Back 2 Back In The Saddle Again.
If there were more than 8 games remaining, I’d be loath to make too much of the back to back wins, but considering the nearness of the post season, and the importance of the last two games, I’m counting points, not wins, making this a very timely streak.
unfortunately I missed the game (of course it had to be a beaut) as I find myself deep into enemy territory without aid of NHL centre ice. Just like the Leafs prospects, the Sens game was all black.
- Now, after reviewing the highlight package on NHL.com I have some opinions on the game. The Volchy hit on Carcillo. No penalty was the right call. It appeared high only because Carcillo attempted to cut back after the pass, this resulted in his lowering his body when changing his momentum, Volchy remained in line, did not raise his body, or elbow, to target the head, and as such delivered the hit he intended before Carcillo changed his body angle.
- The Volchy hit on Gagne. This one isn’t so clear. Gagne received the puck, then spun to face the boards while Volchy is already on route to deliver the hit. Gagne played the puck, thus was eligible for contact, and voluntarily placed himself into a vulnerable position. The question is, did Volchy alter his hit to respect Gagne’s vulnerable position? Honestly, impossible to know as he was already en route to deliver the hit, he certainly didn’t accelerate, but could he have altered his angle? If he did alter his angle, would it result in Gagne having a free play on the puck as Volchy, in order to react to Gagne’s choice of position, would force himself out of body position on Gagne? Who was wrong, Volchy for not moving out of position, or gagne for putting himself in that position? To me, this exact play, typifies the “gray area” around fair and unfair contact. I can understand both sides to this…but ultimately, for me, it comes down to being a contact sport, and Gagne must “defend” himself. If a boxer drops his hands and stick out his chin, is it his opponents responsibility to not hit him in the head? Nope. Now, if Volchy accelerated into the hit, my view would be different. reminiscent of the Cooke hit on Alfredsson, albeit further from the boards.
- Carcillo on Karlsson, a perfectly fair hit. Karlsson blew it by tripping him, but the roughing on Sutton was bush, as you can see similar after almost any stoppage in play in front of the net. bygones.
- Hartnell on Kelly in front of Elliott. definitely either delay of game or interference.
- The Volchy “no goal”. Should have been a penalty shot, but looked inconclusive for a goal.
So, I need comments, please, tell me about the game, I NEED YOU! Give me your breakdowns on the game, the players, the refs etc.