2012 Memorial Cup

[dash]

Geez, I leave for a few minutes, come back and it's 4-3 Edmonton. What the heck happened?

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Geez, I leave for a few minutes, come back and it's 4-3 Edmonton. What the heck happened?

Edmonton post-1990 happened.

Might be that this Oil King team is too good to be tainted by the virus of Edmonfail that seems to be going around.

 

[puckhead]

The penalty on Pysyk that lead to Shawinigan's second power play (and goal) was awful. That ref should be ashamed, lol.

first thing I thought when I saw that "Two minutes for being big and strong".

Just one more reason to hate the Oil Kings - Ulf Samuelsson's son Henrik is on the team.

hell, I dislike Ryan Suter mainly for stuff his uncle did.

also, I thought Shawiniganwas an educated hockey crowd...
Kabanov takes a puck in the face, and the crowd hollers relentlessly for a penalty???

Cataractes held in better than I expected. Figured they would fade away after the initial home-crowd surge was over. They kind of did, but full marks for almost coming back.
what the hell is a Cataracte? who names a hockey team after an eye ailment?

and I am developing a man-crush on Griffin Reinhart. especially on the powerplay




edit: thank you wikipedia
The name literally translates as "Cataracts" meaning "Waterfalls"; the team is named for Shawinigan Falls, a prominent waterfall in the city, even though they do not have a waterfall on their uniform.

 

[puckhead]

as an aside, that was fascinating to be able to listen in on that goal review.
there was massive mis-communication between the (french) ref and the (english) video judge.
puck clearly squeaked over the line during a pile-up, but the ref blew the whistle and raise both arms to call the play dead.


ref: "I didn't see the puck crossing the line - did the puck go in?"
vid: "the puck did cross the line, it's just a matter of whether you blew the whistle before the puck went in"
ref: "so it's a good goal?"
vid: "depends on when the whistle blew, but the puck did cross the line"
ref: "I didn't blow the whistle before the puck crossed the line" **** impossible for him to know, as he admitted he didn't see the puck
vid: ~ awkward pause ~
ref: "So we go with a goal?"
vid: "we go with your on ice call" **** which was 'no goal'
ref: "so it's a goal?"
vid (getting frustrated now): "the puck crossed the line yes"
ref: "OK, it's a goal"

 

[juliansteed]

first thing I thought when I saw that "Two minutes for being big and strong".

hell, I dislike Ryan Suter mainly for stuff his uncle did.

also, I thought Shawiniganwas an educated hockey crowd...
Kabanov takes a puck in the face, and the crowd hollers relentlessly for a penalty???

Cataractes held in better than I expected. Figured they would fade away after the initial home-crowd surge was over. They kind of did, but full marks for almost coming back.
what the hell is a Cataracte? who names a hockey team after an eye ailment?

and I am developing a man-crush on Griffin Reinhart. especially on the powerplay




edit: thank you wikipedia
The name literally translates as "Cataracts" meaning "Waterfalls"; the team is named for Shawinigan Falls, a prominent waterfall in the city, even though they do not have a waterfall on their uniform.

Ageed. I've often wondered about a lot of the Quebec team names. Not sure of the literal tanslastion of a Cateracts but their logo is an Indian of some sort.

Edit I'm drunk and it looks like someone already answere the question. D'oh!

 

[beantownmaniac]

Just one more reason to hate the Oil Kings - Ulf Samuelsson's son Henrik is on the team.

That's all I need to hear buddy. FUCK THE OIL KINGS!!!!!!!

 

[Eddie_Shack]

as an aside, that was fascinating to be able to listen in on that goal review.
there was massive mis-communication between the (french) ref and the (english) video judge.
puck clearly squeaked over the line during a pile-up, but the ref blew the whistle and raise both arms to call the play dead.


ref: "I didn't see the puck crossing the line - did the puck go in?"
vid: "the puck did cross the line, it's just a matter of whether you blew the whistle before the puck went in"
ref: "so it's a good goal?"
vid: "depends on when the whistle blew, but the puck did cross the line"
ref: "I didn't blow the whistle before the puck crossed the line" **** impossible for him to know, as he admitted he didn't see the puck
vid: ~ awkward pause ~
ref: "So we go with a goal?"
vid: "we go with your on ice call" **** which was 'no goal'
ref: "so it's a goal?"
vid (getting frustrated now): "the puck crossed the line yes"
ref: "OK, it's a goal"

lol.... I'd love to hear NHL goal judge conversations over the phone...

 

[Destroydacre]

as an aside, that was fascinating to be able to listen in on that goal review.
there was massive mis-communication between the (french) ref and the (english) video judge.
puck clearly squeaked over the line during a pile-up, but the ref blew the whistle and raise both arms to call the play dead.


ref: "I didn't see the puck crossing the line - did the puck go in?"
vid: "the puck did cross the line, it's just a matter of whether you blew the whistle before the puck went in"
ref: "so it's a good goal?"
vid: "depends on when the whistle blew, but the puck did cross the line"
ref: "I didn't blow the whistle before the puck crossed the line" **** impossible for him to know, as he admitted he didn't see the puck
vid: ~ awkward pause ~
ref: "So we go with a goal?"
vid: "we go with your on ice call" **** which was 'no goal'
ref: "so it's a goal?"
vid (getting frustrated now): "the puck crossed the line yes"
ref: "OK, it's a goal"

A few things:

1) I absolutely love that they have mics for the video review booth. The Memorial Cup has done that for a few years now and it's great.

2) That conversation was hilarious to listen to at the time. Like you said the lack of communication led directly to that goal.

3) I actually liked that they allowed that goal. The puck was never covered and although the whistle may have blown before the puck crossed the line, the whistle had no impact on the play (such as the whistle blowing, players stop playing and then the puck went in). You see so many goals disallowed in the NHL when the ref blows the whistle (or is in the act of blowing the whistle) and the puck was never covered it's nearly infuriating. So although the call was "blown" because of the miscommunication, I did like the end result.

 

[puckhead]

A few things:

1) I absolutely love that they have mics for the video review booth. The Memorial Cup has done that for a few years now and it's great.

2) That conversation was hilarious to listen to at the time. Like you said the lack of communication led directly to that goal.

3) I actually liked that they allowed that goal. The puck was never covered and although the whistle may have blown before the puck crossed the line, the whistle had no impact on the play (such as the whistle blowing, players stop playing and then the puck went in). You see so many goals disallowed in the NHL when the ref blows the whistle (or is in the act of blowing the whistle) and the puck was never covered it's nearly infuriating. So although the call was "blown" because of the miscommunication, I did like the end result.

agree with all of that.
zero chance they uncloak the NHL referee process though. Too strong of a union.
Players, owners and fans would all want it, but the refs wouldn't want to open up another area to be second guessed (i.e. have errors or uncertainty brought in clear view)

too bad. it's a really interesting insight into the game.

 

[puckhead]

I bet no one noticed it, but his message is out there now!

Memorial Cup anthem singer let go for flashing political message - NHL.com - News

 

[KennyBanyeah]

I bet no one noticed it, but his message is out there now!

Memorial Cup anthem singer let go for flashing political message - NHL.com - News

LOL.

I'm confused. Is he pro-Harper and anti-Kyoto then?

 

[flyersfan4706]

Pretty excited for this Sea Dogs-Knights game tonight. Want to see Olli Maatta

 

[flyersfan4706]

Domi ties it up on a nifty goal

 

[KennyBanyeah]

London takes the momentum.

 

[flyersfan4706]

Beautiful tip! 2-1 London

 

[puckhead]

 

[Ho_Brah]

as an aside, that was fascinating to be able to listen in on that goal review.
there was massive mis-communication between the (french) ref and the (english) video judge.
puck clearly squeaked over the line during a pile-up, but the ref blew the whistle and raise both arms to call the play dead.


ref: "I didn't see the puck crossing the line - did the puck go in?"
vid: "the puck did cross the line, it's just a matter of whether you blew the whistle before the puck went in"
ref: "so it's a good goal?"
vid: "depends on when the whistle blew, but the puck did cross the line"
ref: "I didn't blow the whistle before the puck crossed the line" **** impossible for him to know, as he admitted he didn't see the puck
vid: ~ awkward pause ~
ref: "So we go with a goal?"
vid: "we go with your on ice call" **** which was 'no goal'
ref: "so it's a goal?"
vid (getting frustrated now): "the puck crossed the line yes"
ref: "OK, it's a goal"

That shit was hilarious! The ref — I gather from his accent — is a native French speaker. The video goal judge is not. They are speaking in English, and the entire time it sounds to me like they are talking past each other. The ref indicates that he blew the whistle and that he never saw the puck cross the line. I can’t tell if he means he didn’t see it cross the line before he blew the whistle or if he didn’t see the puck in the net ever. Since the latter makes no sense, I lean toward the former. But he asks if the puck crossed the line, not bringing up the issue of before/after the whistle. The video goal judge raises the issue several times, but the ref — who didn’t see the puck cross the goal line, and did eventually blow the whistle — only wants to know if the puck crossed the line ever.

The fucked up part of the exchange is the end where the ref asks the video goal judge if it’s a good goal, three times, as if it’s the video goal judge’s decision, and the video goal judge answers that the puck crossed the line, at that point dropping the whole issue of when the ref blew the whistle!!!

And then the video goal judge says “we go with your on ice call” as if the ref signaled it was a goal on the ice, which — as far as I can tell — he did not. Certainly at no time in their conversation did the ref say that he signaled goal on the ice, and in fact, the only thing he said definitively is that he never saw the puck cross the line. If he never saw the puck cross the line, how could the video goal judge think that the call on the ice was “good goal”?

All this, in the third period of a Memorial Cup game, with the score 3-1. 3-2 after the goal that the ref never saw was allowed to stand.

My fear is that this is what goes on in NHL games all the time. It would explain a lot.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

I wonder what Dennis LaRue and Stephan Auger said to the goal judge after the Brad May No Goal in the Wings/Stars game... or was it Brad Watson? Why do I know it was LaRue but I want to say Watson?

 

[Ho_Brah]

or Brad Doty

 

[Destroydacre]

Credit where credit is due, I was very impressed by London's composure in this game against the reigning champions and possibly the most veteran team you will ever see at the junior level. Saint John just didn't seem to have that collected control in this game that carried them through last year's Memorial Cup. But I think they'll still be fine, London needed this game more than Saint John did IMO. But they can't become complacent against Edmonton. They gotta win that one to avoid going 0-2 which would mean facing elimination for the rest of the tournament. London/Shawinigan should be interesting tomorrow, though after beating the Sea Dogs, I expect the Knights to win. But in the Memorial Cup, you just never know for sure.