|
|
Post by lirette on Apr 11, 2023 22:37:02 GMT -4
Has to be up there for one of the most entertaining series in Cats history.
Team was a complete mess with line changes, turnovers and defensive coverage, but there was a hell of a lot of heart out there.
All I wanted out of this season was to have home ice for round 1 and win round 1, especially if it could be winning on home ice. They took a wild path to get there but accomplished it none the less.
If they could even keep one game close against Halifax I'd be happy with that, preferably one of the first games just for the fun of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sc74 on Apr 11, 2023 22:51:14 GMT -4
The ref had a much better angle than this shows. Would also love to see the overhead. Moncton crew showed 0 replays of it. I think Morin's reaction says it all! It was a goal. |
|
|
|
Post by WhiteTyAffair on Apr 11, 2023 23:00:49 GMT -4
Wooooo! Game 7 OT win - tough to beat that. HE’S ALIVE! |
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Apr 11, 2023 23:06:25 GMT -4
The ref had a much better angle than this shows. Would also love to see the overhead. Moncton crew showed 0 replays of it. I think Morin's reaction says it all! It was a goal. There's no debating the puck went in the net. The call is that it was jabbed at when Steinman had it. |
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Apr 11, 2023 23:19:11 GMT -4
If the Cats didn't take that dumb too many men penalty this series is likely over. Overall you can't shame the effort on the ice, they completely outworked and outplayed BC, but lacked some execution around the net. Need less shooting into shinpads and low percentage point shots and more driving the puck into the slot. Of course it wouldn't be playoffs without a dramatic Mat Hicks penalty call (I assume it was his call on the major). Up and down game for Labelle for sure. He was at fault on the too many men penalty. He totally redeems himself by tying the game. Unfortunately he got caught puck watching and let his guy walk into the slot 23 seconds into OT. I have a feeling he's going to have a big game tonight. Put him down for at least a goal. He's been one of our most consistent players all season but hasn't found his groove in the playoffs.  |
|
|
|
Post by lirette on Apr 11, 2023 23:25:23 GMT -4
I think Morin's reaction says it all! It was a goal. There's no debating the puck went in the net. The call is that it was jabbed at when Steinman had it. Yeah I don't think Morin has any idea Mario is waving it off when he reacts like that lol. He wouldn't have even been in his peripheral vision. |
|
|
|
Post by sc74 on Apr 12, 2023 20:54:53 GMT -4
Another angle
Still a good goal... how can you see goaltender interference on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by WHEELsnipePARTY on Apr 13, 2023 4:34:40 GMT -4
Another angle Still a good goal... how can you see goaltender interference on this? It looks like it comes loose as he’s pushed backwards, that’s why it didn’t count. Not goalie interference |
|
|
|
Post by lirette on Apr 13, 2023 7:09:10 GMT -4
Another angle Still a good goal... how can you see goaltender interference on this? It looks like it comes loose as he’s pushed backwards, that’s why it didn’t count. Not goalie interference Yeah I find that angle actually makes it abit clearer as to why you could see that call was made. Its not definitive by any means, but the puck disappears, then the players stick goes between his legs, the goalie goes backwards and the puck goes in. The part that's hard to tell is was the puck going to go in anyways? If they didn't have an angle that clearly showed them that it explains why they couldn't overturn it. |
|
|
|
Post by yesisaiditfirst on Apr 13, 2023 9:05:39 GMT -4
It looks like it comes loose as he’s pushed backwards, that’s why it didn’t count. Not goalie interference Yeah I find that angle actually makes it abit clearer as to why you could see that call was made. Its not definitive by any means, but the puck disappears, then the players stick goes between his legs, the goalie goes backwards and the puck goes in. The part that's hard to tell is was the puck going to go in anyways? If they didn't have an angle that clearly showed them that it explains why they couldn't overturn it. It always defaults to what the call was on the ice and that's why the ref who made that call is conferencing on the call. I expect that in his opinion the puck went missing (from his sight assumed beneath goalie) long enough for him to intend to blow whistle to stop play. So unless there was a video evidence that the puck went off the goalie and into the net before the attacking player put his stick there it was going to be no goal. Nobody knows if it was going in anyway before the player stick pushed at the pads. Lost sight of puck is very common call in hockey and is never certain what may have happened some times if play continues because nobody has eyes under the goalie. But he was right if he lost sight of the puck to blow it dead if he thought the puck was stable and not in view of attacking player. The ref had no way of knowing that from his angle. I suspect if the video had shown the puck was loose in front of goalie that may have counted unless he says he blew the whistle before the player got his stick there. That is usually more controversial because then it becomes "intending to blow whistle but now that I see this I wouldn't have". That play needs to stay alive if the puck is out in plain view of players. |
|
|
|
Post by lirette on Apr 13, 2023 9:37:21 GMT -4
Yeah I find that angle actually makes it abit clearer as to why you could see that call was made. Its not definitive by any means, but the puck disappears, then the players stick goes between his legs, the goalie goes backwards and the puck goes in. The part that's hard to tell is was the puck going to go in anyways? If they didn't have an angle that clearly showed them that it explains why they couldn't overturn it. It always defaults to what the call was on the ice and that's why the ref who made that call is conferencing on the call. I expect that in his opinion the puck went missing (from his sight assumed beneath goalie) long enough for him to intend to blow whistle to stop play. So unless there was a video evidence that the puck went off the goalie and into the net before the attacking player put his stick there it was going to be no goal. Nobody knows if it was going in anyway before the player stick pushed at the pads. Lost sight of puck is very common call in hockey and is never certain what may have happened some times if play continues because nobody has eyes under the goalie. But he was right if he lost sight of the puck to blow it dead if he thought the puck was stable and not in view of attacking player. The ref had no way of knowing that from his angle. I suspect if the video had shown the puck was loose in front of goalie that may have counted unless he says he blew the whistle before the player got his stick there. That is usually more controversial because then it becomes "intending to blow whistle but now that I see this I wouldn't have". That play needs to stay alive if the puck is out in plain view of players. The call that he signaled on the ice wasn't about the whistle, he reenacted a shoving motion with a stick when he waved it off. You can see it on the end of the video. |
|
