Boston Bruins vs St. Louis Blues

[stick9 890]

On 6/7/2019 at 3:21 PM, flip12 said:

Acciari dove. It was a perfect no call.

Let's for a second say Accari dove, which is just horse shit, but let's say he did. Why wasn't he called for embellishment? If the refs didn't want to disrupt the outcome, call both the trip and a dive. Either way you slice it, the refs blew it....or didn't blow it, the whistle that is.

Edited June 9, 2019 by stick9

[flip12 714]

18 hours ago, stick9 said:

Let's for a second say Accari dove, which is just horse shit, but let's say he did. Why wasn't he called for embellishment? If the refs didn't want to disrupt the outcome, call both the trip and a dive. Either way you slice it, the refs blew it....or didn't blow it, the whistle that is.

I have too many questions about how NHL refereeing works to answer that. In the case of trip and embellishment, does that result in 5-on-5 or 4-on-4? Is it worth it to make that happen so late in a 1-0 SCF game late in a tied series?

If Acciari diving is horseshit, why did he look more like Pele than MacKinnon after Bozak made contact with him?

My conjecture is, the refs are trained to try and spot embellishment. Sometimes it results in a call, other times it doesn't. I've never seen embellishment called and nothing else, so maybe the operating mode is, 'if you spot embellishment but there was no other penalty, let them play on.' In that case, Acciari being down in his zone is no different than if he were because he got hit with a shot and couldn't get up.

I do agree that the refs didn't blow it, either the whistle or the call. I just can't believe Acciari legit Peleing from a half-speed Bozak bumping--not even kicking like Kadri did to MacKinnon--his knee.

[althoma1 574]

I really doubt someone would bounce their head off the ice just to try to sell a call even in the Stanley Cup Finals. I would expect someone embellishing to through themselves back, but break their fall with their arms so that they don't hit their head on the ice. 

This is Marchand embellishing: 

and here's embellishment by Kessler:

With both of these dives you can see that the players go down easily, but not recklessly. They're not risking injury as it's a controlled dive where they brace themselves with at least one arm. Accari would have to have no regard for his own health and safety to go back that hard and land directly on his head. I'm saying this as a Habs fan who wants the Bruins to lose; the Bruins aren't angels (especially Marchand), but I'm not seeing the Accari play as a dive at all and while I don't ref anywhere near the NHL level, I do ref a lot of competitive hockey 

[BenBreeg 493]

Hopefully this topic dies once game 6 starts, wasn’t even close to a dive.

[IPv6Freely 2092]

There's no question it was a bit of a flop, but there's also no question that there was absolutely a trip. Whether the officials either a) missed it b) chose to not call it is anybody's guess. In all reality, it really doesn't matter. It's pretty low down the list of missed or blown calls in this years playoffs. 

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Horrible game. Hopefully they can bounce back but this has got to just be so deflating. 

[chippa13 1844]

All a matter of perspective. The Bruins had much better energy and did a good job of protecting and eliminating open ice. Once again, the team that played with more jump won the game. Game 7 will be interesting. Will the Bruins steamroll the Blues in the opening 10 or will the Blues play another great road game and spoil the party?

[stick9 890]

The Blues hitting game is finally taking its toll on them (The Blues). The Blues looked tight and the Bruins beat them to just about every puck. 

[BenBreeg 493]

17 minutes ago, stick9 said:

The Blues hitting game is finally taking its toll on them (The Blues). The Blues looked tight and the Bruins beat them to just about every puck. 

Until things fell apart I thought the opposite, the Blues forced a ton of turnovers in the Ozone.  Rask kept that game where it was until Boston broke through.  Kind of opposite of Game 5.  Not sure of what happened after 3-0 so that may tell a different story, I went to bed.

[caveman27 208]

11 hours ago, IPv6Freely said:

Horrible game. Hopefully they can bounce back but this has got to just be so deflating. 

Their power play was awful and they looked better 5-on-5 after the penalty was over.

[IPv6Freely 2092]

1 hour ago, BenBreeg said:

Until things fell apart I thought the opposite, the Blues forced a ton of turnovers in the Ozone.  Rask kept that game where it was until Boston broke through.  Kind of opposite of Game 5.  Not sure of what happened after 3-0 so that may tell a different story, I went to bed.

I agree. The Blues looked at least equal or better until the 3-0 goal. The 1-0 was "whatever. keep doing what we're doing" going into intermission, the 2-0 was deflating just because it was a fluke bounce but they were still playing well. The 3-0 ended the game though. They were completely done at that point, and it showed. 

3 hours ago, chippa13 said:

All a matter of perspective. The Bruins had much better energy and did a good job of protecting and eliminating open ice. Once again, the team that played with more jump won the game. Game 7 will be interesting. Will the Bruins steamroll the Blues in the opening 10 or will the Blues play another great road game and spoil the party?

Even when the Blues kept the puck in the Boston end for extended periods of time, they never really had anything. The Bruins wingers were all over the defencemen. I actually recall mentioning to my wife about the massive difference in defensive zone play by both teams. When Boston was in the Blues end they had all kinds of time and space, but when the Blues were in the Bruins end they had none. So at that point how long the Blues spent in the offensive zone was kind of irrelevant if they didn't get anything quality out of it. And you know that's how it ALWAYS goes. A team presses, and presses, and PRESSES, and boom... they get scored on. Like clockwork.

I don't think the Blues have it in them to win game 7. This was a wasted opportunity and I think they're deflated. I think any time you lose a potential series-clinching game in game 6, the chances of you winning a game 7 seem slim. I'd love to see the numbers on that, actually. Though, analysts have been pretty adamant this year in particular that momentum game to game seems to not exist. So who knows. I hope they can do it, but I'm not expecting it to happen. 

[BenBreeg 493]

1 minute ago, IPv6Freely said:

I don't think the Blues have it in them to win game 7. This was a wasted opportunity and I think they're deflated. I think any time you lose a potential series-clinching game in game 6, the chances of you winning a game 7 seem slim. I'd love to see the numbers on that, actually. Though, analysts have been pretty adamant this year in particular that momentum game to game seems to not exist. So who knows. I hope they can do it, but I'm not expecting it to happen. 

I agree and wouldn't put money on the Blues but honestly I have been surprised at how both teams have bounced back from losses so you never know.

[chippa13 1844]

This is sounding a lot like what was being said after game 3. I wouldn't write-off the Blues at all.

[stick9 890]

1 hour ago, chippa13 said:

This is sounding a lot like what was being said after game 3. I wouldn't write-off the Blues at all.

I agree. You don't get to game 7 by accident. That said, this Bruins team has shown us they play their best hockey when their back is against the wall. Now you have Rask dialed back in and the top two lines are going. Anything is possible, but not looking good for STL.

[bunnyman666 445]

Game sevens generally fly in the face of statistics and convention. Statistically, it could go the Blues way; momentum-wise, it could go to the Bruins. It still is ANYONE’S game. I am not counting ANYONE out. Officiating could swing it. A bad bounce can swing it; ice is squirrelly this time of year. The Bruins play well with their back against the wall; the Blues tend to bounce back in commanding fashion after a loss.

So- it STILL is anyone’s game on Wednesday. Who shows up? We’ll see...

I am not going to pretend that I am not a Blues fan; I am PROUDLY a Blues fan since 1972-73. But this has been a super-weird season and playoffs. 

Whomever hoists the Cup at centre ice Wednesday (or dare I say early Thursday morning) will have earned it, blown calls and all. Only the Tour de France is tougher than the Stanley Cup, and not by much.  

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Just please don't end on a goalie interference call... 

[bunnyman666 445]

2 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

Just please don't end on a goalie interference call... 

A-flipping-men!!!!

[chippa13 1844]

As history has shown, game 7 will probably be one of the loosest games in terms of penalties. I think they'll fall back on the standard of whether the action took away a scoring opportunity or created a scoring opportunity. Anything else, unless absolutely blatant or dangerous, will be play on.

[bunnyman666 445]

3 hours ago, chippa13 said:

As history has shown, game 7 will probably be one of the loosest games in terms of penalties. I think they'll fall back on the standard of whether the action took away a scoring opportunity or created a scoring opportunity. Anything else, unless absolutely blatant or dangerous, will be play on.

You’re right about loose penalty standards in game 7s in general. Which takes me back to goaltender interference in the Sabres/Stars series and Hull’s blade was in the crease on like the 2nd overtime...

[stick9 890]

6 hours ago, chippa13 said:

As history has shown, game 7 will probably be one of the loosest games in terms of penalties. I think they'll fall back on the standard of whether the action took away a scoring opportunity or created a scoring opportunity. Anything else, unless absolutely blatant or dangerous, will be play on.

Appreantly same crew as game 6. Not sure if that means anything but generally, they let the boys play.

[BenBreeg 493]

25 minutes ago, stick9 said:

Appreantly same crew as game 6. Not sure if that means anything but generally, they let the boys play.

Never understood why that phrase is always seen as a positive...

[IPv6Freely 2092]

It’s fine as long as a) it’s equally loose for both teams and b) nobody bitches when they neglect to call something.

[Monty22 832]

I'd like to see Backus in the line up for game 7. They could use his physicality, and moving someone like Heinen out I don't think would make a difference.    

[caveman27 208]

9 hours ago, IPv6Freely said:

Just please don't end on a goalie interference call... 

Don't worry, refs will make a bad call, or more likely, miss calls. They seem to be busy enjoying the game.

 

[chippa13 1844]

10 hours ago, Monty22 said:

I'd like to see Backus in the line up for game 7. They could use his physicality, and moving someone like Heinen out I don't think would make a difference.    

I like Heinen's game. He does a lot of the subtle things well. The only possible change I see would be inserting Grzelcyk if he gets cleared to play.