Andrei Markov gets 3 games

[RadioGaGa 162]

Not sure whether he shoved or grabbed a ref at the end of OT saturday night...but by all accounts this is deserved.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=144876&hubname=

"d'oh!"

With Souray out...and Markov suspended...tomorrow night versus Ottawa just got scarier (if that is possible).

[Kovy_Ribs_Fedo 3]

he grabbed his jersey(arm level).

[Chara3 0]

The ref got what he deserved after that game. Markov not putting up with their trash is almost worth the 3 games the Habs will be without him.

[McCabe#1 0]

Chara, you're an idiot. What a stupid thing to say!

[D3nZ 0]

Selfish move by Markov. For Sourray, he isn't worth "poop" this year, him not beeing in the lineup is a good thing for the Habs but they will for sure miss Markov. I guess they might have to call in Hainsey from Hamilton for a couple of games.

[RadioGaGa 162]

I guess they might have to call in Hainsey from Hamilton for a couple of games.

Not with the waiver rules the way they are....Someone would pick him up and Montreal would be stuck with have his salary if he was exposed again...

They'll either make due....or bring up a kids (Archer, or Cote...although one is hurt or just coming off injury...can't remember who)

[Chadd 916]

I guess they might have to call in Hainsey from Hamilton for a couple of games.

Not with the waiver rules the way they are....Someone would pick him up and Montreal would be stuck with have his salary if he was exposed again...

They'll either make due....or bring up a kids (Archer, or Cote...although one is hurt or just coming off injury...can't remember who)

I thought Hainsey was young enough that he didn't have to clear waivers going up or down?

[RadioGaGa 162]

I guess they might have to call in Hainsey from Hamilton for a couple of games.

Not with the waiver rules the way they are....Someone would pick him up and Montreal would be stuck with have his salary if he was exposed again...

They'll either make due....or bring up a kids (Archer, or Cote...although one is hurt or just coming off injury...can't remember who)

I thought Hainsey was young enough that he didn't have to clear waivers going up or down?

I know he had to on the way down...I think the new rules take into account salary as much as age/NHL experiece...so you can't bury salary in the "A" to keep it off the NHL Cap. Hainsey makes $550,000 (i think)...at $75,000 the waiver rules kick in.

That's why when Clouts got hurt in Vancouver, the kid in Manitoba was brought up instead of Wade Flaherty...who would have been better in the NHL...he makes too much to go up without going through waivers.

[Chara3 0]

Chara, you're an idiot.  What a stupid thing to say!

Yeah I know, its just I'm still upset about that game. Montreal played 5 on 7 the whole 60 minutes.

[Fonya 0]

Chara, you're an idiot.  What a stupid thing to say!

Yeah I know, its just I'm still upset about that game. Montreal played 5 on 7 the whole 60 minutes.

Montreal gets a ton of breaks, so I wouldnt be saying anything.

[Eazy_b97 1]

I figured this is what he would get, I think it is about right for what he did, and the fact he already got in trouble for "abuse of an official", although that was apperantly calling Fraser an "Angry clown"

Please Chara, give it a break, you have been the poster children for the new NHL all season long and you were outplayed all game long. Look to why you weren't able to create chances and had to hook and hold the Leafs all game long anyways. It wasn't until they reverted to the "old system" the Habs even got back into the game. This was also on the back of two "make-up" calls.

[kosydar 0]

Chara, you're an idiot.  What a stupid thing to say!

Yeah I know, its just I'm still upset about that game. Montreal played 5 on 7 the whole 60 minutes.

The penalty totals were 6 to 3, not including Markov's misconduct (he didn't serve any time for it). Not exactly what I would call "playing 5 on 7 for the whole 60 minutes. Instead of getting mad at the officials, you should be frustrated with your team's undisciplined play. Yes, one penalty in particular did cost your team the game, but the only person to blame for it was Rivet (who is from Ontario).

[RadioGaGa 162]

I figured this is what he would get, I think it is about right for what he did, and the fact he already got in trouble for "abuse of an official", although that was apperantly calling Fraser an "Angry clown"

Please Chara, give it a break, you have been the poster children for the new NHL all season long and you were outplayed all game long. Look to why you weren't able to create chances and had to hook and hold the Leafs all game long anyways. It wasn't until they reverted to the "old system" the Habs even got back into the game. This was also on the back of two "make-up" calls.

Here's my problem with that game Saturday.

1. The call on Rivet at the end of the game. Yes...he tripped him..I thought it was a clean diving poke check the first time I saw it, but the replay showed he got leg/skate JUST before puck (but it was close). The refs missed a lot of stuff in that game (both ways), and THAT is what they call as they are going into OT...Meh?!?!?

2. The play where Kronwall and a Hab (don't remember who) slide into Eddie at the side of the net...the puck ends up in the crease. While the other D-Man is tangled with Markov (pretty sure that's who it was). They end up sliding into the crease and the puck gets knocked in...the whistle goes (with the puck clearly in the net). They call it off and say there was contact with the goalie. I have NO problem with that either...if the goalie was interefered with...no goal. But (here's the kicker) they DIDN'T CALL A GOALIE INTEREFERENCE PENALTY. If the contact with the goalie means no goal it's obviously a penalty...right?!?!?. If there is no penalty...why didn't the goal count?

Other than that....sluggish 1st by the Habs...but the 2nd/3rd and OT were great. Good ole Leafs/Habs game.

[Chadd 916]

I guess they might have to call in Hainsey from Hamilton for a couple of games.

Not with the waiver rules the way they are....Someone would pick him up and Montreal would be stuck with have his salary if he was exposed again...

They'll either make due....or bring up a kids (Archer, or Cote...although one is hurt or just coming off injury...can't remember who)

I thought Hainsey was young enough that he didn't have to clear waivers going up or down?

I know he had to on the way down...I think the new rules take into account salary as much as age/NHL experiece...so you can't bury salary in the "A" to keep it off the NHL Cap. Hainsey makes $550,000 (i think)...at $75,000 the waiver rules kick in.

That's why when Clouts got hurt in Vancouver, the kid in Manitoba was brought up instead of Wade Flaherty...who would have been better in the NHL...he makes too much to go up without going through waivers.

If he has a two way contract, and he likely does, he may well be under the 75k for his AHL salary. The 75k waiver limit is actually has been brought before arbitrators as the PHPA (minor league PA) is complaining that it unfairly limits salaries in the minor leagues without them having a chance to negotiate.

2. The play where Kronwall and a Hab (don't remember who) slide into Eddie at the side of the net...the puck ends up in the crease. While the other D-Man is tangled with Markov (pretty sure that's who it was). They end up sliding into the crease and the puck gets knocked in...the whistle goes (with the puck clearly in the net). They call it off and say there was contact with the goalie. I have NO problem with that either...if the goalie was interefered with...no goal. But (here's the kicker) they DIDN'T CALL A GOALIE INTEREFERENCE PENALTY. If the contact with the goalie means no goal it's obviously a penalty...right?!?!?. If there is no penalty...why didn't the goal count?

If the contact between the two skaters was incidental, there is no need for a penalty call. Both guys wee leaning on the other guy and they both went down and both hit the goalie. I thought the whistle and faceoff inside the zone was the correct call.

[D3nZ 0]

When he went to Hamilton the first time he was able to clear it, his salary is too high.

[RadioGaGa 162]

If the contact between the two skaters was incidental, there is no need for a penalty call. Both guys wee leaning on the other guy and they both went down and both hit the goalie. I thought the whistle and faceoff inside the zone was the correct call.

Having never reffed or been certified in any way shape or form to ref or coach hockey, I'm still confused...

Okay...if the contact is incidental and doesn't necessitate a penaly...why call off a goal that comes from that same contact? I understand goalie contact leads to a goal...that's no goal. If "incidental" contact with the goalie that doesn't warrant a penalty ends with a goal...why does it get called off. I could see if the whistle went before it's in...then it's obvious. This just seems like lots of grey (or is it gray) area to me.

And, no...I don't think Hainsey is on a 2-way. He's played well enough in Hamilton, that if he could go up waiver free....he would have by now.

[Chadd 916]

The contact between the two skaters was incidental, neither guy did anything against the rules to the other guy.

They both went down, thus no scoring chance created or denied.

They both made contact with the goalie while off their feet and out of control, it was not their intent to make contact with the goalie.

The contact prevented the goalie from getting across to make the save, hence the whistle.

If there had not been a goal, there would have been no whistle. You don't stop play for something that isn't a penalty.

The defending player was attempting to get body position on his man and did nothing illegal to the attacking player.

The attacking player was trying to get body position on the defender and did nothing illegal to the defending player.

While the attacker was sliding on the ice and unable to change directions or stop, he made enough contact as to prevent the goalie from making an attempt to stop the shot.

No penalty is possible to the defending player as he did nothing wrong. No penalty is possible on the attacking player for the contact with the defender for the same reason. The only potential case for a penalty is against the attacker on the goalie and at that point the attacker was off of his feet and sliding. There was obviously no intent to make contact with the goalie on the part of the attacker and since there was contact with the defender that caused him to go down, the attacker was obviously not in a position to determine the path he would be sliding.

[RadioGaGa 162]

The contact between the two skaters was incidental, neither guy did anything against the rules to the other guy.

They both went down, thus no scoring chance created or denied.

They both made contact with the goalie while off their feet and out of control, it was not their intent to make contact with the goalie.

The contact prevented the goalie from getting across to make the save, hence the whistle.

If there had not been a goal, there would have been no whistle. You don't stop play for something that isn't a penalty.

The defending player was attempting to get body position on his man and did nothing illegal to the attacking player.

The attacking player was trying to get body position on the defender and did nothing illegal to the defending player.

While the attacker was sliding on the ice and unable to change directions or stop, he made enough contact as to prevent the goalie from making an attempt to stop the shot.

No penalty is possible to the defending player as he did nothing wrong. No penalty is possible on the attacking player for the contact with the defender for the same reason. The only potential case for a penalty is against the attacker on the goalie and at that point the attacker was off of his feet and sliding. There was obviously no intent to make contact with the goalie on the part of the attacker and since there was contact with the defender that caused him to go down, the attacker was obviously not in a position to determine the path he would be sliding.

So, it doesn't matter that the player(s) that made contact with teh goalie and the players that caused the puck to enter the net weren't the same. The player(s) that hit Belfour weren't the players that directed the puck into the net, but the contact with the goalie supersedes the other play????

Do I have that right?

Thank you for the explanation btw...very nicely done. (it's the only way I'll learn)

[CardinalHcky19 0]

thats gay

[RadioGaGa 162]

thats gay

Thank you for adding to the conversation.

[Gongshow11 1]

hainsey has no heart, a lifetime ahl plug forever

[RadioGaGa 162]

hainsey has no heart, a lifetime ahl plug forever

He's shown a little more heart this season, but yeah...he's just a guy with a lot of potential. He's a big guy...great shot...good skater. But, alas, I think the Grinch might beat him for heart size on most nights.

[Cage 0]

So, it doesn't matter that the player(s) that made contact with teh goalie and the players that caused the puck to enter the net weren't the same. The player(s) that hit Belfour weren't the players that directed the puck into the net, but the contact with the goalie supersedes the other play????

I didn't see the game, but the above explanation sounds like a player in the crease, correct?

[RadioGaGa 162]

So, it doesn't matter that the player(s) that made contact with teh goalie and the players that caused the puck to enter the net weren't the same. The player(s) that hit Belfour weren't the players that directed the puck into the net, but the contact with the goalie supersedes the other play????

I didn't see the game, but the above explanation sounds like a player in the crease, correct?

It was a weird play....the Leafs defenceman and a Hab player went into Belfour to the right side of the net...the puck ended up in front of the net, and the got knocked in as 2 players who had nothing to do with the Beflour tie up slid into the net. Belfour was off to the side. Had no chance, but the players that were tied up with him, had nothing to do with the puck going in.

They called it off saying there had been contact with the goalie...but didn't call a penalty of any kind. The whistle was clearly after the puck went in.

And, with that....I will let it go.

[Adam91 0]

The Hab was actually Markov. In my perhaps slightly biased opinion I thought it was a terrible call as it appeared Kronwall took Markov out and then the pass just happened to direct off Markov into the net. Hainsey better be showing more heart this year because from what I've seen from him so far he can be let go anytime and whats all this talk of Dandenault being a great skater? I think that might be the most wrongly overstated fact in the NHL. He has above average speed but the guy can barly do a crossover.