Jump to content

GDT: Hawks at Habs


Commandant

Recommended Posts

Why isn’t Price in there? Makes zero sense.. he’s been great, you need the two points, and you’re on home ice.. 

 

Just brutal mistake by Lindgren there.. move the damn puck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheDriveFor25 said:

Why isn’t Price in there? Makes zero sense.. he’s been great, you need the two points, and you’re on home ice.. 

 

Just brutal mistake by Lindgren there.. move the damn puck.

 

We play Philly tomorrow and then we play Vegas on Saturday. 

 

Chicago was the weakest of the four teams as we play 4 games in 6 nights (including a b2b).

 

The backup has to play somewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheDriveFor25 said:

Why isn’t Price in there? Makes zero sense.. he’s been great, you need the two points, and you’re on home ice.. 

 

Just brutal mistake by Lindgren there.. move the damn puck.

 

1 minute ago, Commandant said:

 

We play Philly tomorrow and then we play Vegas on Saturday. 

 

Chicago was the weakest of the four teams as we play 4 games in 6 nights (including a b2b).

 

The backup has to play somewhere. 

Lindgren got a shutout versus Chicago as well. Chicago also coming off a back to back. 

 

Plenty of reasons to play Lindgren. Whether it works or it doesn't it's still the right choice. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Commandant said:

I would have challenged that for interfence... the interference when he loses the blocker. 

 

Lindgren was eventually alone in the crease well before the goal was scored (Weber pushed the stick to Lindgren and at that time, he was by himself).  If they challenged, I think it would have counted based on the following:

 

69.1 Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease.

 

Lindgren was free to move in his crease on the shot (Dach wasn't in the way).  As for the second one, that would be overruled by this:

 

69.7: Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

 

The original play where he lost the blocker was a scramble situation (the simultaneous attempt to play the puck).  Yes, there was contact but it could easily have been called incidental and by the time the puck went in, there was clearly no one impeding his ability to stop the shot.

 

There isn't anything in there for contact knocking off equipment.  Considering the goalie interference section is several pages long, that might be something that could stand to be better defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game basically boils down to injuries. The Habs had lots of chances - they seem to have good cohesion in the O-zone and their speed gets them opportunities - but those chances are going to guys who can't hit the broad side of a barn, like Weal, Cousins, Lehknonen, Mete, etc.. Put Gally, Drouin, even Armia back in the lineup and we probably have more than one goal, at which point the entire complexion of the game changes.

 

The other thing is comical defensive breakdowns. I don't know what's with this group, but that's been happening all season and shows little sign of abating.

 

Put a bunch of cement-hands up front and chronic lapses into confusion in the D-zone, and hey presto, a lottery team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

The other thing is comical defensive breakdowns. I don't know what's with this group, but that's been happening all season and shows little sign of abating.

 

Petry has always been gaffe-prone.  We're seeing that Chiarot is of a similar mould, maybe worse.  Weber too, to a lesser extent.  Maybe our best defenders are just good for a few glaring miscues per game.

Link to comment
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.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...