Skip to content

Ex-ref Fraser: Sedin OT boarding penalty a ‘must call’

May 10, 2013, 2:15 PM EDT

There was plenty of controversy over Daniel Sedin’s boarding penalty that led to San Jose’s series-winning OT tally in Game 4 of the Canucks-Sharks Western Conference semifinal.

But according to former NHL referee Kerry Fraser, there shouldn’t be any controversy — it was the right call.

“Sedin’s approach was much more from behind than the side as [San Jose forward Tommy] Wingles had the lead position,” Fraser explained on his TSN blog. “Once the hit was delivered, Daniel finished the shoulder contact with his hands in a slight push motion which aided in Wingles side motion, loss of balance and awkward fall head first into the boards.”

Here’s video of the hit:

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!

Sedin was displeased with the call and didn’t hold back in criticizing it following the game.

“It’s playoff overtime and it was shoulder to shoulder,” he said. “I thought it was a bad call.”

Fraser wasn’t buying the theory that an overtime game in the postseason should’ve affected the decision-making process.

“Forget any interference that a Referee might avoid calling in overtime on team facing elimination,” he wrote. “The violent contact of Wingles head and shoulder with the boards could not be overlooked.”

Related

Henrik Sedin on brother’s critical penalty: ‘It’s a [expletive] call’

  1. ethanmacleod1685 - May 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

    I thought it was the right call aswell, a bit stingy because its the playoffs and it was in ot, but overall the play was a penalty

  2. bensawesomeness - May 10, 2013 at 2:31 PM

    Canucks fans may not like it, but he’s right.

    Plus, you’re down in a 3-0 hole in the series. You’re not making it back, especially after blowing the lead in the game

    • loinstache - May 10, 2013 at 4:16 PM

      I know I’m setting myself up for a firestorm but Canucks fans were especially pissed because that blown lead resulted from a PPG after another dodgy call involving Wingles. No Canuck fan thought we were going to win the series but losing in that fashion is going to make a fan of any team frustrated.

    • salmon90 - May 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM

      after blowing the lead in the game…yes from Wingels going down like he’d been run over by a steam roller after Bieksa nudged him. When Canuck players did/do that they get national columns written about them disgracing the game. When they are on the receiving end of those bad calls they either are undisciplined or had it coming. Haven’t heard a peep from any commentator about Wingels – not to mention Thornton shaking his hand after a slash (the wrong hand!) or Couture going down like he’s been shot. And also love how Dustin Brown is praised for his grittiness etc. when there’s no better/bigger diver in the sport. Don’t get me wrong – Sharks were by far the better team and the Canucks have numerous issues to address.

      • lostone49 - May 10, 2013 at 6:59 PM

        Can you please explain to me what Dustin Brown has to do with the series between San Jose and Vancouver?

  3. rrino - May 10, 2013 at 2:52 PM

    Borderline call, if that would have been away from the boards it wouldn’t have been called at all. Its hard to say but Wingles may have sold it a bit too to get the call.

    • pandorasdadca - May 10, 2013 at 3:04 PM

      I tend to agree. The fact that he extended his arms and, more than anything else, Wingles went head first into the boards is what got this play called.

  4. greenmtnboy31 - May 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM

    It was HORRIBLE call. I don’t need Kerry Fraser to defend his brother official trying to convince me of what is an obviously HORRIBLE call. It has nothing to do with OT, it was not a penalty.

    • atwatercrushesokoye - May 10, 2013 at 5:13 PM

      It’s no surprise though, in his TSN column the only Fraser ever does is defend the refs and say that the call they made was the right one and was fantastic. I’m sure when TSN decided to add this feature they thought they’d get a little more than Fraser taking a question about the latest controversial call and then defending the call on the ice no matter what.

      • hockeyflow33 - May 10, 2013 at 6:01 PM

        I’ve read a bunch where he said the wrong call was made but does try to explain the thought process

  5. sjsfanman - May 10, 2013 at 3:02 PM

    All this talk about jack jablonski and changing the game and then the Sedins come out and whine and cry about this call…. The guy made a dangerous hit on a guy along the boards… Was it really neccesary to drill him into the boards instead of the bear hug style hit into the boards that doesn’t end with someone sliding head first into the boards?

    • salmon90 - May 10, 2013 at 4:51 PM

      This post is just so wrong/bad on so many levels

  6. crusty14 - May 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM

    @rrino:

    Of course it would not be called if it wasn’t near the boards! It was a “boarding” penalty! If there were no boards, then it would not have been a dangerous hit, therefore no penalty.

  7. tlndma - May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM

    Call was 50/50…..Goaltending on goal was 100% lousy.

  8. nothanksimdriving123 - May 10, 2013 at 4:03 PM

    My bro and I were cheering for the Sharks, but we agreed the Canucks got hosed, not that they were going to win the series, but keep it fair. Not a good call in OT, and yes, I do believe in situational enforcement. First period you set the tone, but by OT it should be mostly flagrantly impeding scoring chances or really dirty stuff, which by then is unusual anyway.

    • elvispocomo - May 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM

      I don’t believe in the principle of situational enforcement, but I agree it exists and is practised regularly in the NHL. That in itself is an issue: when is the rulebook not a rulebook? Whenever they want.

  9. sjsharks66 - May 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM

    If it is a penalty in the first, second or third period. It needs to be called in OT. Since it is OT and a team is facing elimination the refs should put the whistles away? So the losing team can hold, trip and board other players on the winning team? How is that fair?

    If this was not an OT elimination game, there would be no controversy about this. This was the right call.

    • loinstache - May 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM

      Have you ever watched a play off series before? Because its pretty convenient to retrospectively call for a standard after it has already benefited your team.

    • elvispocomo - May 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

      I don’t think anyone expects the refs to stop game management. Anyone who does is naive. All anyone should expect is the calls to be the same both ways and consistent from game to game. In this case they most certainly weren’t.

      I still don’t even see this as a penalty since Wingels has some responsibility going into the boards to not get knocked off his feet by shoulder to shoulder contact. He and Sedin were travelling the same direction at the same speed and they’re roughly the same size. Wingels hits more the way he plays, and should be prepared for more physical contact as a result, but clearly wasn’t even after he’d just been stick checked by the same player a few feet away.

  10. loinstache - May 10, 2013 at 4:11 PM

    I really enjoy Fraser’s pieces on TSN but can’t take him seriously during the play offs as he (like all refs) does not like to admit that penalties are called differently in a play off context. It’s typical from them, refer to the book but all bets are off what standard is used once on the ice.

  11. sjsharks66 - May 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

    Have you ever seen me say that penalties should be different in OT and regulation? If so, then show me to prove that i only say that since it benefited my team.

    I haven’t though. Always have thought that Penalties should be the same throughout the entire game.

    • elvispocomo - May 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM

      And that’s fine to think so – I even agree – but are you really naive enough to believe that’s the way it is called?

  12. sjsharks66 - May 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM

    Are you really saying the Bieksa cross check into the board was not the right call? You are insane.

    Maybe the Canucks should have played with more discipline. Instead of practicing on winning, they practiced their whining.

    • loinstache - May 10, 2013 at 4:36 PM

      It was a 2 hand shove in the back and it was something canucks fans have seen a thousand times over because that’s how defenders play the sedins behind the net after 2011. It’s well documented that teams picked up on that and started employing it freely. So yes, as a canuck fan who sees that play every time I watch hockey, I struggled to find it a penalty at such a critical juncture.

      • sjsharks66 - May 10, 2013 at 4:48 PM

        It all makes sense now!
        You are a Canucks fan. Everything you complain about for this series is officially invalid.

        I knew you were not a by standard hockey fan trying to talk about hockey. After the 2011 playoffs when your team dove its way to the finals, you have no reason to complain.

        Your team BIT someone. Have you forgotten about that? Want to complain about borderline calls that end series? What about the phantom icing call in the game winner against the Sharks? Or when the refs lost sight of the puck for like 6 seconds and didn’t blow the play down? Which lead the Bieksa’s goal?

      • salmon90 - May 10, 2013 at 5:00 PM

        sjsharks66 – so we dove ourselves to the finals whereas you’re only going to dive yourself to a second round thumping at the hands of the Hawks…ouch! I wonder how good you’ll look without a 26-10 powerplay advantage. Hope the Hawks are more ‘disciplined’ than the Canucks!

      • sjsharks66 - May 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM

        A lot of people think the Sharks can handle the Hawks. We out played the Canucks 5 on 5 as well as out working their PK.

        Yes, Yes you did dive your way to the Finals. You seem to forget the Sharks series. The consistent 5 on 3 PP your team was handed. Nom Nom Nom, burrows will have to wait until October to much some fingers.

      • loinstache - May 10, 2013 at 5:11 PM

        It actually stuns me how you repeatedly dismiss anything a canucks poster says as whining while constantly falling back on complaints from the 2011 series. And the fact that you thought you lost the series because no but Bieksa saw the puck or an icing call is… wow. Kind of see where your hilariously personally involved narrative comes from now.

      • loinstache - May 10, 2013 at 5:14 PM

        Like the repeated 5v3 from Eager viscously checking Daniel from behind and only getting 2 mins? Just want to clarify that you’re defending acts like that while claiming Canucks lost because of undisciplined play.

      • salmon90 - May 10, 2013 at 6:06 PM

        Do yourself a favor and watch the Eager hit on Daniel back in that series you’re referencing. Watch Daniel’s reaction. Then watch the Daniel or Bieksa hit on Wingles McFlopper. Watch McFlopper’s reaction. Objectively – yes objectively! – ask yourself which team ‘should’ be labelled the divers. Ask yourself, which team actually deserved to be on the man advantage in these circumstances – only asking since you’re referencing all these 5-3’s…yes that same kind where Joe ‘shaking my wrong hand on the slash’ Thornton earned for his theatrics. Looking forward to your response.

      • elvispocomo - May 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM

        Outplayed the Canucks 5 on 5? That’s debateable since it was largely the goals scored off the PP that won the series for the Sharks.

        And your mom and little sister don’t equate to “a lot of people” by most standards. Thinking the Hawks won’t manhandle you is wishful thinking since the Sharks success in large part was on the PP against us and Chicago was tied with the Rangers for the least penalized team in the regular season and have continued that in the playoffs. Good luck with that, assuming the refs don’t help you out with all the extra PP time to overrule Chicago being so good at not taking penalties.

    • chicagohawksfan66 - May 10, 2013 at 9:29 PM

      Enjoy your series win, must be nice for a fan of the biggest choke team since the 90’s. Is it fun sitting where you are with your first little sweep? A little revenge on the team that wtfpawned you last time? I wish I could share your point of view but I can’t seem to get my head up your ass. Bohica.

  13. pitpenguinsrulez - May 10, 2013 at 4:55 PM

    Much like the Crosby call in overtime its still an iffy call but too late now

    …and I still hate Kerry Fraser with a passion!! Always have and always will!!!

    • cheesesteak75 - May 11, 2013 at 8:19 AM

      Crosby’s call was a good call. Two hands on him from behind. Watch the play and learn the rules.

  14. wicky888 - May 10, 2013 at 4:59 PM

    Early in OT that’s a horrible call. However, I’ve seen the Canucks get call after call for years, so I feel no pity. It actually made me smile. They are the Penguins of the West, except they don’t have any cups

  15. bleedingteal4life - May 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM

    Of course if someone on the canuck’s had taken a hit like that, the sedin’s would be crying all the way to the locker room. Hypocrites. I can understand why they are upset about the call though, considering it cost them the game and series :P

  16. stakex - May 10, 2013 at 8:27 PM

    It was a very weak call for a playoff game, especially in an elimination situation. Fraser was a terrible refs, and his opinion doesn’t mean a whole lot.

  17. csilojohnson - May 10, 2013 at 10:48 PM

    More justifications here then on a Pens/Flyers board.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches