Kerfuffle wrote:@cprice - I agree that the instigator should have been called against Carcillo. What I posted earlier was intended to explain why the call was not made. Clearly the refs saw the play so there has to be an explanation on why they didn't call it. Aside from the conspiracy theorists there's really only one reason why I could see it was not called - and that is because Ott was trying to pick 2 fights earlier in the game, and then his response to Carcillo was to immediately fight. I like the instigator rule because sometimes it so obvious that the person attacked had no intention of fighting or causing harm and some goon comes over and just decks them - for that reason the rule needs to stay in place. When the play with Ott occurred I told my wife that the call could go either way as TV cut to commercial and we didn't have a decision at that point. Ott could have sold it better - I think acting surprised or taking a second longer to drop the gloves would have shown he was trying to avoid a confrontation.
Agreed on the point that Ott could have sold it better. If he had waited to drop his gloves, or tried to get away before dropping them, then it's more likely he gets the call. But that isn't really Ott's style...so that is what it is.
Kerfuffle wrote:As for the too many men - yes it was a missed call but let's be honest - it was 6 men, not 8. Every shift I see there are always guys jumping over the boards whlle other guys are touching the wall, or a foot away from it. The 2 Hawks guys were doing just that. Hjalrmarrson was clearly too far away from the bench and although he was skating toward it and motioning for a replacement he was not close enough yet for another guy to jump over. So yes this was a penalty that was missed. But the '8 men on the ice' thing is ridiculous.
My point about the two guys on the ice at the bench was that their replacements were already in the middle of the rink...so there is a question of when they jumped on. Was it too early? For fun, I'll go back when I can and look at the game footage to see if it shows it.
But it doesn't matter if it's 6 guys on the ice or 20. Too many men is too many men.
And Hjalrmarrson wasn't motioning for a guy to come on...if he was, then that would have still been 6 men on the ice after he leaves the ice. His replacement was already on the ice and skating at center...which makes it crazy how the linesmen didn't catch it. Unless of course 2 players jumped on for another one that left the ice before Hjalrmarrson. (I hate typing out his name...that is the most F'd up spelling of any last name in the NHL
)
I don't think this would be as big of a deal at all if it had happened in the 1st period, but this happened at a very key point in the game with 2 1/2 minutes left in the game. The Blues could have also pulled their goalie to allow for a 6 on 4 for most of this PP...and we all know that teams, especially good teams, press like hell to tie a game late...things get more urgent and the energy gets amped up. That missed too many men at that point in the game took away a huge opportunity for St. Louis. Missing that blatant of a too many men penalty at that point in the game is really inexcusable. This was a big game between two powerhouse teams...it was a playoff-like game, and they missed a big call.
With all of that said, I'm not saying the Blues would have tied the game had the penalty been called. The Blues should have played better earlier in the 3rd and maybe they wouldn't have been in that situation...so I'm frustrated at the Blues play as well. But it was a huge opportunity in a close game that should have been granted but wasn't. And as a Blues fan, it is even more frustrating because it wasn't a judgement call penalty, it's a black and white rule, and it was missed.
