 
The rest of the play is unfortunate contact sport stuff, it is tough to see a series changed because of the officiating.

This will be exhibit A in the arguments about officiating for some time. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

The cross check was not out of the norm

 

So, as you note, it was a cross check (which is illegal).

 

It's on a player who didn't have the puck (which is at the very least interference).

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who "cross-checks" an opponent

 

The "severity of the contact" warrants the major and the major comes with a game misconduct.

 

Whether the ref's arm goes up in the split second between the hit and the call is really immaterial.

 

16 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

Pavelski bounced off Stastny as he fell to the ice

 

Seriously? "Bounced off"? Stastny (as the announcer notes) "pushes through" and more or less drives Pavelski to the ice.

 

Again, at the very least interference.

 

Just now, mojo1917 said:

it is tough to see a series changed because of the officiating.

 

Vegas folded like a cheap suit and gave up four goals on the power play. That's 100% on them.

 

When you allow something that's only happened one other time in the history of the game it wasn't "the officials" that created the problem.

 

It was Vegas' piss poor PK. They gave up a goal six seconds into the power play. Six seconds. That's not on "the refs" at all.

 

They then tied the game and had a chance to win.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've certainly seen worse cross checks go uncalled.

 

His head hit the ice and the results is why the call went the way it did.

 

It sucks it cost them the game pretty much but they could have stopped the puck on the PK and it could have been them advancing.

 

The NHL way it's not the foul it's how much blood was drawn or how much flailing was performed...or in this case he lay crumpled on the ice.

 

It sucks but it's the new age hockey.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

So, as you note, it was a cross check (which is illegal).

 

It's on a player who didn't have the puck (which is at the very least interference).

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who "cross-checks" an opponent

 

The "severity of the contact" warrants the major and the major comes with a game misconduct.

 

Whether the ref's arm goes up in the split second between the hit and the call is really immaterial.

 

 

Seriously? "Bounced off"? Stastny (as the announcer notes) "pushes through" and more or less drives Pavelski to the ice.

 

Again, at the very least interference.

 

 

Vegas folded like a cheap suit and gave up four goals on the power play. That's 100% on them.

 

When you allow something that's only happened one other time in the history of the game it wasn't "the officials" that created the problem.

 

It was Vegas' piss poor PK. They gave up a goal six seconds into the power play. Six seconds. That's not on "the refs" at all.

 

They then tied the game and had a chance to win.

 

@radoran

 

I totally get your POV.  I really do...( and I understand why the refs called what they called) I just see the play differently.  It was a hit across the chest like we see in every game.  Pavelski lost his balance.  Stastny made contact with him too not realizing how off balance Pavelski really was and then Pavelski goes down to the ice.  I am totally ok with an interference call.  

 

I can't argue about Vegas giving up 4 goals...totally agree that is on them.  However, let me play devils advocate for a moment.  If Pavelski does not get hurt, is a call made?  If anything like you said it is a 2 minute interference. 

 

2 min minor penalty vs a 5 min major is a HUGE difference.

 

i just think Pavelski lost his balance and landed awkwardly, not malicious by the Vegas player was intended.

 

Again...just my perspective.  

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo, It was a dramatic over reaction by the ref.

Early in the game there was a cross check that sent a player face/shoulder into the boards. Way more dangerous and he got 2 minutes.

If Eakin's hit directly causes Pavelski to hit the ice that way then fine but it was a series of events.

Stastny even was in discussion with a SJ player after, I guess pleading his case as not intentional and seemed to settle that part down.

 

Eakin had absolutely no reason to crosscheck Pavelski the way he did.

Idiot...The ref's had favored SJ early in the penalty Dept, So one would think not to do something stupid when the game is going your way.

  • Good Post 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, radoran said:

It was Vegas' piss poor PK.

The PK had been sterling to that point in the game. In fact Vegas played great right up to that point. 

 

I couldn't stay up to watch it so I saw the replays solely.  

I did watch the first period and Vegas was better everywhere. 

 

Point about folding after the call conceded though.

Had the call been 2 minutes I don't think SJ keeps coming, and scoring like they did 5 v 5 because they didn't all night to that point.

 

the officiating absolutely changed the outcome of this game. 

 

Edited by mojo1917
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

 

 

Point about folding after the call conceded though.

Had the call been 2 minutes I don't think SJ keeps coming, and scoring like they did 5 v 5 because they didn't all night to that point.

 

the officiating absolutely changed the outcome of this game. 

 

I think they would have scored in that 2 min PP given the intense spark and motivation for their Captain.

But then getting back to 5 v 5, Vegas might have been able to weather the rest but it would have been intense. Probably 3-2 Vegas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, radoran said:

59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who "cross-checks" an opponent

 

I don't think the "severity of the contact" was any more "severe" than a typical cross check we see almost every night in the NHL. 

 

Yes, a cross check. No, it was not a severe crosscheck. No way that should have been 5 minutes, IMO of course.

 

The following series of events and subsequent hit by Stastny is what made it the brutal injury that it is. 

 

Terrible call, IMO. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brelic said:

 

I don't think the "severity of the contact" was any more "severe" than a typical cross check we see almost every night in the NHL. 

 

Yes, a cross check. No, it was not a severe crosscheck. No way that should have been 5 minutes, IMO of course.

 

The following series of events and subsequent hit by Stastny is what made it the brutal injury that it is. 

 

Terrible call, IMO.

 

I don't think there's any question that they were penalizing the outcome. Depending on your interpretation of the rules, that's a good or a bad thing. That, for me, is the "severity" of the offence.

 

I could have seen them taking both Eakins and Stastny off for two apiece. and giving the Sharks a 5-on-3. Does that make it a 3-2 game (presuming another score six seconds into the PP?). Does that "change the outcome" at that point?

 

But I, personally, don't have a problem with penalizing the result of what we all seem to agree was a penalty.

 

And I do have trouble saying "the officials changed the outcome of the game" when Vegas tied it up and sent it to overtime.

 

If anything, from where I sit the added motivation the Sharks got seeing their captain being carted off the ice changed the direction of the game - and that likely happens regardless of the call made.

 

If Vegas was "clearly the better team" then they should have won four of seven games - and probably shouldn't have been in a Game 7.

 

I don't think this is cut-and-dried a "bad call" but I can see where people have differences of opinion on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, radoran said:

And I do have trouble saying "the officials changed the outcome of the game" when Vegas tied it up and sent it to overtime.

 

Absolutely agree here!  Once Vegas tied it up it was anybody's game to win or lose .......  (you can't blame the call for what happens in OT)

Edited by pilldoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont like Vegas AT ALL, I was sick of their narrative by midseason a year ago and I am glad they lost.

 

But.

 

 That was two minutes IMHO. The fact that Pavelski hit his head on the ice and was injured on the play is why they called it five, it was a fluky play with kind of a double whammy with a second hit by Stastny as well but even with that, a 3-0 lead with ten minutes to go blowing the game was their own fault. 4 goals in four minutes was a collapse of epic proportion and bad call or not, the Knights have only themselves to blame. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, radoran said:

 

So, as you note, it was a cross check (which is illegal).

 

It's on a player who didn't have the puck (which is at the very least interference).

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who "cross-checks" an opponent

 

I'd say the more crucial rule would be

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

 

Rule 609 | Cross-Checking

(Note) Cross-checking is the action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent with no portion of the stick on the ice.

(a) A minor or a major penalty shall be assessed for cross-checking an opponent

(b) A major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any player who injures an opponent as a result of cross-checking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, radoran said:

 

So, as you note, it was a cross check (which is illegal).

 

It's on a player who didn't have the puck (which is at the very least interference).

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who "cross-checks" an opponent

 

The "severity of the contact" warrants the major and the major comes with a game misconduct.

 

Whether the ref's arm goes up in the split second between the hit and the call is really immaterial.

 

 

Seriously? "Bounced off"? Stastny (as the announcer notes) "pushes through" and more or less drives Pavelski to the ice.

 

Again, at the very least interference.

 

 

Vegas folded like a cheap suit and gave up four goals on the power play. That's 100% on them.

 

When you allow something that's only happened one other time in the history of the game it wasn't "the officials" that created the problem.

 

It was Vegas' piss poor PK. They gave up a goal six seconds into the power play. Six seconds. That's not on "the refs" at all.

 

They then tied the game and had a chance to win.

This. Stastny gave Pavelski the hockey equivalent of the rock bottom. It was a slam that bounced his head of the ice and turned the captain to a limp bloody mess. Not the crosscheck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

I don't think there's any question that they were penalizing the outcome. Depending on your interpretation of the rules, that's a good or a bad thing. That, for me, is the "severity" of the offence.

 

Right, they were penalizing the outcome for sure. How far does that extend? 

 

If I push you on the sidewalk, and you stumble backwards and fall into traffic and get hit by a car, am I responsible for that too? I think under the law, I would be. What if after I pushed you, someone was behind you and tripped you as you fell into the street? Who's responsible then? Both?

 

I guess the challenge here is that it wasn't Eakin that directly injured Pavelski to that degree, yet he was the one who set it in motion. Maybe they just got the wrong guy. Could you give Stastny a 5 and a game for his part in it? If so, under which rule?

 

1 hour ago, radoran said:

 

I could have seen them taking both Eakins and Stastny off for two apiece. and giving the Sharks a 5-on-3. Does that make it a 3-2 game (presuming another score six seconds into the PP?). Does that "change the outcome" at that point?

 

But I, personally, don't have a problem with penalizing the result of what we all seem to agree was a penalty.

 

And I do have trouble saying "the officials changed the outcome of the game" when Vegas tied it up and sent it to overtime.

 

If anything, from where I sit the added motivation the Sharks got seeing their captain being carted off the ice changed the direction of the game - and that likely happens regardless of the call made.

 

If Vegas was "clearly the better team" then they should have won four of seven games - and probably shouldn't have been in a Game 7.

 

I don't think this is cut-and-dried a "bad call" but I can see where people have differences of opinion on it.

 

I think the outrage comes from the difference between a 2 minute penalty that is washed out after a goal against vs a full 5 minutes shorthanded.

 

I understand it too, and I agree that the officials did not change the outcome of the game on their own. The only real question is whether or not they made the appropriate call.

 

If Eakin doesn't crosscheck Pavelski in the first place, which is NOT a legal hockey move, then we're not having this conversation and the Knights are in round 2.

 

So at the end of the day, the only person to truly blame is Eakin. 

  • Like 1
  • Good Post 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, brelic said:

Right, they were penalizing the outcome for sure. How far does that extend? 

 

If I push you on the sidewalk, and you stumble backwards and fall into traffic and get hit by a car, am I responsible for that too? I think under the law, I would be. What if after I pushed you, someone was behind you and tripped you as you fell into the street? Who's responsible then? Both?

 

Not being a law-talking-guy and not playing one on teevee, I would say "yes" if you pushed me into traffic, you're responsible for what happens that wouldn't have happened had you not pushed me.

 

If the person behind was working in tandem with you, then I would say "both" while if the person behind inadvertantly tripped me because you pushed me in the first place, probably not so much.

 

I don't believe Stastny had "intent" to injure, but he certainly had "intent" to interfere with Pavelski to prevent him to re-entering the play.

 

15 minutes ago, brelic said:

Maybe they just got the wrong guy. Could you give Stastny a 5 and a game for his part in it? If so, under which rule?

 

It is possible that Statsny c/should have gotten the penalty - and it would have been filed under "interference" much in the same way that Voracek got suspended for "interfering" with Boychuk (which I wasn't as "in favor" of because of the circumstances - what with Boychuk blatantly charging Voracek).

 

15 minutes ago, brelic said:

I think the outrage comes from the difference between a 2 minute penalty that is washed out after a goal against vs a full 5 minutes shorthanded.

 

I might be convinced that the "correct" call was penalties on both Eakins and Stastny to put the K-nig-its down 3-on-5.

 

Not sure that Statsny still doesn't get the five for his actions towards a defenseless player, resulting in a head injury.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Puck_Pun said:

 

I'd say the more crucial rule would be

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

 

Rule 609 | Cross-Checking

(Note) Cross-checking is the action of using the shaft of the stick between the two hands to forcefully check an opponent with no portion of the stick on the ice.

(a) A minor or a major penalty shall be assessed for cross-checking an opponent

(b) A major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any player who injures an opponent as a result of cross-checking.

 

That's USA Hockey - not the NHL rulebook.

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

 

The difference appears to be an explicit "punish the result" in USAHockey and an implicit "punish the result" in the NHL.

 

Edited by radoran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

That's USA Hockey - not the NHL rulebook.

 

Hidden Content

    Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.

 

The difference appears to be an explicit "punish the result" in USAHockey and an implicit "punish the result" in the NHL.

 

 

Yeah, make it explicit already if that's how you're gonna call it. It's stupid IMO, but so be it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, radoran said:

"punish the result" in the NHL.

 

 

This is it exactly.  

Even though I voted "Yes it was a penalty but it should NOT have been a Major Penalty" I don't think they even call a penalty there if there was no injury.  I'm not sure Pavelski even goes down if Stastny isn't there.  He was twisting his body and his legs (probably) would have come around and he would have gotten his feet down.  And I don't think Stastny should have been penalized, either.  Pavelski's momentum (trying to regain his balance) carried him into Stastny.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said:

 

This is it exactly.  

Even though I voted "Yes it was a penalty but it should NOT have been a Major Penalty" I don't think they even call a penalty there if there was no injury.  I'm not sure Pavelski even goes down if Stastny isn't there.  He was twisting his body and his legs (probably) would have come around and he would have gotten his feet down.  And I don't think Stastny should have been penalized, either.  Pavelski's momentum (trying to regain his balance) carried him into Stastny.

 

The momentum he got from... Being illegally crosschecked...

 

And Stastny definitely finishes off his check on a player without the puck.

 

Which is interference.

Edited by radoran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 7
      Post
      I don't think it should have been as major, but I also don't think the call blew the Golden Knights season. They did that themselves.  
    • 5
      Post
      I guess it was borderline whether he should have got 2 or 5.    The real question, IMO, is when your team is up 3-0 in game 7 with 8 minutes or so to go...WHY THE F*** are you crosschecking a guy off a faceoff? I'd be pissed at Eakin...not the refs.
    • 3
      Post
      @radoran   I totally get your POV.  I really do...( and I understand why the refs called what they called) I just see the play differently.  It was a hit across the chest like we see in every game.  Pavelski lost his balance.  Stastny made contact with him too not realizing how off balance Pavelski really was and then Pavelski goes down to the ice.  I am totally ok with an interference call.     I can't argue about Vegas giving up 4 goals...totally agree that is on them.  How
    • 3
      Post
      I don't think the "severity of the contact" was any more "severe" than a typical cross check we see almost every night in the NHL.    Yes, a cross check. No, it was not a severe crosscheck. No way that should have been 5 minutes, IMO of course.   The following series of events and subsequent hit by Stastny is what made it the brutal injury that it is.    Terrible call, IMO.     
    • 3
      Post
      Right, they were penalizing the outcome for sure. How far does that extend?    If I push you on the sidewalk, and you stumble backwards and fall into traffic and get hit by a car, am I responsible for that too? I think under the law, I would be. What if after I pushed you, someone was behind you and tripped you as you fell into the street? Who's responsible then? Both?   I guess the challenge here is that it wasn't Eakin that directly injured Pavelski to that degree, yet he w
    • 2
      Post
      So you know there will be lots of talk/discussion regarding the Pavelski hit.   So what say the masses?  Obviously it changed the entire game and series around.  What would have been a certain victory for the Knights now goes in the complete opposite direction and becomes a historic come from behind victory for the Sharks. IMO, I don't think it is worth a 5 min major.  The cross check was not out of the norm and it was just an unlucky off balance fall as Pavelski bounce
×
×
  • Create New...