Boston Bruins vs St. Louis Blues

[BenBreeg 493]

Imagine, just for a second, that St. Louis’s PP wasn’t so bad as to make me want to gouge my eyes out with a spoon....

[caveman27 208]

Oh, it's getting dirty.

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Great game. Hopefully they can wrap it up at home! 

[chippa13 1844]

With the standard set on the Thornton and McAvoy one gamers, I expect Sanford to be getting a call for his headshot on Krug. Almost forgot the Barbashev hit on Johansson. Another right at the head.

Edited June 7, 2019 by chippa13

[flip12 712]

16 hours ago, chippa13 said:

That no call on the trip settles it, the fix is in.

Acciari dove. It was a perfect no call.

[chippa13 1844]

There has been plenty of embellishment to go around but Acciari going arse over teakettle wasn't one of them. It isn't too often that a spotter pulls a guy from the game on a dive. Now, Tarasenko's sell of the head check that wasn't to get a call on Clifton, that was another story.

https://larrybrownsports.com/hockey/vladimir-tarasenko-embellishment-flop-penalty/498570

[BenBreeg 493]

It was no dive.  It's unfathomable (unless of course you watch NHL hockey...) that you can miss that call.  But if you are Boston, you really stop skating because you assume there is a penalty?  In pro hockey?  In the SCF?!

[flip12 712]

What it looks like when I watch it is Acciari saw Bozak coming to put pressure and planned to go down if given the chance. Bozak bumps him leg to leg and he goes for it. It's hard to see how hard they collided, but I'm highly convinced he embellished. That bicycle kick was impressive, but completely gratuitous. The timing of his fall is all out of sync with the contact with Bozak.

I'm not sure what spotter protocol is like. I'm not sure how conversations between players and the rest of the staff go in the case of a dive, or in just about any case, for that matter, so I can't reply to the suggestion that this wasn't a dive because if it were he wouldn't have been pulled by the spotter. I can't analyze the contents of a locked black box.

It just looked like Acciari was fishing for a power play and didn't get it. Maybe it was a legit penalty and he overdid his sell and that convinced the ref that it probably didn't actually warrant a tripping call, I don't know. But it looks fishy as hell. Even I had Bozak's "c'mon you can't seriously call that" reaction when I saw it the first time, without the assistance of replay and slow motion.

[chippa13 1844]

The timing is all out of sync????? Call SNL, because with material like that you could put the show back on the map.

[chippa13 1844]

21 minutes ago, BenBreeg said:

It was no dive.  It's unfathomable (unless of course you watch NHL hockey...) that you can miss that call.  But if you are Boston, you really stop skating because you assume there is a penalty?  In pro hockey?  In the SCF?!

It wasn't that they stopped playing, they just had to deal with a change in possession and essentially being a player down with Acciari shaking the cobwebs after landing on his back. That created the 2 on 1 down low which ultimately resulted in the goal. 

[flip12 712]

6 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

The timing is all out of sync????? Call SNL, because with material like that you could put the show back on the map.

Huh? This isn't the first time you respond with absolutely no content.

3 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

It wasn't that they stopped playing, they just had to deal with a change in possession and essentially being a player down with Acciari shaking the cobwebs after landing on his back. That created the 2 on 1 down low which ultimately resulted in the goal. 

Well, Carlo, a defenseman, was pretty much standing a stick's length from the blue line when the puck got pushed back to Bozak and still had a chance to recover down low but instead got tangled up with O'Reilly. After Acciari went down, it ends up 4-on-4 in the zone. 3 out of the remaining 4 Bruins seem to lose their bearing, possibly because they were assuming a penalty would be called and forgot to continue to play. The 2-on-1 comes after several breakdowns: Carlo's fade and tangle, Kuraly's missed challenge on Perron where he brushes by Bozak, and Nordstrom's obliviousness to the hole created by the collapse of Carlo, Acciari and Kuraly being out of the play. It's not like Acciari went down and Bozak picked up the puck 2-on-1.

[chippa13 1844]

Acciari was essentially out of the play trying to get his bearings back. Once that happens guys have to try and make up for it and that leads to people getting out of position which leads to breakdowns and 2 on 1's developing. The remaining upright bodies played on but they were at a man disadvantage. Had Acciari been fully functional it would have been 5 on 5 and a whole different situation. But you're right, he dove, embellished, and caused the goal. 

As for your comment about "content". I think I was clear in that I found your assertion that Acciari's fall was out of sync with the contact from Bozak hilarious and suggested you apply to a noted comedy sketch show about openings on their writing staff.

[flip12 712]

5 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

Acciari was essentially out of the play trying to get his bearings back. Once that happens guys have to try and make up for it and that leads to people getting out of position which leads to breakdowns and 2 on 1's developing. The remaining upright bodies played on but they were at a man disadvantage. Had Acciari been fully functional it would have been 5 on 5 and a whole different situation. But you're right, he dove, embellished, and caused the goal. 

As for your comment about "content". I think I was clear in that I found your assertion that Acciari's fall was out of sync with the contact from Bozak hilarious and suggested you apply to a noted comedy sketch show about openings on their writing staff.

The Blues weren't pressing until the Bruins got out of position. Perron is the one that pushes the puck in from the blueline. Bouwmeester's never even in the zone during the sequence, which is why there wasn't any active 5-on-4 advantage. Acciari going down leaves it 4 Bruins in the zone against the Blues' 4. Yes, a player going down and staying on the ice in your d-zone leads to edge case logic applying, but in this situation, it looks like that just gets applied terribly. It only takes a couple of seconds for that 4-on-4 to become a 2-on-1, but even watching it in live speed, you can see as they unravel.

As to your commentary on my comment about content, I got what you were trying to say, but it's still meaningless. There's no content there. You just saying, 'your detailed explanation of the situation that's different from mine' is "hilarious" doesn't really contain anything. If you watch video of NHL slew foots, there are many more cases of guys spinning out or simply tipping over and falling on their backsides, even in cases where bigger players are coming in on them with more speed and less notice. Just look at that bicycle kick and tell me it's not suspicious. That's some (FIFA) World Cup quality diving, but thankfully the ref didn't bite.

[chippa13 1844]

There hasn't been a single analyst that has agreed with your "embellishment" routine and didn't feel a trip should have been called. I watch the play in real time, slow motion, frame by frame, however you like and I see a trip. There is a saying that people who explain too much are doing so because they are trying to prove to themselves that they are right.

[althoma1 574]

I'm a Habs fan and have no love for the Bruins, but that definitely looked like a trip in both real time and via replay. It's a fast game and the low officials view was probably partially obscured by Carlo when the trip occurred. Perhaps the official thought Bozak was playing the puck and made incidental contact while doing so; that's the most reasonable explanation I can think of for the non-call. While I'm rooting for St. Louis to win, I'd prefer they did so without controversial non-calls like that. There's not much that can be done about it now, but hopefully there are no missed impact calls in the next game(s). 

Edited June 7, 2019 by althoma1

[chippa13 1844]

Barbashev has been suspended 1 game for the hit on Johansson.

[BenBreeg 493]

2 hours ago, chippa13 said:

Barbashev has been suspended 1 game for the hit on Johansson.

Makes sense to me.

[caveman27 208]

I'm guessing Boston is going to go into revenge mode in the first period. That's a prediction, but they might hold back.

Bozak should watch his back.

Defense needs to keep the crease blocked from traffic. That dude knocked it out of his hand on purpose late in the third period... junior hockey shenanigans.

[flip12 712]

20 hours ago, chippa13 said:

There hasn't been a single analyst that has agreed with your "embellishment" routine and didn't feel a trip should have been called. I watch the play in real time, slow motion, frame by frame, however you like and I see a trip. There is a saying that people who explain too much are doing so because they are trying to prove to themselves that they are right.

I have neither the time or the interest to verify if there isn't a single analyst that said Acciari embellished. But I'll take your word for it. Thanks for doing that research. I don't care what analysts say or not. My opinions are my own, and I don't need them rubber stamped or adorned with shiny star stickers.

There are lots of sayings. Lots of them contradict each other. They're not all right, obviously.

Also, there's no way to know if Acciari dove or not, so there's no way to be right or wrong on this, definitively.

The level of explanation isn't that involved, really. But if you think it's "too much," I guess I can see where the issue is.

If you watch highlight reels of NHL slew foots and you still think Acciari didn't at least embellish, then I'd at least be surprised.

[chippa13 1844]

48 minutes ago, caveman27 said:

I'm guessing Boston is going to go into revenge mode in the first period. That's a prediction, but they might hold back.

Bozak should watch his back.

Defense needs to keep the crease blocked from traffic. That dude knocked it out of his hand on purpose late in the third period... junior hockey shenanigans.

Revenge mode for an uncalled trip? No such thing. The Bruins will be too concerned with forcing a game 7 than anything else.

[chippa13 1844]

15 minutes ago, flip12 said:

I have neither the time or the interest to verify if there isn't a single analyst that said Acciari embellished. But I'll take your word for it. Thanks for doing that research. I don't care what analysts say or not. My opinions are my own, and I don't need them rubber stamped or adorned with shiny star stickers.

There are lots of sayings. Lots of them contradict each other. They're not all right, obviously.

Also, there's no way to know if Acciari dove or not, so there's no way to be right or wrong on this, definitively.

The level of explanation isn't that involved, really. But if you think it's "too much," I guess I can see where the issue is.

If you watch highlight reels of NHL slew foots and you still think Acciari didn't at least embellish, then I'd at least be surprised.

If I just say "you're right" will you shut the fuck up about this?

[flip12 712]

1 hour ago, chippa13 said:

If I just say "you're right" will you shut the fuck up about this?

You already did...you don't remember?

Also, did you not read the post you just quoted? All the answers are in there.

[chippa13 1844]

As the great orator Deadpool exclaimed, "Who fucking cares?"

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Calm down folks.

[caveman27 208]

4 hours ago, chippa13 said:

Revenge mode for an uncalled trip? No such thing. The Bruins will be too concerned with forcing a game 7 than anything else.

They need to play like they did in Game 3. I wouldn't mind seeing a couple fights, even though that's not the point of the game.

Since I'm a Canadiens fan, I just want to see the Bruins lose.

Edited June 8, 2019 by caveman27