Jump to content

13 January, Canadiens at Blackhawks, 8:30 PM EST


tomh009
 Share

Recommended Posts

image.png

 

MONTREAL CANADIENS

 

Lehkonen - Suzuki - Hoffman
Drouin - Dvorak - Armia
Dauphin - Poehling - Caufield
Paquette - Vejdemo - Pezzetta

 

Chiarot - Savard
Kulak - Petry
Niku - Romanov

 

Montembeault
Primeau

 

Scratched: Jake Evans

Injured: Brendan Gallagher (lower body), Josh Anderson (upper body), Tyler Toffoli (hand), Mathieu Perreault (undisclosed), Joel Edmundson (undisclosed), Jake Allen (lower body)

Suspended: Chris Wideman

COVID-19 protocol: Alex Belzile, Kale Clague

 

CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS


DeBrincat - Toews - Connolly
Kubalik - Reichel - Kane
Entwistle - Kurashev - Dach
Khaira - Borgstrom - Carpenter

 

de Haan - Mitchell
Jones - Murphy
Galvas - Stillman

 

Fleury
Lankinen

 

Scratched: Kurtis Gabriel, Sam Lafferty, Brandon Hagel

Injured: Reese Johnson (clavicle), Tyler Johnson (neck)

COVID-19 protocol: Seth Jones, Erik Gustafsson, Jake McCabe

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprisingly considering how long they were off, the Habs don't have their skating legs so far.  They also seem to be allergic to the middle of the ice in the offensive zone; even when they have the puck, they skate their way out of the dangerous spot to go to the perimeter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Commandant said:

They definitely look like a team that was off for 12 days and came back with a back to back including travel across a time zone.

 

And also they generally suck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

64 is pretty shakey

Poehling has more shots than all the rest of forward group.

 

Thats gotta be hard to only get 1 shot from 12 guys for a period. Pitlick helped that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DON said:

64 is pretty shakey

Poehling has more shots than all the rest of forward group.

 

Thats gotta be hard to only get 1 shot from 12 guys for a period. Pitlick helped that.

I was surprised to see Schueneman instead if Niku.

 

Pitlick ... well, he has as many shots as Toffoli, Hoffman and Caufield put together. 🤪

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second period is as from a different game. Still some of the same struggles, Caufield trying too hard, PP entries difficult, but the team came out of the intermission with far more energy, and they have really outplayed the Blackhawks so far in the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A win would be great to see, but not a ton of confidence that will happen.

Romanov's spirited play is nice to see again.:clap:

 

Hoffman can really fire a puck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

The second period is as from a different game. Still some of the same struggles, Caufield trying too hard, PP entries difficult, but the team came out of the intermission with far more energy, and they have really outplayed the Blackhawks so far in the second.

 

I agree with all of that, but that was a great play by Caufield on Petry's goal.  He moved towards mid ice out near the blue line, which drew DeBrincat over and left Petry open so he could go in down low and score.  i.e. Petry was DeBrincats guy to cover. 

 

Great hit by Romy!!

 

Nice goal by Hoffman. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

What a weird game with the goal in overtime and the interminable reviews 

 

That was really strange.  I paused the game before OT started and when I resumed it I could see there was a fair amount time left.  I automatically assumed that the game went to a SO.  When they did the 2nd review I was still thinking SO because there was still 10 mins left on what I was watching. 

 

That was a crap way to lose the game thats for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL has become a joke.  Video review (particularly the way the NHL does it) has left the door open for bias, which clearly allows for the fixing of games.  I am not saying it happened, but perception is reality.

 

You can debate all you want about the two calls in overtime last night - but that is the point - you CAN DEBATE!  Which means either call could have gone either way.  That means someone other than the players determined the outcome.  The minute that happens there is the 'appearance' of bias.

 

Team Tank is happy the calls went the way they did.

 

Habs fans looking for a good game are not.

 

Blackhawks fans are thrilled.

 

The 'appearance' of bias is something that sports MUST work every day to eliminate at all costs.

 

There are all kinds of laws in business that address the 'perception' or 'appearance' of things like bias, conflict of interest, etc.

 

Why the NHL feels it is ok to just put their hands in their pockets and whistle their way to the next rink is a mystery to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having referees’ calls subject to review arguably makes “fixing” less likely. If you’re trying to rig an outcome and there’s no review, all you need to do is to get to the ref, whereas now there are multiple parties involved.

 

Besides, NHL rule-calling (on the ice and supplemental discipline) has always had massive biases. It has always been based, for example, on personal preferences regarding players; some players are “good guys” who “play the right way” and follow “The Code” and therefore get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to calls and supplemental discipline: Weber, Chara. Other players are “punks” and “weasels” and “uppity” who therefore get the shaft: Alex Burrows, please step forward, or Subban and Gally early in their careers. (And Patches, who was a bit of a hotshot when he first started scoring, “deserved” to be nearly crippled for life by Good Guy Chara). 

 

This isn’t even a secret. A while ago, ref Ron MacLean hosted an intermission segment on whether Connor McDavid was being fairly treated by the refs. And his main point was to show a clip of McDavid talking nice and friendly to the ref between plays, explaining that “this is how you do it, Connor.” In other words, kiss the refs’ asses and you get calls. Challenge them or be uppity and it’s open season for your opponents to do interfere and carve you into mincemeat. 

 

The normalization of favouritism and bias - basic injustice, in other words - seems to apply to teams as well. Some teams get a reputation as being “dirty” for stickwork, or “mouthy” to the refs, or otherwise being in heinous violation of The Code. E.g., the Canucks in the 2011 Finals, as opposed to those Good Old Boys, the Boston Bruins. I have little doubt that an owner who gets on the wrong side of the ownership old boys’ club will find review and supplemental discipline decisions starting to fall on the side of their opponents. This is the NHL way: nepotism, bias, and ass-kissing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can accept the result of the first review: based on how the rules are written, it's a valid goal. (And even if it were not, there would have been a Chicago PP or penalty shot.)

 

The result of the offside review is much more questionable, though, and a big part of that, too, is how the rule is written: it's not always obvious from a video replay whether the player is "in control" of the puck when crossing the line. I thought he wasn't, but clearly the review team thought otherwise.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

I can accept the result of the first review: based on how the rules are written, it's a valid goal. (And even if it were not, there would have been a Chicago PP or penalty shot.)

 

The result of the offside review is much more questionable, though, and a big part of that, too, is how the rule is written: it's not always obvious from a video replay whether the player is "in control" of the puck when crossing the line. I thought he wasn't, but clearly the review team thought otherwise.

 

 

 

There will never be  a perfect system where everyone is happy but they have made progress over the years.  I remember a playoff game many years ago where Montreal was playing the Rangers. Serge Savard (I think) clearly scored an overtime winner but the puck went in and out so fast that the goal judge missed it. They didn't use video replay so it never counted. Fortunately the Habs scored just a bit later to win the game. It would have been an absolute travesty if they had ended up losing that game. That type of thing would never happen today. 

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...