BTW, congratulations to the Women’s USA hockey team for winning the World Tournament,,, over Canada, no less.
(whatever happened to girls just sticking to playing hopscotch…..?)
x.com/PennStateWHKY/status/191...811798333

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0ecljEA0ghZofGbQeNdKDq-9A

Yep,, no more barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen.....

I didn't watch the expert analysis.   

My take is that a v-e-r-y sloppy* Canadian change probably played a role.

* something that should be sorted out 'way before this level of 'ockey.

^^^ a sloppy change but also a bad pass onto a USA stick

Was the sloppy change a factor in Larocque passing it to the player going to the bench?   Toe-may-toe / toe-mah-toe? 

 But, but, but they out shot them by significant bit, IIRC, so can they "take that as a positive going into the next game." * ????????   

* and how's that for some expert (?) analysis?

Good word salad,,, as fer yer question,, I’m all out of explanations.

p.s. , the Leafs just scored so the city officials are now planning the Stanley Cup Parade route

When a commietater says “ the referees are letting the guys play” (in re to not calling the rough stuff) , what are the ramifications of such decisions? Enquiring minds want to know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

When a commietater says “ the referees are letting the guys play” (in re to not calling the rough stuff) , what are the ramifications of such decisions? Enquiring minds want to know.

---

Spoze it depends upon who gets away with the dirtier stuff. I recall my Habs getting sidelined in various series by their opponents running the goalie and slashing the wrists.

A face carved out of granite

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

Yep,, no more barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen.....

---

Far as I'm concerned, USA #28 will nicely serve as the cheesecake for this page. Fetching women who carry clubs and wear knives on their feet? Yes please! And yes, congrats to Team USA!

And in the meantime: I sure did expect more out of Ottowa last night. None of the other results really surprised.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eagleisland

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

Yep,, no more barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen.....

---

Far as I'm concerned, USA #28 will nicely serve as the cheesecake for this page. Fetching women who carry clubs and wear knives on their feet? Yes please! And yes, congrats to Team USA!

And in the meantime: I sure did expect more out of Ottowa last night. None of the other results really surprised.

---

I had to look her up,,  that's Amanda Kessel , sister of fat boy Phil 

"

Kessel is the sister of three-time Stanley Cup champion Phil Kessel and former ice hockey defenseman Blake Kessel^[23]

Her father, Phil Kessel Sr., was drafted by the Washington Redskins and stayed on the injured reserve for one year"

I guess one of the ramifications of "inconsistent" officiating is that players have more opportunity (?) to use "the code."  

My favourite C.P. story is from him being interviewed after the first period of a 'abs-Bruins playoff game. As part of a somewhat raggy (?) period, Green and Ferguson had applied the code.  The interviewer had asked some inconsequential question [or made an inconsequential statement ] about les 'abs forechecking scheme, and C.P. replied: "Boy dat Fergie, 'e sure give it to Green, eh?"

Edit: And my favourite fat boy Phil story has it that when Randy Carlyle was coaching the Penguins he instituted checking on players' weight during training camp.  Apparently Carlyle had told another player to tell Kessel that he [Kessel] was to go and get weighed.  To which Phil replied: "Go tell the fat little ****er if he  wants my weight he can come down here and get it himself."

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

A face carved out of granite

---

Good ol' Claude. He gave the Habs a Cup 'cause he successfully carried out his assignment to shadow the Golden Jet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul R

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuckv97

A face carved out of granite

---

Good ol' Claude. He gave the Habs a Cup 'cause he successfully carried out his assignment to shadow the Golden Jet.

---

Hull and Provost were lining up for a faceoff and Hull looks at Claude and says,"They always send me out when you're on the ice" 

^^ To me it sounds better [best?] if it's CP asking Hull:  "Baw-beee, 'ow come 'dey .... etc.?"   

I've also heard it attributed to Ron Stewart while he was playing for the Rangers.

I tried to "look it up" and came up with the pic that the close-up of CP 6ish posts ^^ was taken from.  One of the comments along with the Meta blurb was: " ... back when they had ash trays and a beer cooler at the bench."   

I was in a seat right behind the Habs' bench (first row) one game (in 1960) - no beer or smoking coffin nails in sight. Habs 11, Rangers 2 - the Gumper was the Rangers' goalie. He did much better after the trade.

But Henri Richard was savvy - he owned the Henri Richard Tavern.

On the non-call for "icing"  that may have factored into the Caps' overtime goal, Montreal figures they should have been given the benefit of the doubt [as is apparently commonplace] on whether Laine did/didn't contact the puck while he was being knocked down.  It seems to me IF  Laine isn't given the benefit of the doubt, then interference on the defenseman would be the automatic/default call.  How can it be both ways?

They should have reviews in overtime,, every play in doubt can be crucial,,, & was the 2nd Caps goal due to a high stick?  Looked like it

Could be the refs don’t want guys falling down on purpose to negate icing, although that one looked like a legitimate hit and fall, no faking it.
Galley said they’ll usually (the operative word) give the benefit of the doubt to the player that he touched it, so no icing.
I’m surprised they don’t review these, slo mo would show if the Caps goal was due to a high stick,, and also show If Laine touched the puck, or if it should have been called an interference penalty. (not sure about an interference penalty though - how is the defender supposed to make a decision to hit a guy or not when the puck is around the opposing player's skates)

^^ sounds like "usually" is the problem.   I don't see that making it more definitive or clear-cut should be all that hard.

....Or use the same standard* [couch, cough] that is used when a player is accepting any pass anywhere on the ice?   

....Or the standard [cough, cough] that's used when one or both players "bump" as they go for a loose puck?  

Maybe borrow (?) the ol' in-the-neighbourhood standard from beisbol?   

* i.e. both the ref and the defensive player [who would base hit/not hit using the same factors he already uses in any similar situation, anywhere on the ice, at any time in the game].  Make the rule and apply it consistently [i.e. scrap "usually"] would be a good thing, IMNSHumbleO.

P.S.  Having it both ways doesn't work well ..... kinda like many  of the garbage "embellishment" calls.

Maris proved a lot of people wrong who thought he wasn’t clutch or was a one-season wonder.
Odd to see him here without the bare arms that was his trademark look.

As often happens, application of “the code” backfires,, to wit:
share.icloud.com/photos/02dQ8B...4frn_lS0w

Was ^^ today?   No biesbol on Westman cable this aft.    I think ^^ a pretty liberal interpretation [i.e. making it up on the spot] of any code. 

Heck, [thankfully] hasn't throwing at the batter that follows a homer gone by the wayside?

When it comes to arms, my default guy is/was:

Never did see the “Big Klu” play,,we didn’t have TV til 1962,, not sure if we even got bayzbal then,, the Buffalo channel we got didn’t carry any games. One of the others had Yankees games Sat. afternoons.

On the CTV supper news (?), Scott Arniel just said that there aren't two ways to play; the Jets try to play the same way on the road as at home.   

That's what I've said/questioned for decades.  Analysts [experts??] frequently comment about a team playing a "... good road game."   

Somebody help me out here .... please explain how Mr. Owen and now apparently Scott Arniel, know diddly-squat about hockey.... how does a road style differ from a home style of play?

[I know about stuff like the last change, the "long change," the face-off requirement about sticks down.... but I don't think those factors dictate the style (?) of play.]