11/21/24
February 18, 2006
Men's hockey: Canada falls to Switzerland: Former NHL forward Paul DiPietro scored two goals to help Switzerland to a stunning 2-0 victory over Canada at the Winter Olympics on Saturday.
Talk about a heart-breaker. Canada had two (yes, two) goals disallowed on (my opinion) controversial calls.
posted by wingnut4life to other at 12:01 PM - 17 comments
WOW!Good for Switzerland the way they played and there goalie Martin Gerber making 49 saves for a shut out after giving up what 5 goals in the first game and being replaced by David Abischer.I dont know who there other goalie is but between the two Gerber and Abby they have a good chance I think for the gold but still Im going with the USA to win
posted by sirtt22 at 12:26 PM on February 18, 2006
It's an amazing result, and again it goes to prove how much the Men's game has come along since the integration of the European game into the NHL. And it's not just good goalies, though that helps - the teams themselves are good. In the long run this kind of wake-up call might be what the Canadians needed. Hope so.
posted by mikelbyl at 12:33 PM on February 18, 2006
dont know who there other goalie is but between the two Gerber and Abby they have a good chance I think for the gold but still Im going with the USA to win No. Switzerland does not have a chance at the gold. Too many good opponents to beat.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:35 PM on February 18, 2006
The goal that Canada did score and was called back on the crease violation - can't do much about that. It is the rule in international play. It would be called the same in every case and there was no video appeal possible. No biggie. It happens. The other one, I can get the conclusion of "inconclusive video evidence" but what I saw suggested that the puck was over the line. I didn't see it over the line per se, but I could see that it wasn't not over the line so by process of eliminiation, it had to be over the line. But the video angles didn't make that conclusion a sure thing which was too bad. Still, Canada didn't look all that great except for a burst in the middle to end of the 2nd period. They deserved to lose.
posted by gspm at 01:26 PM on February 18, 2006
For a goal to be a goal, you have to be able to prove it's over the line. It's not enough to say "it's not not over the line, so it's a goal." I thought both calls were the right ones. There's not much to say about this. Canada bit it hard, and all we can hope is that it pisses them off enough to start playing like they can. Though, it's hard to ignore that they outshot the Swiss 24-1 in the third period. Not panicking yet, though Finland is looking pretty good so far....
posted by Succa at 01:45 PM on February 18, 2006
No panic. Unless there's a massive disaster (Canada loses both, Germany wins both), they're still guaranteed a spot in the quarters. And with the parity of the tournament, I don't think it makes THAT much of a difference whether you finish 1st or 4th since the opposite teams in the B-pool are all equally threatening. I guess you'd take Slovakia over Russia, but only marginally -- it's not a guaranteed semi spot either way. What this loss means now, though, is that Canada is equal with Czechs. Both got upset and both have a date with each other to end to round. That game will determine where they stand more than anything thus far.
posted by mkn at 01:55 PM on February 18, 2006
For clarity, let's say this is what happened on the Nash non-goal -- Gerber gloves the puck outside the plane of the goal, but then his catcher swings back inside it. What's the ruling on that? For my money, it appeared to me he caught the puck outside and might have taken it in while he had control.
posted by wfrazerjr at 01:56 PM on February 18, 2006
For clarity, let's say this is what happened on the Nash non-goal -- Gerber gloves the puck outside the plane of the goal, but then his catcher swings back inside it. What's the ruling on that? If they can prove the glove (and thus the puck) crossed the line all the way, it's a goal. For example, Lemieux had a goal on Hasek in the last Olympics where Hasek fell back into the net after making the save with his chest.
posted by Succa at 02:00 PM on February 18, 2006
So Finland and Slovakia are the only 2-0 teams? Insanity!
posted by insomnyuk at 02:03 PM on February 18, 2006
The crease violation was a good call, I guess. You could also argue that the ref was in the process of blowing the whistle. I know that in the NHL if the ref has intent to blow the whistle, the puck is dead. As for the Nash non-goal, there has to be clear visual proof that the puck is past the line. The angle on Gerber's left, you can argue that you saw the puck enter his glove and then go past the pipe. But on the overhead view, you can not see the puck at all. It sucks and I don't like it. But those are the rules in the Olympic games, so I have to live with it. Good game, though.
posted by wingnut4life at 02:48 PM on February 18, 2006
I'm a non-hockey guy who's mostly curious about this, and I'm having trouble reading these charts- how many games does each team play to determine the group of 8 in the quarterfinals? Looks like it's the top 4 in each 6-team group after 5 games, with presumably goals made/allowed as a tiebreaker with tied records. Despite both of the "upsets", it seems Canada and the USA are both still in it at 2-0-1 and 1-1-1, and looks like there's probably two (?) more games left to play for every team before the final standings in Group A and B are set, producing the final 8. Doesn't Canada have like 23 NHLers on their team or something- seems like they should be steamrolling through this field like the '92 USA basketball team.... As a NA-centric viewer, is it safe to say both teams will probably make the quarterfinals unless they lose the next two games they play? And that it's very possible that the US and Canada can meet up in a non-medal situation early in the quarterfinals?
posted by hincandenza at 08:58 PM on February 18, 2006
Major props to Gerber: 23 saves in the third! Thats stepping up your game. On some even strength occasions it looked almost like Canada was running a powerplay, just gunning away nonstop. But Gerber was a freaking wall. There was just no room at all. When a goalie's on like that, its very hard to win the game, even when your skaters are as obviously superior as Canadas were. Watching the US, though, it just doesnt seem like we have enough firepower to get anywhere. I'm hoping that Mike Modano can regain his old status as the hope of American hockey and take control on offense. He's playing way too passively. Other than that, though, I don't see us beating a good defensive team.
posted by fatfryar at 08:59 PM on February 18, 2006
* is it safe to say both teams will probably make the quarterfinals unless they lose the next two games they play? Yes, that's still not a bad bet. But these games are still troubling, especially to insecure fans in countries where how well the hockey team does informs the national character. The Canadians (& US, to a lesser degree) are among the favorites, but it's nowhere like the women's side of the tournament. Think of it more like Olympic basketball; thanks to globalism, the longtime favorites are no longer prohibitive steamroll-through locks, but they should still be at or near the top of the ladder when everything finishes shaking down. * And that it's very possible that the US and Canada can meet up in a non-medal situation early in the quarterfinals? Given the losses and how close all the teams are, this is very possible. But it's still too early to freak out or make hard predictions about such things yet. Wait till after the next game.
posted by chicobangs at 09:03 PM on February 18, 2006
Solvaks look wicked. So do the Fins. Right now, they're playing better than the Canadians and the Swedes and the Czechs look out of it. Russia is also coming on. The Swiss have earned (in that they've played as perfectly as they could and things have gone their way) their wins, too. We've got a tourney on our hands, boys. I'll just go ahead and put these nail-clippers away for about a week.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:50 AM on February 19, 2006
Not only do the skaters have to deal with the bigger ice surfaces, they also have to deal with the single referee for these games. It's pretty obvious that there are a shitload of penalties being ignored because the one ref is watching only the players they suspect by reputation rather than everyone. Add to that the shitful broadcasters that NBC uses, and I'd rather they go back to having amateurs play the Olympics.
posted by mrhockey at 12:08 PM on February 19, 2006
I don't understand how the broadcasters from a single country influence the quality of hockey being played.
posted by qbert72 at 03:09 PM on February 19, 2006
< strong>It's about time the Swiss took advantage of this team, after all team Canada beat them down like dogs for 30 some years!