A series-defining call, or mistake in the minds of many, has lit a fire underneath the owner of the NHL’s newest team. Vegas Golden Knights owner Bill Foley has already begun lobbying the league to make all major penalty calls reviewable after a controversial major ended up costing his team in the first round.
With a 3-0 lead over the San Jose Sharks in the third period of Game Seven, Vegas center Cody Eakin was issued a five-minute major and game misconduct for cross-checking Sharks counterpart Joe Pavelski, who fell awkwardly to the ice, had to leave the game, and remains sidelined for San Jose. Over the course of that five-minute penalty, the Sharks scored four times and ultimately won in overtime to eliminate the Golden Knights. The penalty was a blatant cross-check and worthy of a two-minute minor, but it’s hard to argue that a major was the right call. In fact, the NHL has reportedly apologized to the club for the call.
While Knights GM George McPhee said that he and the team would not dwell on the call, he apparently wasn’t speaking for his owner. In a press conference on Thursday, Foley informed the media that he believed a major penalty should be reviewable via coach’s challenge. It is unlikely that this was a passion project of the owner prior to his team’s controversial elimination, but it certainly is now. Foley stated that he has already spoken with league officials and fellow owners about the issue and expects it to be a topic of conversation at the summer Board of Governors meeting.
Foley insisted that if a major penalty review process had been in place, the call on Eakin would have been overturned and the Golden Knights would have won the game and advanced to the next round. However, the owner is only focusing on one part of the problem. Bad calls happen, but if your team cannot allow less than four goals over one five-minute penalty, it would seem that the penalty kill is a bigger issue than the league’s policies and procedures.
While the PK was inexcusable, the call was also inexcusable, so Foley is technically correct that if the call had been made correctly, they would have moved on. I’m not sure what the purpose of calling him out at the end is.
I don’t like the idea of coaches having the ability to challenge any penalties. But majors like that should come from an official off the ice, at least during the playoffs.
Agreed. Especially since SJ was 0-7 on the PP in that game before that call. It’s not like Vegas was awful on the pk before then.
Should they be better, and not allow 4 goals on a major, absolutely. But the penalty definitely shifted momentum and if called correctly, VGK probably moves on.
Another series defining penalty happened in game two when the sharks were called for a bogus goalie interference call which cost them a goal and ultimately the game……I didn’t hear him crying about penalty review then or a change to the crazy goalie interference rule. Bottom line is they should have finished off the sharks in one of the two games before game 7 then none of this would have mattered. Series changing moments can happen at any time, it’s how you deal with them that matters. Tired of athletes or coaches or owners always pointing the finger at someone else when they fail
Should be reviewable for sure. The PK shouldn’t have let in 4, but they should have never had a 5 minute PP. I’ve got no skin in the game but this was brutal.
Bill Foley is also calling for a moratorium on short handed goals in double OT when your team is leading the series 3-2.
penalty review needs to be a major factor of the offseason. between the crack-down on the normal nuances of the game and situations like this, current penalty calling is atrocious.
While the penalty definitely was bogus I have a hard time believing the wrong team won. It’s the NHL playoffs if you don’t have the heart to step up and overcome adversity and not let 4 goals in maybe you don’t deserve advancing. Bad calls happen, I hate that because teams laid down and gave up because a call went against them we’ll be getting more reviews in the NFL and probably in the NHL too now.
While I agree that it shouldn’t have been a major penalty, it should have certainly been a double minor. If you hit someone in the face with your stick and it causes bleeding, it doesn’t matter if it was an accident or not; it’s a double minor either way. Pavelski was cross checked and it resulted in blood on the ice. I don’t think for a second that Eakin did it on purpose or intended to hurt Pavelski, but it still happened. A double minor would have been the right call.
Second, Vegas had three chances to finish the Sharks off and failed. They failed twice in OT to close out the Sharks. Foley needs to face the fact that his team let the Sharks back in the series and choked it away in game 7. Vegas did actually tie the game up and send it to OT, so that major penalty didn’t lose them the game or the series. Their performance in OT did… for the second time. The bottom line is Vegas completely unraveled after this call. No five minute major should result in four goals. They came undone. That’s why they gave up four.
Perhaps Foley should look at why his top six went quiet in the last three games of the series. It’s just pathetic that he is putting so much of this first round elimination on this one call. A lot of other things went wrong that had much more impact on why Vegas lost the series.
Meant to say the last two games of the series. Specifically, their second line was nowhere to be found in games 5 and 6 which certainly helped the Sharks to force a Game 7.
He didn’t hit him in the face with his stick. He got him in the chest
@sessh a double minor is to be applied if blood is drawn by the contact of a stick, not if a stick causes someone to go down and the ice draws blood.
Re: Foley wanting reviews. Should the high stick that knocked out Coutures teeth have been reviewed? That should have been a double minor but because Couture ran to the locker room to receive medical attention it was called a minor for high sticking. It’s a 2 way street Bill. Be careful what you wish for.
A cross check can’t be a double minor – it can only be a minor or a major penalty.
High sticking can be a double minor penalty and it isn’t the presence of blood alone that triggers a double minor (or major penalty) – it’s the presence of an injury (blood is just a great signifier of that). The injury doesn’t have to be direct, just present. It can be incidental, accidental, or just careless.
For a cross checking major penalty it’s the ref’s prerogative – if they believe the contact is severe, they can issue a match penalty. Pavelski was clearly injured, left the game, and missed game 1 of the second round (I guess just like the Knights) so I think the match penalty is justified.
I don’t think Eakin intended to injure Pavelski, but I do think he intended to cross check him and I think while the call is borderline – meaning a total judgement call on the part of the refs, I do think they did the best they could do given the circumstances.
Hey Foley,did you notice the 4 Minute Power Play the Sharks killed off last night while your team was sitting on the Couch last night?
Fair enough, I stand corrected on the double minor thing as I was mistaken. I wasn’t aware that double minors only applied to certain infractions.
In that case, the only two options are minor or major. Tough call. So, I guess the refs did the best they could in that situation. I imagine it would be difficult to go with a minor penalty considering what happened to Pavelski, but I don’t think it was worthy of a major penalty. Just a really tough situation there for the refs.
Also agree on the Couture example as well for penalty reviews being a double edged sword. Personally, I’d rather see these kinds of things settled the old fashioned way; dropping the gloves. I don’t think Foley will get his wish, but who knows these days?
Vegas should have finished them off game 5 or 6. Things happen in sports.
Every Champion has something miraculous happen