Jump to content

Last 1.2 seconds against the Bruins


Peter Puck

Recommended Posts

Excellent observation PP :clap: .

I believe the Habs could possibly have scored in 1.2 seconds with a robust wristshot or slapshot from center ice traveling 150kph. The distance from the center ice point to the back boards is 30,48 meters with the goal line 3,4 meters from the end boards. Thus the distance to be covered by the puck is 27,08 meters.

Assuming a peak takeoff velocity of 41.66 meters/sec, using the formula of time=distance/velocity, the puck would cross the goal line in just 0,65 seconds. Of course, kinematics and air resistance would have to be factored here, so even if the puck could be shot a little harder Habs could not have done it twice in the allotted time.

But once? Yes!

So, yet again, clearly we was robbed by the refs!

? :?- ? :?- ??? :?- ? :?- ?

Go :hlogo: Go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now what else should we change - shorthanded chances are effected, as are power play goals too - Have to change that one too to reflect goals averaged per minutes? Should we change faceoff stats too because Koivu might have missed a chance to up the average.

After a while ya just have to come to grips with the system - like any other in place it has some flaws. Trouble is we only gripe & grumble if we think it affects ourselves adversely. However it's always perfect though if the other guy gets the short end of it......

Edited by beliveau1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think that if they played the last l.2 seconds of the game, we would have scored again? I understand that Boston would have probably pulled their goalie, but us scoring in that time doesn't seem very realistic IMO.

The point is that the Boston crowd prevented anything from happening... so as a penalty to the crowd and boston the Habs should get that penalty removed from the books... if this had happened with say 3 minutes left the ref would have announced a warning to the boston bench and the crowd stating that another penalty could be issued if the crowd didnt start behaving normally!

so what peter puck says is debateable although not truly that important after 82 games now for 10 games it does matter... but for sure not at the end of the season when it truly counts... that is by far the major point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't think they started the clock since the official nhl site doesn't show a faceoff after the goal.

Even if they had, without a faceoff, it wouldn't have allowed us the chance to run our short PP strategy. I know that there is no further penalty to the Bruins nor to Axelsson. But the fact remains the NHL considers we went 0 for 1 on the PP after Markov's goal. This lowers our PP percentage.

You're right but at the end of a season, I guarantee you that at the end of the year, if you take away one failed PP, we will move anywhere in the PP rankings. Our percentage might not even change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right but at the end of a season, I guarantee you that at the end of the year, if you take away one failed PP, we will move anywhere in the PP rankings. Our percentage might not even change.

Yes naturally. But what if we beat 1 team a week on the road for the rest of the year with a goal in the final 2 seconds and their fans go nuts and litter the ice. Over the course of the season this will add about an extra 0 for 24 to our stats. That could easily drop us 1 or 2 positions in the final PP stats. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent observation PP :clap:

I believe the Habs could possibly have scored in 1,2 seconds with a robust wristshot or slapshot from center ice traveling 150kph. The distance from the center ice point to the back boards is 30,48 meters with the goal line 3,4 meters from the end boards. Thus the distance to be covered by the puck is 27,08 meters.

Assuming a peak takeoff velocity of 41,66 meters/sec, using the formula of time=distance/velocity, the puck would cross the goal line in just 0,65 seconds. Of course, kinematics and air resistance would have to be factored here, so even if the puck could be shot a little harder Habs could not have done it twice in the allotted time.

But once? Yes!

So, yet again, clearly we was robbed by the refs!

This is exactly the sort of analysis we need to send to Bettman. In fact with a small increase in velocity (of less than 9%) we can shave the time required to score down to 0.6 seconds. This would have allowed us to score 2 goals (only 1 on the powerplay unless Axelsson had gone nuts again) in the missing 1.2 seconds.

I don't gamble myself but I believe a final score of 5-2 might have effected the results of some people's sports line lottery tickets. Bloody refs!

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...