Bowling4Bikes
Steee-riiike!
Don't kill the messenger! I just posted up the actual written rules. And yes they are up for interpretation. I think that interpretation being as subjective as it is, is what players/fans hate.
Notice that there is nothing on "intent" on that rule also. I know that the announcers were trying to say there was no extra intent to harm, so it must've been the blood on the ice that justified the major. But would that also figure in to interpretation, even though intent isn't written in the rule? Refs got it tough sometimes.
I'm not complaining mind you, totally glad the sharks took advantage. I hope Pavs is ok as well.
only time I see intent-based language is in the match penalty given (59.4). if the ref determines the player "attempted to or deliberately injured", so it appears intent is always looked at to a certain degree. The refs and Gallant got it right to some degree: hard to see a deliberate attempt to injure*, therefore he shouldn't have been given a major and a match, being kicked out of the game. Instead he got a major and a 10 minute misconduct, which is still 5 minutes + 10 of not playing (he didn't come back and play in OT, did he?).
at any rate the point is moot. like you and others are saying, the penalty didn't make the Sharks score 4 in 4 minutes. It was the desire and the awakening that did it.
*IMO eakin was trying to 'rub it in' to the Sharks with that risky hit. The game was in hand and there was no reason left to lay bodies down at that point. He felt safe in taking the risk to give a little more to the Sharks, and it cost them.
Last edited:


