I fell asleep early last night, so I didn't see a second of Sharks-Golden Knights last night. I was asleep at least a good hour before the puck ever dropped, maybe closer to two. So, regrettably, I didn't see this sequence live, but I've watched quite a few replays of it. Here is today's discussion: And, yeah. It looks really bad and it was clearly a very scary moment. It is always a bit shocking to see the bright, vibrant red of fresh blood against the pristine white ice of a hockey arena. But, when we get down to it, it really seems more unfortunate than anything. Cody Eakin does give Joe Pavelski a cross check there. That part is really clear, but the contact really doesn't appear to be that egregious. I feel like the sort of contact happens quite a bit throughout a hockey game and very often goes totally uncalled and uncommented on. I also feel like, nine times out of ten, Pavelski either regains his balance there or at least falls pretty harmlessly on his side. Instead, he unfortunately turns into another player (Paul Stastny, I believe), which leads to another tangle up and causes Pavelski to meet the ice head first. And, well, yeah. You're going to have to call a penalty after that. I don't think anybody is saying absolutely nothing should have been called. But the explanation for calling Eakin's hit a major was "The referees called a crosschecking penalty for an infraction that caused a significant injury. In their judgement, the infraction and its result merited a major penalty." And, well, that just doesn't look like the truth to me. Yes, Pavelski looked to be significantly injured, but it was really just the bad luck of getting tied up with Stastny that caused that. There was nothing dirty about that hit, and I'm not even sure how intentional that hit was. I don't think Stastny really expected Pavelski to even be there when he skated that direction. You have to call a penalty, yes, but I think you could have called a minor there and nobody outside San Jose would have complained. I don't even know how many inside San Jose would have complained. I guess we'll never know. So, that's part one of the complaint, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm with Vegas on this one.* I don't think that should have been deemed a major. When I first read the story, though, I still scoffed at this one call "stealing the series." And, I guess, on some level, I still scoff at it. You had seven games to win four. That's like blaming Cody Parkey for ruining the Bears' season. Yeah, he absolutely should have made that kick, but there was nothing else that could have been done to make sure the game didn't come down to one kick? Similarly, the Knights had three other games the Sharks won, including one in double-overtime in game six. So, in that sense, yeah, there were other chances to win this series. *I'm putting a note here for myself to write about why I'm opposed to the Vegas Golden Knights on principle. And probably Seattle, too, but more to Vegas. But, when it comes to this one game? That just happened to be game seven? Well, actually, I buy that argument for Vegas, too. It was three-zip just under halfway through the third period. A team can blow a three goal lead, ask Tampa Bay about it. But it seems pretty unlikely they would blow that lead in ten minutes, especially with eight of those minutes being 5-on-5. Instead, because it was a major, it doesn't go back to even strength after a goal. So San Jose was able to cash in four times in those five minutes, coming out of it ahead 4-3. Vegas would score again to force overtime, where San Jose won it just before the buzzer. So Vegas still had a chance to win it even after everything, but they didn't. I won't take that argument away from Sharks fans. But I will say the Sharks would have never been in that position without that call. Is that "stealing the series?" Probably not. Probably. But it is pretty iffy. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
March 2022
|