Paul McCann: Nashville takes down Flyers in wild one

lame

That Girard kid was really good last night.

(frank)ing left the game before the last two goals...

(frank)ing left the game before the last two goals...
- jochfr

(frank)ing left the game before the last two goals...
- jochfr

Bet the traffic was great, though.

Bet the traffic was great, though.
- jmatchett383

It was... So my friend just had shoulder surgery last wednesday (rotator cuff and slap tear) and she wanted to leave before everyone else. I was her ride... not in a good way.
And of course they come back for the win.

I can't remember ever watching that long of a 6 on 3. Before Harntnell tied it they really didn't have any great chances. Love the new rule on getting delay of Game on a failed offside Challenge. Does Pittsburgh go for that bogus skate blade off the ice call on Subban's first goal of the Stanley Cup final Game 1 if they knew they could have been penalized for being wrong?

No, Pittsburgh would not have challenged the offside call in the SCF game if there was a 2-minute minor for delay of game if they were wrong. It's not worth the risk on a razor thin call like that, and I can't see Mike Sullivan risking that unless he saw a blatant offside. If you're wrong, you risk going down two quick goals.

This rule works the way replay should (I think the same should apply in the NFL, but I'll get back to hockey). The review rules are there to overturn clear mistakes by the officials, not razor thin bang-bang plays. Hockey is a game of flow and momentum. If you can kill the energy of team who just scored by delaying the game for 5 minutes while people in Toronto look at 47 different angles, it really should carry a penalty if you are wrong. Hakstol paid the price last night. Other coaches will see how that went down and cost the Flyers, and they will think twice before challenging a close call in a situation like that.

No, Pittsburgh would not have challenged the offside call in the SCF game if there was a 2-minute minor for delay of game if they were wrong. It's not worth the risk on a razor thin call like that, and I can't see Mike Sullivan risking that unless he saw a blatant offside. If you're wrong, you risk going down two quick goals.

This rule works the way replay should (I think the same should apply in the NFL, but I'll get back to hockey). The review rules are there to overturn clear mistakes by the officials, not razor thin bang-bang plays. Hockey is a game of flow and momentum. If you can kill the energy of team who just scored by delaying the game for 5 minutes while people in Toronto look at 47 different angles, it really should carry a penalty if you are wrong. Hakstol paid the price last night. Other coaches will see how that went down and cost the Flyers, and they will think twice before challenging a close call in a situation like that.
- holycow_75

As a flyer fan I agree. It's a great rule and you explained it perfectly.

Fun game but we can't give up 4.33 goals per game and expect to win a lot of games, especially since we are not an offensive juggernaut

Generally enjoy your blogs, Paul......but the officials handed the Preds this one. Add to that, the bonehead move by the Flyers head coach, and you have a gift wrapped two points! Merry Christmas early!
Had this to refs done that in a game six or seven in the playoffs, and they'd have needed armed guards!!

Now can you see what you can do about getting James Tanner canned???

Generally enjoy your blogs, Paul......but the officials handed the Preds this one. Add to that, the bonehead move by the Flyers head coach, and you have a gift wrapped two points! Merry Christmas early!
Had this to refs done that in a game six or seven in the playoffs, and they'd have needed armed guards!!

Now can you see what you can do about getting James Tanner canned???
- Hokeeguy9

Nothing is worse than having a good goal waived off by the Officials in Game 6 and they made it out alive. Probably would have needed body guards in Philly or a Canadian City.

The two penalties that gave the Preds a two-man advantage were both legit calls. It stinks to get the second call, but teams can't be permitted to take obvious penalties during a delayed call just because they're betting that the officials aren't brave enough to call a second penalty.

Hakstol's decision to challenge the tying goal is what cost the Flyers at least a point, maybe two. It was particularly dumb because, even if it had ended up being successful and the goal had been taken away, the Preds would've still had a minute of 6-on-3 left and most likely would've gotten it back (especially since they did score with the 5-on-3). Simply accepting the goal would've been far better.

Nothing is worse than having a good goal waived off by the Officials in Game 6 and they made it out alive. Probably would have needed body guards in Philly or a Canadian City.
- VopatsRash

Except seeing a post from you!!!!