if you're looking for me, i'll be the half-cut idiot in the #5 GIO jersey with the stupid cardboard new years hat.... ;)
anyhow. a quick note on last night's game:
i've mentioned before how utterly shafted gio gets when it comes to officiating. it's actually kindof hilarity, at this point, cause i don't think i've ever seen a player draw the short stick as often, where the zebras are concerned....
historically, there was the one (ahhh, infamy) from dec 29/08, where veilleux scored for the wild but play continued; the whistle didn't blow until gio tossed the puck over the glass, drawing a delay of game penalty. after review, the goal was awarded but somehow the penalty stood and gio sat in the box into the third period.... the refs admitted in the post-game that they'd screwed up and were hella glad that neither the PP nor the PK resulted in a score. hello insult ? meet injury.
a few weeks ago (and maybe someone can remind me what game it was so i can post the highlight here), gio took a stick in the face and the refs called a two-minute minor on the opposition. #5 was CLEARLY bleeding from the mouth, and our captain was vocalizing his case, but the refs still didn't add on the extra two.... NHL RULE 60.2: Any contact made by a stick on an opponent above the shoulders is prohibited and a minor penalty shall be imposed. apparently (this was news to me), the second minor for drawing blood, on said high-stick, is awarded by referee's discretion. hm.... well ---here's the thing about that regulation: this particular instance (when it was my boy giordano who was bleeding) is the ONLY TIME i've EVER seen a dude take a stick in the face, bleed, and NOT have the aggressor get the extra two. EVER.
last night was the best, though, i gotta say.... after the puck jumped gio's stick at the blueline, and with dustin brown in position to take off towards kiprusoff, my #5 takes a stick infraction (hooking/tripping). but... but wait !!! brown is awarded a penalty shot ?!?! how the hell do ya FIGURE ??!? well here's the thing: if I knew it shouldn't have been a penalty shot, my thinking is that the current era of national hockey league referees and linesmen might want to re-read the effin' rulebook:
NHL RULE 91.b
In cases where a player is fouled from behind (Rule 91(b)), four criteria must be met in order for the Referee to award a penalty shot:
- The infraction must have taken place in the opponent's half of the ice, i.e. over the center red line.
- The infraction must have been committed from behind.
- The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score.
(NOTE) The fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a "more" reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded.
- The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper.
1. the infraction occurs on the WRONG side of the red line.
2. infraction is committed from behind (okay, fine, sure...)
3. hard to say if dustin brown was denied a reasonable chance to score, being that he's A HECKUVA LONG WAY FROM THE NET !!!!
4. this one's the kicker for me: i'd like to think that jokinen, in full stride (as seen above), would most certainly have made it back to finish the play between brown and miikka kiprusoff. if gio had neither tripped nor hooked the LA player, brown still would have had to get his feet going and his speed up, by which time jokinen would most definitely have been in his way.....
no matter. brown whiffed the shot, gio avoided the box, and the flames won the game.
let's hope tonight can go as well !!!!!