Monday, November 14, 2005
OK, that was a good night...
I was pretty much dead inside after two periods--no enthusiasm whatsoever (clearly, the Flames play rubbed off on me). But that 3rd period kicked-ass:
- Less than ten minutes in, the shots in the period were 17-5, and faceoffs were 14-4
- Jarome - the winner was a beauty, but the pass on the tying goal was something else
- Before Jarome scored the PP winner, I was sending out my best mindwaves to the Flames: "Remember Special Ed in Game 7!" I fully expected a makeup call if the Flames weren't careful, meaning that the Wild would have a PP for a while if it went to OT.
- As it turned out, they took the lead first, then took a penalty, then another one. So, with the goalie pulled, it was a 6-on-3 for the last 30-odd seconds for the Wild, and when the horn went, there was a delayed penalty on the Flames--if it went to OT, the Flames might as well have just given Minnesota the extra point and gone home
# posted by Matt @ 9:44 pm 
Comments:
It's a shame--in every sense--that there wasn't an invocation of the new Rule 89 provision allowing for 5-on-3 play in overtime if a two-man advantage occurs. I knew about this beforehand, but I sure don't expect it to crop up too often.
Bonus Rule 89 fun: did you know that you're allowed to pull the goalie in OT, but if the other team scores you don't get the single standings point ordinarily received for a regulation "tie"? This might actually have come up during one of the playoff chases, I dunno.
The Sabres-Lightning game on TSN on Oct.13 had two minutes of 5-on-3; the Sabres failed to score with the avantage numerique, but won in the shootout.
And I'm pretty sure the Kings invoked that other provision in spring '04, or came close: they pulled their goalie in OT when an EN goal would have cost them their "tie" point, which wasn't enough for them.
I recall reading when 4-on-4 was first introduced one of the coaches (I can't remember who) said that since a point was guaranteed he was going to pull the goalie against non-conference teams as soon as he got into overtime. He felt that there was nothing to lose - he wouldn't lose any points, and he would get more of the extra points.
The NHL immediately said that they were going to prevent this, but I hadn't heard what they did. I guess I know now - thanks Cosh.
This is the Kings game I was thinking of.
LA absolutely needed 2 points. I think the chatter on the broadcast was that Andy Murray would have pulled the goalie later in OT after trying to win 4-on-4 in the first ~4mins (which makes sense). Alas, the Flames scored 1:06 into OT, so it never came to that.
Post a Comment
<< Home
It's a shame--in every sense--that there wasn't an invocation of the new Rule 89 provision allowing for 5-on-3 play in overtime if a two-man advantage occurs. I knew about this beforehand, but I sure don't expect it to crop up too often.
Bonus Rule 89 fun: did you know that you're allowed to pull the goalie in OT, but if the other team scores you don't get the single standings point ordinarily received for a regulation "tie"? This might actually have come up during one of the playoff chases, I dunno.
# posted by 
: November 15, 2005 4:08 am
: November 15, 2005 4:08 am The Sabres-Lightning game on TSN on Oct.13 had two minutes of 5-on-3; the Sabres failed to score with the avantage numerique, but won in the shootout.
And I'm pretty sure the Kings invoked that other provision in spring '04, or came close: they pulled their goalie in OT when an EN goal would have cost them their "tie" point, which wasn't enough for them.
I recall reading when 4-on-4 was first introduced one of the coaches (I can't remember who) said that since a point was guaranteed he was going to pull the goalie against non-conference teams as soon as he got into overtime. He felt that there was nothing to lose - he wouldn't lose any points, and he would get more of the extra points.
The NHL immediately said that they were going to prevent this, but I hadn't heard what they did. I guess I know now - thanks Cosh.
# posted by : November 15, 2005 8:26 am
: November 15, 2005 8:26 am This is the Kings game I was thinking of.
LA absolutely needed 2 points. I think the chatter on the broadcast was that Andy Murray would have pulled the goalie later in OT after trying to win 4-on-4 in the first ~4mins (which makes sense). Alas, the Flames scored 1:06 into OT, so it never came to that.
Post a Comment
<< Home
