|
Waxers @ Dukes Game 2March 23 2008 at 4:30 PM | Dukester (Login 1Dukester) Registered Members |
| - Markham is now taking it to Wellington,leading 3-1 with 5 minutes gone in the 3rd. Now we see if the Dukes can fight back today or has the battleground been set. |
|
| Author | Reply |
Negraneau (Login TestTickles) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 4:35 PM |
4-2 now
I wish this game was being streamed on the internet. |
|
Dukester (Login 1Dukester) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 4:49 PM |
Looks like this series will get real interesting now. Game 3 will be a real biggy. |
|
Dukester (Login 1Dukester) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 4:57 PM |
Dukes 9 game playoff winning streak has crashed after suffering a 5- 2 loss today. |
|
southernman (Login leafsbite) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 5:01 PM |
should be interesting hearing from the duke fans on this one...this is gonna be a fun series to watch. |
|
SMC57 (Login SMC57) Registered Members | Overrated Duke Dome "Mystique" Torn Apart By Yet Another Non-East Team | March 23 2008, 5:22 PM |
Hats off to the Markham Waxers who obviously overcame the much overrated and heralded "Mystique" of the Duke Dome. A 5-2 win against the Dukes in "Dukieland" sounds to me like the Waxers may have Wellington's number in this series and without the goaltending of past years, the Dukes are in a lot of trouble in my opinion.
Once again congrats to the Waxers for what must have been a great effort by the whole team. |
|
 Matty B (Login Matty__B) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 5:25 PM |
They appear to have played a great game today, but that's all it is one game. Overconfidence and assuming a team has another teams number because of one game will not lead to a series victory. Hard work all the way through is what will lead to the Waxers possibly winning the series because guess what? The Dukes are still infront of them.
Toronto Maple Leafs= Ford Motor Company |
|
SMC57 (Login SMC57) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 5:45 PM |
Come on "Matty B", loosen up a bit. A 5-2 win over the Dukes in the Duke Dome is Major, Major and a tremendous "shock" to them.
Even the powerful RBC Tiger team of last year could only manage wins of 2-1 and 4-1 at the Dome. Mark my words the Dukes right now are real "shook up", along with their fans, and are ripe for the picking. |
|
Dukester (Login 1Dukester) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 5:53 PM |
Dukes are "ripe for the picking". That's a pretty bold statement after their one loss. Let's see how they respond and then maybe we will see if they are ripe or were just due for a loss. |
|
 Matty B (Login Matty__B) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 5:56 PM |
Don't get me wrong I think it's a massive win and I really felt the Waxers may fall behind 2-0 and even worse be completely demoralized. Instead they came up with a huge effort and won a game in what appears to be a decisive manner. The Dukes have two areas that are not as good as advertised and I think the Waxers exploited them. Not sure how in the smaller duke dome, but I'll take the win no matter what.
In the end though it's still only one game and the series is tied 1-1 and my statement above still stands. That being said though, I expect the Waxers to win game 3 if they don't turn the puck over like they did in game 1. Waxers forwards can skate right around the Dukes D and their goalie is huge, but I question how good he really is. Bigger ice surface favours the faster team.
Toronto Maple Leafs= Ford Motor Company |
|
 Matty B (Login Matty__B) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 5:59 PM |
If I'm not mistaken SMC57 is the same person who said the Dukes would roll over the Waxers. Also, the Buzzers wwere suppose to do the same to the Waxers. Quick to jump on the here and now.
Toronto Maple Leafs= Ford Motor Company |
|
 PM87 (Login puckmaster87) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 7:04 PM |
smc57 is just working to stir the poop on whomever aurora thinks is a tougher opponent. trying to hand out bulletin board candies. don't swallow his poison laced goodies.
$$PM87$$
|
|
Tyler Brown (Login DUKES_FAN) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 7:25 PM |
Markham came out hard and showed from the opening faceoff that they were not going to go down without a fight. Wellington looked slow out of the gate and being outshot 10-2 midway through the first period showed that Markham was outplaying them.
The Waxers definitely were the better team tonight and that is why they won the game. I don't believe, from my vantage point, that the 5-2 score tells the whole story. Wellington had many glorious chances but just couldn't beat Rank.
Back to Markham we go for game 3
DUKES_FAN |
|
SMC57 (Login SMC57) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 23 2008, 11:55 PM |
Hey Guys, I'll be the 1st to admit that I understimated the Waxers right from the get go against the Buzzers. When I mentioned the Wellington/Markham series, I had not seen the Dukes play since last year and was going mainly on their season record and reputation. However after attending the 1st game last Friday night in Markham, my opinion changed quite a bit, as I could see that the Dukes, in my opinion, are not the Dukes of last season. The biggest difference that I could see is that their goaltender is not a Dan Dunn. Also I think that on the whole, their team is a few cuts below the 2006/07 Dukes.
On the other hand I was very impressed with the Waxers and but for a major giveaway and a very slow start in the 1st period, when they seemed a little vervous, the Waxers would have won that game and would have been up 2-0 at this point.
The only thing that I felt may give the Waxers problems was playing in the Duke Dome, but after today's domination at the DD, it would appear that they have handled that "bump" in the road with flying colours, something that a lot of teams cannot.
Believe me, there is no "poison" in my remarks, I would like nothing better than a Tiger/Waxer OPJAHL final. Can it happen? we will know in the next 2 weeks, as things get more and more interesting. |
|
netmaster1 (Login netmaster1) Registered Members | Delay of Game | March 24 2008, 11:03 AM |
Kyle Crawford was given a penalty for firing the puck over the glass in the defensive end. I didn't think this was a penalty in this league? |
|
Mr.30 (Login Mr.30) Registered Members | Hockey Canada Rule 75 (b) | March 24 2008, 1:05 PM |
" A minor penalty shall be assessed any player who delays the game by deliberately shooting, batting or throwing the puck outside the playing surface of the rink. The resulting face-off shall be at the spot where the offense occurred, unless otherwise stated in the rules."
He made it somewhat obvious when no one was pressuring him and he fired the puck over the referee's head and hit the top of the netting in an attempt to get a face-off.
Rarely called, but it's a rule... |
|
Anonymous (Login K2four) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 25 2008, 9:54 AM |
Then there is rule 74 (a) which states "A team in possession of the puck in its defending zone shall always advance the puck towards the opposing goal, except when prevented from doing so by players of the opposing team."
Now have you ever seen a ref or linesman stop the play when a team takes the puck behind their net to re-group when not being pressured like on a powerplay?
It never happens.
Rules are "interpreted" by officials and not necessarily "enforced" which is why some call things and other don't. |
|
Hapding (Login hapding) Registered Members | It was called..... | March 25 2008, 12:19 PM |
The last time I saw a penalty called for "hanging onto the puck" behind the net was in the famous 13 - 4 drubbing of the Tigers in the Duke Dome in the Dukes run to the RBC year. The ref will issue a penalty if the team does not make any attempt to advance the puck. I think the proper call is a delay of game. |
|
mcole (Login SouthernSmoke) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 25 2008, 1:08 PM |
The correct call was made on the Crawford penalty. I was around the area where the puck was shot and Markham was pressuring the Dukes big time.
Personally I don't think that the score really tells the whole story of this game. Wellington has a scoring chance in the third period which looked to have gone in with Rank lying on top of the puck and not being pushed in. Although since the puck was underneathe him and Regan could not see the puck, when we got up and kinda slid out of the net the ref signaled no goal. I really think that could have been a huge turning point in the game but the ref stuck with his call.
It really was an exciting game to watch but Wellington looked a lot slower than usual. No doubt Markham is a great team with a lot of speed but I think that Wellington is overall the better team. Game 3 should be very interesting tonight, I don't see the Dukes losing back-to-back
4-3 Wellington in OT |
|
Anonymous (Login K2four) Registered Members | Re: Waxers @ Dukes Game 2 | March 25 2008, 4:19 PM |
Actually Hapding, the "puck must be kept in motion" application of rule 74 (a) would only result in a whistle and a face off in the team's defensive zone. The delay of game penalty would be for deliberately freezing the puck with the skate, stick or some body part when there is no opposing player checking the guy in possession of the puck.
Two different scenarios.
I'll pick the Dukes tonight by 2 goals. |
|
hapding (Login hapding) Registered Members | In actuality... | March 25 2008, 5:27 PM |
By this point in the game The Aurora coach had pulled his goalie and had had his captain jump a rookie in the neutral zone. He then sent a player out to get the puck and stand behind the net with it. The Dukes went to a Trap and Aurora just stood behind the net not even touching the puck. The Ref assesed a minor penalty to the tigers and warned the bench that another example of this tact would result in a travesty of the game call.
My point is the refs can take the rules as they see it and also apply their own interpretations as they see fit.
Coaching also played a part in the call as the Wellington coach set the TRAP so to speak and the Aurora coach feel right into it. |
|
|
|
|