When a BRUTAL injury changes an entire hockey game… 

i’m a knights fan too and people even just bringing this up makes my blood boil but at least we got our cup

As a Sharks fan, I remember seeing the look on the ice, and it appeared to be a cross check, then a sluefoot, but when I saw the other angle, I thought 5 was a bit much. That being said, I'll never forget Couture's first goal and him shouting, "THATS ONE!" Epic comeback, but the hockey Gods knew better. Pittsburgh killed us, and rightly so. Oh well. One of these days I'll get to see the cup in San Jose.

Coming from a sharks fan… I knew Vegas would win the cup. The team was so focused and let’s be real… this comeback was kinda fluke compared to where we r now 😂😂😂

Shut up you don’t know what pain is.

As a Leafs fan, I have so many memories of this I have a hard time remembering them all lol.

I remember screaming in anger and disbelief. Lol. We totally fell apart. But I can imagine how happy all you shark fans must have felt

How sad that this is the "greatest [Sharks] game of all time"

Oh please. This was all on Cody Eakins

​@@jonah.donohuehow? It wasn't the right call

Sounds all too familiar

@@acemoneymaker8242 Lmao Vegas fan

@@jonah.donohue lmao flames fan who doesn't care for either team

yeee baby we bleed teal

Does it change anything for you when you consider it was the wrong call by the refs...who understandably thought it was a crosscheck to the head?

@@solarion9802Obviously bad calls happen, this one has a massive ripple effect. I know what it’s like, I’m an Ottawa fan. Just this season, a non icing call followed by a puck cover that didn’t seem to count caused us to lose a game we needed to win to make it into the playoffs. However, the Knights did something malicious on this play. Sure, the call was wrong, and it’s unfortunate what came of it, but U think the Sharks would have done it anyways for vengeance.

Absolutely love that most Sharks fan's "favorite moment of all time" was when they benefited from a horrible call and ended up winning a game they had no business winning! Also telling that they rubbed it in VGK fan's faces anytime they could......until June 2023......

@@hardware1197 And here, kids, is what happens when a sore loser gets to actually win something. Not a great influence, I know, but it’s a reminder to not be like them at least.

@@spartannige3296 I'll just continue down this thread reading all the Tuna fan comments about "the greatest game ever" and "best moment of my life" while I sew on the SCF Champion patch in preparation for the exhibition game I have to attend in SJ. We'll see all the sore losers then......

Probably the meltdown from Game 7 in the 2019 Playoffs bcos mayb VGK would of had 2 cups by now.

​@@jerms6667*3 if not for the caps

Oh Dats rite I totally forgot.

This is why I’m sad, I can’t make fun of the Knights anymore

And got it their FIRST year in the league 😂

Avenging what. Dude fell backwards trying to draw a penalty

Pavelski tends to get injured in the playoffs from clean hits.

Love the ‘22 Blues vs Avalanche game 5 comeback, but yeah not as clutch as the sharks here

Along with the worst call

I wouldn't call it the greatest comeback given the circumstances surrounding it. It was a blown call, giving the Sharks a 5-minute pp. Sure, the Knights should've focused on killing it off, but it was their piss poor response to the call that allowed the Sharks to capitalize on it. The Knights basically gave up. For me personally, the controversy alone (regardless of how you view it) takes away from the comeback a little bit

Lol the reverse sweep against the Sharks by the Kings in 2012 was the best NHL comeback in recent history.

It was both one of the greatest game comebacks of all time, being down 3-0 in goals, and also series comebacks, down 3 games to 1.

That's what I was thinking.

Goodrow too is an enforcer too but that role can be good I mean look at the next 2 seasons after in tampa with him, Cedric Paquette, Yanni Gourde, Blake Coleman and Pat Maroon. And ofc last years playoffs esp in round 1 overcoming. 3-1 deficit to eliminate pittsburgh in 7. These moments show how important depth guys are very much needed to be successful in the playoffs

Nailed it. Not to mention, Barclay played just 1 OT shift until he hopped over the boards in the final minutes.

@@TwistedWristerHockey he didn’t get much ice time but he got the shift that matter most

@@ethanparker7900 he is Fr a clutch player

The call was correct in any case.

@@maxxcurrey7547no it wasn’t

@@thatoneguy9666 - I suggest that you read the rulebook and especially look at the words "at the discretion of the Referee" who BTW is paid to know penalties and when to call them. 2018/2019 NHL Rulebook 59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5) 59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.

@@maxxcurrey7547and the refs were wrong in this case, the league literally changed a rule because they were wrong

@@thatoneguy9666they weren’t necessarily wrong, they could’ve reviewed and decided it was still a major penalty due to the severity of contact

I forever regret not buying those fucking tickets for me n pop🤦‍♂️

I disagree first the guy who you are attributing the danger to wasn't the one penalized it was the initial contact. 2nd I don't think we should have penalties being called decided by whether a person was injured or not. Even the 2nd hit wasn't that bad guys get hit all the time that are off bal7lanced or not in spots where they can protect themselves. I would be okay with that penalty on the second guy if he was out of control or charging into him but a shove to try to clear space even on someone falling isn't intentionally injuring someone and warrants penalties.

​@@TheMetzor True, the penalty was called on the first crosscheck, which (as I mentioned) was not penalty-worthy. (It was technically a penalty, but that's never called in NHL games.) The league does call penalties based on injury on a regular basis, per the written rules. (High sticking, drawing blood, gets you a double minor instead of a single minor.) You may not agree, but it's not out-of-the-ordinary. The second hit, on its own, was hardly anything, but it was very dangerous in that situation. There was a disregard for another players safety. Additionally, Pavelski was not vulnerable because he was skating with the puck with his head down, or some other action he took on is own. He was made vulnerable because of the actions of the opposing team, and once vulnerable, was injured by additional action from the opposing team. They put him out of the playoffs for a few games. There should be a price to pay for that, or what motivates teams to avoid doing that kind of thing? It's wrong to do that. It is odd to have a game where players are supposed to be concerned about the safety of another players, yet per the rules, they can deliberately go crashing into each other on purpose. Perfectly legal hits injure guys all the time. It's hard to justify some of that. All that said, Vegas failed the safety test with Pavelski, and they caught a major penalty because of it. Technically, it was called wrong on the ice, but the result was (I think) correct anyhow. Sometimes that's the best you can get.

@@glenmiller1437 By the books they could call infractions almost every 10 seconds. It sucks injuries happen and I do think the refereees need to call blantant ones to stop from retaliation see peitrangelo and dreisatl incident this year. However the play in question weren't called correctly the league even admitted it. It sucks that Palvaski got hurt on it but do you think they still call either shoves if he gets up right away and isn't injured ? The issue I have is they only made the call because he was injured and not because of what happened. It wasn't player safety issue it was referees not watching the play and thinking something happened that didn't. They then made the mistake on it with no way to correct it. Anytime you have live contact and players making split second decisions you have that risk.

@@TheMetzor I guess I have to go back to my original comment. Rule books can't reasonably cover all circumstances. It was a missed/botched call that got it right in the end (in my opinion) anyhow. I don't know if the play was then (or is now) reviewable, or something a coach can challenge. Maybe that's a good compromise; allowing the refs to take another look with video review. Frankly, I've lost track of where we disagree. I guess it's "injury based" penalties. I think there is a place for it, and you (I think) don't. I feel that way due to player safety. It's like knee on knee hits. That can be career ending. Everything that can reasonably be done to discourage and penalise knee-on-knee should be done. (Even to your argument about it only being injury based... Pavelski didn't have the puck and they pushed him to the ground. That's at least interference. That's a minor, which could have been called.)

@@TheMetzor - the nhl rulebook in effect at that time called for penalties to be called depending upon if a player was injured. The penaly call was correct since it led to injury intent or no intention does not come into consideration.

Try again without the sharks colored glasses. Pavelski was going down he decided himself, WWE style. Worked too. He has a history of this nonsense.

Stastny was the other (much better) player than Eakin. Both played like diks.

I feel the same way about this call as the Saints/Rams Pass Interference missed call a few years ago. The Refs didn't make Brees throw that Interception in Overtime. The Refs didnt let the Rams drive down the field in less than 2 minutes to tie the game. Is anyone mentioning that missed facemask call on Goff which would have given the Rams 1st and goal at like the 1 yard line (missed call resulted in a field goal instead of a TD on that play.) Shit happens in sports. You get blessed and screwed over sometimes. Good teams overcome it.

@@crushdavis7048@Sharks vs Blues hand pass in that season’s WCF

Seriously all this whining about a “bad call” as if cross checking someone and slamming them onto the ice intentionally isn’t a major penalty lmao. In what world is that not a 5 min major?

even after the cup win? idk i let go of my grudge against david steckel after sid won in 2016.

@@neithermanc1No doubt, the demons were exorcised for sure

@@neithermanc1 Its not a grudge at least for me. Its OMG are we going to collapse again? Its a fear always. This season was stressful all the way until the buzzer because of THIS exact memory.

@@JasonCGuitarOfficial This ^

@@neithermanc1 Ask any Seahawks fan if they still feel bitter about the officiating in Super Bowl XL after they got a ring a few years later - and I'm saying this as a Steelers fan! Some grudges will never die.

I don't care what the referees call as long as they are consistent and call it on both teams. The issue with the referees is the only thing they are consistent at is being inconsistent.

Sharks, Canucks, and Coyotes in my opinion are LONG OVERDUE for a Cup. We got a shot at Vancouver this year, let's pray San Jose and Arizona can wake up the beast next season!!!

The refs actually READ the rulebook, most players/coaches do not. 2018/2019 NHL Rulebook 59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5) 59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.

MOST refs actually READ the rulebook, most players/coaches do not, apparently some refs do not read the rulebook either. 2018/2019 NHL Rulebook 59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5) 59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.

MOST refs actually READ the rulebook, most players/coaches do not, apparently some refs do not read the rulebook either. 2018/2019 NHL Rulebook 59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5) 59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.

Sometimes there really is poetic justice...in sports at least

MOST refs actually READ the rulebook, most players/coaches do not, apparently some refs do not read the rulebook either. 2018/2019 NHL Rulebook 59.3 Major Penalty - A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player who “cross checks” an opponent (see 59.5) 59.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is assessed for cross-checking, an automatic game misconduct penalty shall be imposed on the offending player.

Dont get too Happy Eventually VGK are gonna suck one Day(and dats gonna b a good day for me🤣).Thats what Happens when team win the cup.Look at Chicago.

@@jerms6667 Well..until that day comes, I'll be happy☺ The only thing not happy is my wallet, buying all the championship gear.😁

@@jerms6667and the sharks will still be a poverty franchise when chicago bounces back

@@D0VES0AP That's what you think nigga.N for ur 411 im not a Sharks fan ok.

Rule 9.2: "A Major penalty and Game Misconduct penalty, at the discretion of the referee, based on the degree of violence of impact, may be assessed to any player who cross-checks an opponent." Its from the hockey canada rule book but even though it's not to the head it's still a high and very aggresive cross check that results in an injury so the ref has to call that a major

yes that was dangerous and caused Pavelskie's head to hit the ice. the first crosscheck was totally unnecessary but the NHL is inconsistent on enforcement, if Pavelskie doesn't get hurt it probably would have been a no call. Pavelskie was kind of unprepared for the first crosscheck so the "clean/legal" crosscheck led to a bad situation

​@@lbmcleanon a player who also wasn't eligible to be hit

So do you think it's just a huge coincidence that the league introduced reviewable major penalties the season after this happened? 🤔 Or could it possibly be that the league doesn't agree with your sentiment and that this would be considered a minor penalty at best.

​@@TheZombiemofo After this moment, plays involving major penalties will get reviewed. That's the league decision I am ok with that. I am allowed to disagree with the league in that they didn't think it was a major penalty. I still think, rather stubbornly, it was a major penalty