|
Post by norahs on Oct 24, 2010 13:06:46 GMT -4
As much as the big win in Halifax was nice, you have another game today. Thoughts of the game today and who might be some of your players to watch for? Any up and comers that may be standouts?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 24, 2010 15:19:09 GMT -4
1-0 Eagles. Plouffe with his first. Good to finally get that first out of the way.
|
|
|
Post by hal on Oct 24, 2010 15:22:23 GMT -4
Logan Shaw pound anybody yet ?
|
|
|
Post by hal on Oct 24, 2010 15:50:06 GMT -4
********************************Anybody find it interesting that our announcer Kyle just asked Dan Robertson if Saint John should sell at x-mas time in anticipation of hosting the Memorial Cup next year . Hey Kyle ..........................why don't you ask Super Mario if he was thinking about that ...........last x-mas time ? How bout doing that will yah ? ******************
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 24, 2010 16:11:41 GMT -4
Tie game. Cuzner helped off the ice again. Favoring his left leg.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 24, 2010 16:57:06 GMT -4
MacIntosh with his first of the year. 3-2 Titan lead.
|
|
|
Post by Y Ddraig Goch on Oct 24, 2010 17:01:45 GMT -4
MacIntosh with his first of the year. 3-2 Titan lead. Shouldn't MacIntosh be suspended for the Match Penalty on Friday? (regardless what you think of the call) I thought a Match Penalty was an automatic suspension 1 game.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 24, 2010 17:02:58 GMT -4
MacIntosh with his first of the year. 3-2 Titan lead. Shouldn't MacIntosh be suspended for the Match Penalty on Friday? (regardless what you think of the call) I thought a Match Penalty was an automatic suspension 1 game. I didn't see it, so, I have no comment on that, but, he's definitely in the line up tonight!
|
|
|
Post by norahs on Oct 24, 2010 18:33:54 GMT -4
MacIntosh with his first of the year. 3-2 Titan lead. Shouldn't MacIntosh be suspended for the Match Penalty on Friday? (regardless what you think of the call) I thought a Match Penalty was an automatic suspension 1 game. match penalty just kicks you out of the game you are in, not the next one. It is called a code 4 or code 5 violation. I can't remember which. You have to have so many of those built up before you get a suspension. I think it is 3 you need for a automatic 1 game suspension.
|
|
|
Post by norahs on Oct 24, 2010 18:36:02 GMT -4
tonight's game was a decent one for CB and a great one for Lacerte. I'm not sure why they went and got another goalie, as he was amazing tonight. Bathurst had stretches in your zone where whole shifts just kept getting chances and putting pucks on him. He was the reason the game wasn't 5 or 6 to 2.
|
|
|
Post by Reesor on Oct 24, 2010 19:10:54 GMT -4
Shouldn't MacIntosh be suspended for the Match Penalty on Friday? (regardless what you think of the call) I thought a Match Penalty was an automatic suspension 1 game. match penalty just kicks you out of the game you are in, not the next one. It is called a code 4 or code 5 violation. I can't remember which. You have to have so many of those built up before you get a suspension. I think it is 3 you need for a automatic 1 game suspension. The term "match penalty" I believe is the term given for an intent to injure. The penalty in the game for a Match penalty is a game misconduct. 3 game misconducts is an automatic 1 game suspension, however I thought, that a match penalty was also an automatic one game suspension, but the league had the right to reverse that decision if it wanted to. They might have saw that the hit in the Moose game Friday night did not warrant that 1 game suspension and overruled it.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 24, 2010 19:28:34 GMT -4
match penalty just kicks you out of the game you are in, not the next one. It is called a code 4 or code 5 violation. I can't remember which. You have to have so many of those built up before you get a suspension. I think it is 3 you need for a automatic 1 game suspension. The term "match penalty" I believe is the term given for an intent to injure. The penalty in the game for a Match penalty is a game misconduct. 3 game misconducts is an automatic 1 game suspension, however I thought, that a match penalty was also an automatic one game suspension, but the league had the right to reverse that decision if it wanted to. They might have saw that the hit in the Moose game Friday night did not warrant that 1 game suspension and overruled it. A match penalty has always been a situation where the player is suspended indefinitely ... he may not play again until the Q tells him he can play again. If the Q tells him he can play the next game then he can. However, t was my understanding that you had an automatic suspension for the next game. Trask got a match awhile back ... he played the next game ... the entire crowd knew he had no intent to injure as the guy fell just as he was lining him up ... so it went bad. I'm guessing the Q saw what everybody but the two Refs saw ... and waived the suspension.
|
|
|
Post by Deer on Oct 24, 2010 20:52:53 GMT -4
tonight's game was a decent one for CB and a great one for Lacerte. I'm not sure why they went and got another goalie, as he was amazing tonight. Bathurst had stretches in your zone where whole shifts just kept getting chances and putting pucks on him. He was the reason the game wasn't 5 or 6 to 2. He's been doing that for us all season, singlehandedly keeping us in games... and he's stole a couple of wins for us too. Nobody except Mario has any clue why we needed to try and upgrade in net when there are weaknesses everywhere else. Edit: And possibly even more confusing is that this three-goalie system will probably leave 17-year-old Verroneau lost in the shuffle, which could impact his entire Q career. Last year, Mario brought him up at Xmas, proclaiming him as our goalie of the future.
|
|
|
Post by bois on Oct 25, 2010 8:51:34 GMT -4
tonight's game was a decent one for CB and a great one for Lacerte. I'm not sure why they went and got another goalie, as he was amazing tonight. Bathurst had stretches in your zone where whole shifts just kept getting chances and putting pucks on him. He was the reason the game wasn't 5 or 6 to 2. He's been doing that for us all season, singlehandedly keeping us in games... and he's stole a couple of wins for us too. Nobody except Mario has any clue why we needed to try and upgrade in net when there are weaknesses everywhere else. Edit: And possibly even more confusing is that this three-goalie system will probably leave 17-year-old Verroneau lost in the shuffle, which could impact his entire Q career. Last year, Mario brought him up at Xmas, proclaiming him as our goalie of the future. a little overdramatic with your last point....... it's hardly going to impact his entire Q career because he is now the number 3 goalie until Christmas as a 17 year old hell Evan Mosher got called up at 16... spent his entire 17 year old season in the MJAHL and never became a Q starter until midway thru his 19 year old season..... and he's doing just fine
|
|
|
Post by elementz on Oct 25, 2010 8:57:36 GMT -4
Yes but will Verroneau be sent back to play AAA in Quebec or will he be sitting in the stands for 90% of the season. The latter will hinder his development.
|
|