Stanley Cup Final Game 5 facts and questions for Panthers vs. Oilers, tied 2-2
Saturday's Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Final rematch between the Panthers and Edmonton Oilers could be the pivotal game of this series. Or, it could be just another turbulent classic that leaves puckheads sweating, gasping and asking 'When's Game 6?'
Here's what you need to know.
▪ What's the deal: The teams will be in Edmonton's Rogers Place for Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Final with series tied 2-2 after the Oilers won Game 4 in overtime. TV game time is 8 p.m. on TNT, truTV, HBO Max as well as streaming outlets.
▪ What's at stake: The winner gets a 3-2 series lead in the best-of-7 series and will have the opportunity to win the Stanley Cup in Sunrise during Tuesday's Game 6. Since the 1967 expansion from the NHL's six-team era, when a Stanley Cup Final is tied 2-2, the Game 5 winner also won the series 11 of 16 times.
▪ Advice for fans: Keep the cafetera ready to make some cafe Cubano for yourself or your watch party. Three of the four games have gone into overtime, two after tying goals in the last 20 seconds of regulation.
▪ Key question for Edmonton: Will Calvin Pickard start in goal after Stuart Skinner got yanked in Games 3 and 4? In both cases, Skinner didn't play badly. In fact, he did well to not give up more goals while the Oilers, by their own admission, flat stunk in front of him. But, Pickard's 7-0 in these playoffs with a better goals against average (2.69) and save percentage (.896) compared to Skinner (2.99, .891) and only lost his job to injury in the second round.
▪ Key question for the Panthers: Did blowing a 3-0 lead and losing Game 4 in overtime shake the psychological equilibrium that's allowed them to surf successfully the wins and wipeouts over the last three years of NHL playoffs and make three Stanley Cup Finals.
▪ Key question for both teams: Can they keep up this series' breathless pace after a a 2,500-mile flight sucks up the lone off day before Game 5? Both coaches, who have been in Stanley Cup Finals before and in hockey their whole lives, remarked on the pace, physicality, the quality of hockey from board battles to open ice skill plays.
'I think [experience and conditioning] all those play a factor, but there's an excitement for both teams that will build as you get toward the end. It's a grinder,' Panthers coach Paul Maurice said. 'So, you actually find more energy toward the end of a series because there's not another one after this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce Spotted Kissing in Multiple Fan Videos From Last Night
Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce could. not. stop. being adorable last night. In case you missed their surprise appearance, the pair showed up to the Stanley Cup Final in Florida—where they're currently spending time while Travis trains for the NFL season. Their general vibe? But Taylor and Travis were also caught on camera kissing and cuddling multiple times from multiple angles and can't lie: The footage (gathered by @swifferupdates) is extremely sweet. Literally me after watching these videos: FYI, all this romance comes amid a source telling People, 'Taylor is really looking forward to the upcoming NFL season' thanks to it being the first full season that she hasn't also been juggling a tour schedule. 'This fall will be completely different,' the source said. 'It's the first season where she's not constantly flying back and forth or working around an entire touring calendar. The past two seasons were a whirlwind between performing across multiple countries, long flights, and trying to squeeze in alone time together wherever possible. It wasn't easy but they made it work. Her schedule is much more open now that the Eras Tour is wrapped and she's genuinely excited to have the time and flexibility to show up for Travis more consistently.' Apparently, Taylor will be at 'as many of his games as possible,' so get ready. You Might Also Like Here's What NOT to Wear to a Wedding Meet the Laziest, Easiest Acne Routine You'll Ever Try
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Montreal Canadiens' Lane Hutson Dominates NHL Calder Trophy Voting
Montreal Canadiens rookie Lane Hutson is the NHL's 2024-25 winner of the Calder Trophy, and it wasn't all that close. Hutson, 21, had more than 50 family and friends at a dinner in Lake Barrington, Ill. Rob Hutson, Lane's father, said the group was there to celebrate the rookie's nomination for the Calder Trophy, but mostly everyone else had no idea he actually won it and the Calder Trophy would show up. Advertisement The Professional Hockey Writers Association selected Hutson as the NHL's most proficient player in their first year of competition. He is the second Canadiens player to win the Calder Trophy since 1967-68 after Ken Dryden won it in 1971-72. He's also the fifth active D-man to win the award, with Detroit Red Wings blueliner Moritz Seider being the last one in 2021-22. But Hutson didn't just win – he won in a landslide. Of the 191 ballots, Hutson received 165 first-place votes and 26 second-place votes. Nobody had him below second. Hutson had 150 more first-place votes than Calgary Flames netminder Duston Wolf, who finished second in the voting. Wolf had the most second-place votes, with 96, while the San Jose Sharks' first-overall pick in 2024, Macklin Celebrini, finished third. Advertisement Only three other defensemen since 1943-44 led the NHL's rookies in scoring: Bobby Orr, Brian Leetch and Quinn Hughes. Of that group, Hutson's 66 points rank second, and his 0.80 points per game also rank second. Lane Hutson (Eric Bolte-Imagn Images) Hutson set a Canadiens franchise record for most points by a rookie defenseman, while only forwards Kjell Dahlin and Mats Naslund had more points, with 71. Hutson's 60 helpers also tied Larry Murphy for the most by a rookie defenseman in NHL history. The 5-foot-9, left-hand shot stepped up his production against the Canadiens' opponents in their own division. Hutson recorded one goal and 28 assists for 29 points in 26 games against teams in the Atlantic Division, which comes to around 1.12 points per game. Against teams in the rest of the NHL, he had five goals and 32 assists for 37 points in 56 games, or 0.66 points per game. Advertisement As for the rest of the rookies to receive votes, Philadelphia Flyers sniper Matvei Michkov finished fourth, with zero first-place votes but eight in second place, 26 in third, 151 in fourth and six in fifth. Michkov led all rookies in goals, with 26. Anaheim Ducks left winger Cutter Gauthier finished fifth, followed by the Sharks' Will Smith, Carolina Hurricanes' Logan Stankoven and St. Louis Blues' Zack Bolduc. Five players only received fifth-place votes, including the Hurricanes' Jackson Blake and Red Wings' Marco Kasper. The NHL will recognize Hutson's rookie of the year honors again during the 2025 NHL Awards show, a one-hour program airing on June 12 at 6 p.m. ET. Get the latest news and trending stories by following The Hockey News on Google News and by subscribing to The Hockey News newsletter here. And share your thoughts by commenting below the article on
Hamilton Spectator
7 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Hockey Canada sex assault trial ends as Crown lays out why each player should be convicted
As the Crown wrapped up its closing arguments Friday at the high-profile trial of five professional hockey players accused of sexual assault, they ended with the complainant's own words from her marathon nine days on the stand. The jury has heard — in graphic detail — her allegations about what took place inside a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018. The jury has heard — in graphic detail — her allegations about what took place inside a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018. 'They were objectifying me, they were literally in there laughing at me,' the woman had testified. 'Literally any one of those men could have stood up and said, 'This isn't right.' And no one did ... They didn't want to think about if I was actually OK, or if I was actually consenting.' After hearing nearly six weeks of evidence and a full week of closing arguments from the five defence teams and the Crown, it's now up to Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia to decide the guilt or innocence of Alex Formenton, Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, in a judgment set to be delivered July 24. The prosecutors and defence lawyers shook hands as the trial finally came to an end Friday afternoon at the London, Ont., courthouse, after having originally started in April as a jury trial, but is now a judge-alone case . Carroccia thanked the lawyers for the 'very professional manner' in which they handled the case, 'which we all know has garnered a lot of public attention.' A pair of stills from videos showing the dance floor inside Jack's Bar in London, Ont., on the night of June 18-19, 2018, show the complainant with world junior team members Dillon Dubé, circled left, and Michael McLeod, right. All members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team — and most of them playing in the NHL by the time of their arrests last year — the five men stand accused of sexually assaulting the then-20-year-old complainant in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in London in the early hours of June 19, 2018, while the team was in town to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event. The complainant had met McLeod at Jack's Bar and returned to his room where they had consensual sex, only for multiple men to come in afterward, some prompted by a group chat text from McLeod about a '3 way.' The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with the complainant a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with the complainant in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals 'grazed' her face. Prosecutors have argued that the men failed to take reasonable steps to confirm the woman's consent to each act, and that she never made an 'affirmative, voluntary choice.' A screenshot of a group chat involving members of Canada's 2018 world junior championship team. The Crown contends the complainant either didn't voluntarily consent, or her consent was cancelled by the fact she was scared and intimidated to be in a hotel room full of men she didn't know while she was intoxicated as well as naked after having had sex with McLeod. The defence, meanwhile, has argued that the complainant was consenting throughout the night and fabricated her version of events as she tried to make stick her allegations from a $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit filed against Hockey Canada in 2022, which the sports organization quickly settled for an undisclosed sum. The prosecution further alleges that through the use of a group chat, the players created a false narrative that the complainant was the aggressor and repeatedly demanded to have sex with men in the room — a Crown argument that has faced resistance from the judge. The Crown has also asked the judge to reject some of the testimony of their own player witnesses, something Carroccia described as 'interesting' on Friday. 'Effectively, what you're saying is where it doesn't help the Crown, don't accept it, and where it does help the Crown, accept it,' the judge said. On Friday, the prosecution finished its closing arguments by outlining its case for a conviction against each accused man. 'This is a unique case where, in the Crown's submission, no matter which facts you accept amongst the sometimes challenging puzzle of evidence, there is a clear path to conviction for each of the five accused,' Crown attorney Heather Donkers told Carroccia. 'Mr. McLeod is the one who orchestrated this whole sordid night,' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham said Friday. Michael McLeod arrives at court with his lawyers. 'Knowing that (the complainant) had expressed no interest in, or willingness to engage in, sexual activity with anyone other than him, he then begins a campaign to bring men into the room to do that very thing.' McLeod is the only accused man facing two charges — sexual assault and being a party to a sexual assault, for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. In a 2018 police interview, he told a detective he received oral sex from the complainant and engaged in intercourse with her again before she left the hotel room, but omitted the fact he texted a players' group chat to come to his room for a '3 way,' as well as messaging others directly. The Crown argued Friday that McLeod is one of three men the complainant testified she performed oral sex on while she was on a bedsheet on the ground, although she herself did not identify McLeod as one of the three. The Crown said there were no words spoken between McLeod and the complainant at that time to confirm her consent. The Crown also asked that Carroccia accept that another instance of oral sex happened while McLeod was on the bed. To this, the judge pointed out that court heard testimony about the complainant getting up on the bed and placing McLeod's penis in her mouth without him actually doing anything — evidence that Donkers described as ambiguous and not an indication of consent. 'You can't possibly be saying that a woman who puts a man's penis in her mouth is not communicating that she wishes to,' Carroccia said in response. This led to a back-and-forth between the judge and Crown attorney. 'That is what I'm saying,' Donkers replied. 'Otherwise, there would never be a sexual assault that involves oral sex.' 'That's not true,' Carroccia shot back, saying Donkers misunderstood the point. The judge then put it in the form of a question: 'If a man does nothing and a woman takes his penis and puts it in her mouth, he's committing a sexual assault without asking her if that's OK?' Donkers apologized. She explained the Crown position that doing the act doesn't communicate consent, but agreed that if the judge were to find it was 'one-directional entirely,' that may raise a doubt as to whether that particular allegation had been proven. Donkers did not address at all the allegation involving intercourse, deferring instead to the Crown's brief written arguments. McLeod had told police he had hopped in the shower and the complainant came in with him and they had sex. In court, the woman testified about being tired by that point and that she felt it was a 'continuation' of the other sexual acts in the room — 'I didn't look at it as something I really wanted to do, just felt like one last thing I needed to do to go.' The Crown argues in its written materials that there is no evidence McLeod took any steps to ascertain the complainant's consent. As for being a party to sexual assault, Cunningham argued that McLeod can still be found guilty as long the judge concludes that a sexual assault happened in the room, regardless of whether any specific person is convicted. For example, she referred to the complainant's testimony of multiple men slapping and spitting on her. The whole reason the men knew to come to the room was because of McLeod, Cunningham argued, and he ensured throughout the night that the sexual activity could continue by calming the complainant down when she became upset, or by telling other players in the room not to take out their phones to record anything. McLeod made two cellphone recordings of the complainant; in one, she says 'I'm OK with this,' while in another, she says 'It was all consensual.' Cunningham argued the videos cannot be used as evidence of consent. 'They are also not evidence of any reasonable steps taken to sincerely ascertain valid consent in law,' she said. 'At their highest, they're the kind of token, lip-service, box-checking that the Court of Appeal says is not a reasonable step.' The first video doesn't actually establish to what the complainant was consenting and with whom, Cunningham said, while the second video was taken after the sexual activity and, the Crown highlighted, consent can't be given after the fact. The complainant herself testified she was just saying what she thought the men wanted to hear. The only accused man to testify in his own defence, Hart told the judge that in response to the complainant's demands for intercourse while she was on the ground, he asked for a 'blowie, meaning blowjob,' she said 'yeah' or 'sure,' moved toward him, helped pull down his pants, and performed oral sex about 30 seconds to a minute. Carter Hart outside court with his lawyers. Should the judge accept his account, Donkers argued he should have taken more steps to confirm the complainant's consent, given her obvious vulnerability. He could have taken her aside, asked for her name, her desires, her limitations, or whether this was something she truly wanted. In response to that, Carroccia pointed out the testimony of the Crown's witnesses about the complainant demanding to have sex. 'You just said to me he could have talked to her to find out more about her wants,' Carroccia said, 'but if I accept the evidence from your own witnesses, she was saying what her wants were, correct?' Donkers said that the witnesses testified about the complainant demanding intercourse, not oral sex. While Hart could only recall that instance of oral sex, he later said it was possible it happened again , after the Crown pointed out in cross-examination that McLeod told police he saw Hart receive oral sex twice. The complainant herself testified about giving oral sex to about three men in quick succession, though she never identified Hart to the police, nor that she performed oral sex on him twice. Players Brett Howden and Tyler Steenbergen identified Hart and McLeod as two of the three, while Dubé identified himself to police as the third. Howden testified he believes he saw Hart receive oral sex twice while in the room. 'So I should accept their evidence that Carter Hart probably got oral sex twice, but then find they're mistaken about Dillon Dubé?' the judge asked. 'If they're watching Carter Hart getting oral sex twice, they blink and miss Dillon Dubé? I just don't follow that argument.' Donkers countered that they might not have noticed Dubé because it happened so quickly. Formenton told police in 2018 that he followed the complainant into the bathroom after she had been demanding to have sex with men. There's a lack of evidence as to whether there was any conversation in the bathroom between the two, but Donkers argued that again, no steps were taken to confirm the complainant's consent before they had vaginal intercourse. Alex Formenton and his lawyers. But Carroccia had a question: What to make of Howden's testimony that he recalled that in response to the complainant's demands, Formenton said something along the lines of not wanting to do it front of everybody, and then he followed the complainant into the bathroom. 'Not so ambiguous, is it, in those circumstances?' Carroccia said. 'It's consistent with what she's offering, what she said, if I find that that was the sequence of events.' The judge reminded Donkers that Formenton doesn't have to prove that scenario, but rather the onus is on the Crown 'to disprove that that's what happened.' Donkers said the Crown doesn't have to prove or disprove 'any particular fact and issue beyond a reasonable doubt, what we have to prove is he's guilty of sexual assault.' 'I know that, Ms. Donkers,' the judge replied. While the Crown has argued that the defence has engaged in myth-based reasoning when questioning the complainant's behaviour in the room, Formenton's lawyer Hilary Dudding countered that, in fact, the prosecution was doing that. The Crown's reasoning 'really implies that for a woman to be assertively asking for sex in a group scenario is so inherently bizarre and odd that it requires some explanation other than that woman is consenting,' Dudding said. 'It's stereotypical thinking about what types of sex people like and don't like, what a woman might choose or not choose.' Dubé acknowledged in his 2018 police interview that he briefly received oral sex from the complainant, but omitted the fact that he slapped her naked buttocks. He did admit to slapping the complainant once or twice to a Hockey Canada investigator in 2022, in a statement that was excluded from the trial due to the 'unfair and prejudicial' way it was obtained. The complainant testified that multiple men were slapping her buttocks and that it hurt. The Crown argued that Carroccia should find Dubé slapped her twice — while she was on the ground after giving him oral sex, as witnessed by Steenbergen and on the bed while she was performing oral sex on McLeod, as witnessed by Howden. Dillon Dubé outside court. Dubé told police the oral sex happened in quick succession as the complainant performed on him, Hart, and McLeod — 'No chance for subjective consent,' Donkers said, but even if there was, it was cancelled by the complainant's fear of being in the room. Donkers argued that Dubé only mentioned getting oral sex to police because he 'knew he could try and portray that as consensual, based on comments he says (the complainant) was making about sex,' while he didn't mention the slapping because he knew that went too far as there is 'absolutely zero evidence' that the woman consented to that. 'He could not have had any legitimate belief she had communicated a willingness to be touched on her buttocks, gentle or hard, it does not matter,' Donkers said. 'That belief would have had to come from the myth that just because she had agreed to other things or appeared to agree to other things, that she would be OK being slapped. That is not a defence in law.' It's undisputed that Foote did the splits over the woman, Donkers said, but what's disputed is whether he was naked from the waist down, over which part of her body he did the splits, and whether his genitals touched her face. Court heard that the spits was a 'party trick' Foote often did, including on the dance floor at Jack's earlier that evening in June 2018. Cal Foote, centre, with his lawyers. Steenbergen partially witnessed Foote doing the splits, but couldn't tell if he was clothed below the waist, while Hart was adamant that Foote was wearing clothes and he did not physically touch the complainant, whom Hart said was laughing. The complainant 'viscerally testified' about someone doing the splits 'and having a penis in my face,' Donkers pointed out, although the complainant wasn't able to identify Foote. Given that this was a hotel room full of men 'amped up from a night of drinking' and who knew sexual activity with the woman was the focus in the room, it is 'abundantly clear' that Foote was called to the room to engage with the woman sexually as well, and specifically by doing the naked splits over her body, Donkers argued. 'This extraordinary event of June 19 for them called for extraordinary measures, not just an ordinary party trick they had seen as early as the night before at Jack's,' Donkers said. Cal Foote does the splits at Jack's Bar in London on the night of June 18-19, 2018, while teammates Brett Howden (on the far side of Foote, in white with a lighter-coloured backwards ball cap) and Dillon Dubé (in white on the near side of Foote) clear space on the dance floor. But even if the judge were to accept Hart's version that Foote did the splits while clothed and didn't touch the complainant, the judge should still conclude it was a sexual assault, Donkers said — even though the complainant maintained she was touched. 'It's reasonable to assume that in (Hart's) version of events, she thinks the touching is about to happen and in vulnerable circumstances of a sexual nature,' Donkers said. In the excluded statements from the Hockey Canada 2022 investigation that cannot form part of Carroccia's decision, both Formenton and Dubé said they witnessed Foote doing the splits, with Formenton specifying he wasn't wearing pants. 'So she's laying on the ground parallel between the beds,' Formenton said. 'I remember he takes pants off, top clothes still on, does splits over her upper body.' The players were 'compelled' to sit for an interview with Hockey Canada. But they weren't told Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
