GDT #53: 2/8/15 | 11:30AM CST | v Blackhawks | NBC/KMOX

[JesusNEVERexisted]

Agree Kerfuffle. Ott almost seemed more willing to fight than Carcillo!

[not_a_wings_fan]

So you are saying that if Ott turtles or is a faceshield wearing panzy then we get a pp? Because he knows the code, knows how other teams would see the hit he just made, and he was ready to answer it's not an instigator when a guy not involved in the play clearly comes across to start a fight?

[Fradi]

Love these early games, these are the ones I could comfortably watch during evening time in Europe, and never once get to see any of them.... :D

Didn't have the time to re-watch, not even the highlights, were the guys really that crap in the 3rd? Was it just switching off again, or were they that tired?

[JesusNEVERexisted]

They only had 3 shots on goal in the 3rd period so either the Blues were tired or the Hawks played one hell of an amazing defense!

[cardsfan04]

This is the instigator rule:

An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game incident.

I think Carcillo's actions, outside of common sense, fall into some of those categories. He skated from roughly the faceoff dot at center ice to inside the Blues' zone and approached Ott from behind. Ott was not skating to him and having his back turned clearly wasn't looking for a fight. Yeah, he threw his gloves down quickly, and yeah, he likes to chirp his mouth. But, I don't see any exceptions in the rule book for either of those.

I think it's a really stupid penalty, but if approaching somebody with the sole purpose of starting a fight when the other person wasn't looking for the fight isn't an instigator, I don't know what is.

[cprice12]

An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria:

distance traveled;

Carcillo makes a bee line to Ott. There is no question about that. Did he travel far? How far is not far enough? It's subjective...and shouldn't be a deal breaker anyway unless he skated halfway across the ice to get to Ott.

gloves off first;

Gloves were off at about the same time. Carcillo's gloves may have come off just before Ott's, but it's close.

first punch thrown;

Hard to tell if Ott is throwing a punch or trying to grab on...but the first obvious punch is by Carcillo. Not that that should be a determining factor though.

menacing attitude or posture;

Uh...I guess this is unknown. You could argue that the "menacing attitude" belonged to Carcillo as he is the one who went after Ott. But it was in the flow of the game, so this is undetermined for fans.

verbal instigation or threats;

Knowing Ott, he probably ran his mouth during the game at some point. But again, I fail to see in this case why that would matter. Had Ott not checked Kruger, Carcillo and Ott don't fight on that shift.

conduct in retaliation to a prior game incident.

THIS.
This is what should get Carcillo the instigator. Ott checks Kruger and Carcillo thought it was worse than it was and went right after Ott to fight him. Carcillo comes up from behind Ott and pulls on his jersey, and Ott turns around and they drop the gloves. The action of Carcillo pulling on Ott's jersey from behind, basically saying he wanted to fight IMMEDIATELY AFTER the check on Kruger is the smoking gun.
Olczyk even mentioned about Carcillo possibly getting the instigator before the commercial break. It seemed like he thought one could be coming...and he's a Hawks broadcaster.

It's a blatant instigator penalty that wasn't called. If you don't call it there, then it shouldn't be a rule.
With that said, I hate the instigator rule. It shouldn't even be a rule. But it is a rule and we've had it called on us more than enough times with seemingly less instigating than was apparent in this fight.

I'm more upset about the too many men that wasn't called on the Hawks with 2+ minutes to go in the game. 8 guys on the ice and they got away with it. That's criminal. How do you miss that?

[JesusNEVERexisted]

In that pic you posted weren't 2 of the Hawks by the boards leaving the ice? Also you can't see the guy on the far right where there is a number 2.

Even if they did it you know hockey is the fastest game on earth. No doubt the Blues and ALL teams have had too many on the ice once in a while during a shift change and it's not called. The refs can't see everything.

[cardsfan04]

In that pic you posted weren't 2 of the Hawks by the boards leaving the ice? Also can't see the guy on the far right where there is a number.

Even if they did it you know hockey is the fastest game on earth. No doubt the Blues and ALL teams have too many on the ice once in a while during a shift change.

8-2=6>5

[abc789987]

In that pic you posted weren't 2 of the Hawks by the boards leaving the ice? Also can't see the guy on the far right where there is a number.

Even if they did it you know hockey is the fastest game on earth. No doubt the Blues and ALL teams have too many on the ice once in a while during a shift change.

8-2=6>5

Yeah, but the number 5 guy in picture was skating towards boards too... I'm okay with this non-call. None of them came close to playing the puck.

I agree with the call that should have been instigating. And what the hell was the lines men doing jumping in before any punches had been thrown. That pissed me off.

I'm not sure how I felt with the early game... Would have been much better if we won because I ended up being in a grumpy mood the rest of the day because we lost haha...

[cardsfan04]

In that pic you posted weren't 2 of the Hawks by the boards leaving the ice? Also can't see the guy on the far right where there is a number.

Even if they did it you know hockey is the fastest game on earth. No doubt the Blues and ALL teams have too many on the ice once in a while during a shift change.

8-2=6>5

Yeah, but the number 5 guy in picture was skating towards boards too... I'm okay with this non-call. None of them came close to playing the puck.

I agree with the call that should have been instigating. And what the hell was the lines men doing jumping in before any punches had been thrown. That pissed me off.

I'm not sure how I felt with the early game... Would have been much better if we won because I ended up being in a grumpy mood the rest of the day because we lost haha...

I don't know the specifics of the rule, but I know they get some cushion if the play isn't right there. 7 and 8 don't bother me, but if 6 is replacing 5, they've gotta be pushing the limit. The play was definitely not there though.

[cprice12]

In that pic you posted weren't 2 of the Hawks by the boards leaving the ice? Also can't see the guy on the far right where there is a number.

Maybe YOU can't see the guy on the right, but he's there. You need a wider monitor. He's in the picture that was posted. Right click on the image and choose to "open image in new window".

Even if they did it you know hockey is the fastest game on earth. No doubt the Blues and ALL teams have too many on the ice once in a while during a shift change.

Nope. Not like this...not to this extreme. I played organized hockey for 20 years. This should be a too many men penalty every, single, time. When there are too many on the ice that far from the bench, it doesn't even matter if the play is nearby. Even if you want to excuse the two guys along the boards, there are six guys out in the middle of the ice. Textbook too many men penalty.

Yeah, but the number 5 guy in picture was skating towards boards too... I'm okay with this non-call. None of them came close to playing the puck.

Doesn't matter.
When you are that far away from the boards, it's a penalty. There is a 5 foot cushion...that's it.
Here is the rule:

Rule 74 – Too Many Men on the Ice
74.1 Too Many Men on the Ice - Players may be changed at any time during the play from the players’ bench provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall be within five feet (5') of his players’ bench and out of the play before the change is made.

Conclusion? Missed call for too many men. We should have had a 2-minute PP with 2:30 to go. It was a horribly missed call. And I'm not being picky and saying he was 6 or 8 feet from the bench...he's like 15 feet from the bench.

[cprice12]

And it was more like he was 20' from the bench on that change.
Here are the dimensions of a rink:


The rink is 85' wide.
The distance from red dot to red dot going along the blue line is 44 feet. That leaves 41 feet divided by 2 and you get the distance from red dot to bench...which is 20 1/2 feet.
The Hawk player is at the red dot and heading off for a change. His replacement is right next to him on the ice.
He is allowed to be within 5'...he was 20' away. Four times the allowed distance...and the refs missed it. Not to mention the two other guys still on the ice by the bench, who may have been in violation of the 5' rule as well considering at least one of their replacements is out in the middle of the ice. I'd look back at the game footage on NHL Gamecenter Live to check that point in the game, but you have to wait 48 hours after the game is over to see it on there since it was broadcast nationally.

[Kerfuffle]

@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.

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.

[JesusNEVERexisted]

They need to expand the rink to 100 feet in width like in Europe to give the best players more room. But it will never happen here because GREEN rules the NHL and owners would rather die before giving up 2 or 3 rows of seats!

You notice Olympic & international hockey is at its best with the wider ice surface?

[Kreegz2]

I'm not mad about the instigator. I don't believe it should be a rule in the first place so I'm not going to be hypocritical and whine about it when it would benefit my team. The missed too many men was more irritating, but we still played like garbage in the 3rd and have ourselves to blame for losing that game. The last 5 minutes we literally couldn't possess the puck in Chicago's zone for more than 5 seconds.

They need to expand the rink to 100 feet in width like in Europe to give the best players more room. But it will never happen here because GREEN rules the NHL and owners would rather die before giving up 2 or 3 rows of seats!

You notice Olympic & international hockey is at its best with the wider ice surface?

What the hell does that have to do with anything being discussed in this thread?

[Kerfuffle]

The last 5 minutes we literally couldn't possess the puck in Chicago's zone for more than 5 seconds.

Agreed - especially the last 2 minutes when you guys needed to pull your goalie I was surprised the hawks were able to keep it in the Blues end for as long as they did. Blues looked gassed at that point.

[not_a_wings_fan]

That too many men is one of the worst missed call of that type I have ever seen. That's ALWAYS a penalty when its that bad.

[gaijin]

In that pic you posted weren't 2 of the Hawks by the boards leaving the ice? Also you can't see the guy on the far right where there is a number 2.

Even if they did it you know hockey is the fastest game on earth. No doubt the Blues and ALL teams have had too many on the ice once in a while during a shift change and it's not called. The refs can't see everything.

First JNE post without an exclamation point?

[Portland Blues]

In that pic you posted weren't 2 of the Hawks by the boards leaving the ice? Also you can't see the guy on the far right where there is a number 2.

Even if they did it you know hockey is the fastest game on earth. No doubt the Blues and ALL teams have had too many on the ice once in a while during a shift change and it's not called. The refs can't see everything.

First JNE post without an exclamation point?

At least one word in all caps - CHECK!!!

[ViPeRx007]

I just thought I'd chime in late on a few things already discussed and repeat basically the same thing:

1) The instigator rule needs to be clarified, because how does a ref decide between justified standing up for your teammate and being retaliatory? I guess it's just up to the whim of the ref at the time? By definition, Carcillo was totally an instigator in that play, but he was standing up for a teammate. There needs to be a way to call it in a more clear-cut way. Personally, I think it should just be absolved.

2) The defense is sketchy without Shattenkirk. A few times it seemed like guys were just standing still watching the puck go right by them. Maybe they just need time to adjust, hopefully that's the case anyway because I don't think we'll be seeing him for a while.

3) Lots of sloppy play in their own end. Too many blind passes to nobody or, even worse, to the Hawks.

4) Berglund isn't good. He's probably not moving with that STUPID contract he has though. Awful all around.


It gets old always feeling a step behind "these" teams. We aren't going to win them all, but ugh. It's tough to complain a whole lot, because we were just on a stretch of playing great hockey, but I hate losing to the playoff teams. It's way worse than losing to bad teams.