US girls were:Gary: ahead tw0 to nothing with 3 minutes left and still lost,bummer.
Live Stoner Chat Dam canadiens
- Thread starter namvet25
- Start date
Muddy
Proud deplorable!
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 8,673
- Reputation
- 10
- Reaction score
- 1,554
- Points
- 0
- Currently Smoking
- OG Kush, Deep Cheese, Key Lime
That was a heart breaker. Instead of sticking to their uptempo game they sat back and dried to sit on their lead. The ref also influenced the outcome. For three periods she let everything go, then started calling penalties in OT that she was ignoring before. There never should have been a 5 or 3. That last penalty was cheap and cost the US the gold. But congrats to our friends up north. They were deserving as well.
AndyBotwin
Weed Whisperer
A two goal lead is the toughest one to handle in hockey. Big enough that you don't want to take too many chances and give them an opening, but small enough that one lucky bounce gets your opponent within striking range with the momentum. That first goal scored by Canada was a fluke, but it was the break they needed to swing the game back in their favor. Tough break for USA hitting the empty net post, also. Brutal way to lose the gold and one that will haunt those ladies for the rest of their days.
Your exactly right Andy,just what I was going to say.
Gotta keep in mind that Hockey still is our National Sport. Its what we do in one way or another. Now its time for the guys to show whats up.
I'm definitely biased - but I have been enjoying the Olympic hockey very, very much (as I do every Olympic run - whether its featured amateur or pro players) - so much talent and heart on the ice.
I've been a hard-core hockey fan for nearly 40 years - and for what its worth - I would rate this Olympics reffing (both women's and men's) as the most consistent of any that I can recall.
I'm another that prefers to see the whistles go into pockets in the big games - and let the players decide the outcome - but that only ever happens in deciding games of the NHL playoffs - and even then, taking away break-away scoring chances and blatant stick infractions (high sticking, slashing) will still be called.
The British ref had no choice but to call the cross-checking infraction on Canada in OT (women's gold game) - but you could tell she didn't want to. It didn't take away a scoring chance (the puck had already been frozen) - and when she had a chance to even it up some seconds later calling the US player for slashing the goalies pads (something she had already been warned about) - she took it.
Much credit to that referee - she kept her calls consistent, but removed herself from deciding the outcome by giving neither team a player advantage. Besides - three on three in OT - does it get any better than that?
The final call was a no-brainer - it had to be called. The only way you can impede a player on a break away is if the defending player contacts the puck first - everything else is a call - no if ands or buts - in every league that is a penalty call.
The call should have been tripping and not cross-checking (their skates got tangled up) - and the only reason I can think of for calling it that, is that if she had called it tripping it would have had to have been a penalty shot and not a 2 minute minor. I think the ref was trying to remove herself from deciding the outcome (because giving the Wick - Hayley Wickenheiser - a penalty shot is very nearly a lock) - because a penalty shot would have been the correct call for that infraction.
Anyway - I thought I'd offer up my take on the reffing of that OT period - because I've read a lot recently, about how bad the calls were, but mostly from non-Canadian sports writers that don't know much about hockey, or its rules.
I'll be up very, very early tomorrow morning - to watch the men's gold medal game. The Swedes are fast and dangerous and play a very good puck possession game - with a very good goalie thats no stranger to this kind of pressure.
That said - I think the Canadian team is about as well rounded and talented a hockey team that has ever taken the ice in any Olympic hockey competition - and if they come to play, they will wear the gold medal.
No matter the outcome - I'm predicting some of the best hockey any of us may see in our lifetimes (as this looks to be the last Olympics that will feature all-star NHL teams).
I've been a hard-core hockey fan for nearly 40 years - and for what its worth - I would rate this Olympics reffing (both women's and men's) as the most consistent of any that I can recall.
I'm another that prefers to see the whistles go into pockets in the big games - and let the players decide the outcome - but that only ever happens in deciding games of the NHL playoffs - and even then, taking away break-away scoring chances and blatant stick infractions (high sticking, slashing) will still be called.
The British ref had no choice but to call the cross-checking infraction on Canada in OT (women's gold game) - but you could tell she didn't want to. It didn't take away a scoring chance (the puck had already been frozen) - and when she had a chance to even it up some seconds later calling the US player for slashing the goalies pads (something she had already been warned about) - she took it.
Much credit to that referee - she kept her calls consistent, but removed herself from deciding the outcome by giving neither team a player advantage. Besides - three on three in OT - does it get any better than that?
The final call was a no-brainer - it had to be called. The only way you can impede a player on a break away is if the defending player contacts the puck first - everything else is a call - no if ands or buts - in every league that is a penalty call.
The call should have been tripping and not cross-checking (their skates got tangled up) - and the only reason I can think of for calling it that, is that if she had called it tripping it would have had to have been a penalty shot and not a 2 minute minor. I think the ref was trying to remove herself from deciding the outcome (because giving the Wick - Hayley Wickenheiser - a penalty shot is very nearly a lock) - because a penalty shot would have been the correct call for that infraction.
Anyway - I thought I'd offer up my take on the reffing of that OT period - because I've read a lot recently, about how bad the calls were, but mostly from non-Canadian sports writers that don't know much about hockey, or its rules.
I'll be up very, very early tomorrow morning - to watch the men's gold medal game. The Swedes are fast and dangerous and play a very good puck possession game - with a very good goalie thats no stranger to this kind of pressure.
That said - I think the Canadian team is about as well rounded and talented a hockey team that has ever taken the ice in any Olympic hockey competition - and if they come to play, they will wear the gold medal.
No matter the outcome - I'm predicting some of the best hockey any of us may see in our lifetimes (as this looks to be the last Olympics that will feature all-star NHL teams).
Similar threads
