Only fair after what happened to Carter.

Posted by Shea from La Verne on 02/10/08 at 06:01 PM ET

An absolutely atrocious call to end a horribly, and I do mean HORRIBLY, officiated game.

Gee, I wonder why poker reruns beat hockey in ratings.

THANKS GARY, ASS.

Posted by TeamDub from The gratch. on 02/10/08 at 06:02 PM ET

Shea -

You’re disqualified from being taken seriously because, well, your name is f%#*&ng;SHEA.

Posted by TeamDub from The gratch. on 02/10/08 at 06:03 PM ET

And, no offense Shea, but you’re from La Verne.

Posted by IwoCPO from Washington, DC on 02/10/08 at 06:04 PM ET

That was bullshit. No other way to look at it, and the fans at the Joe were right to yell it.

Posted by Ryan from Syracuse, NY on 02/10/08 at 06:04 PM ET

I must have missed it but what happened to Carter?

Posted by Sp4r7an on 02/10/08 at 06:06 PM ET

meh, enough of his ass was in Jigs’ face for it to be an understandable call, given the official’s viewing angle.

and besides, can you really be screwed by the officials when the calls against have been 7-2 in your favor?

Posted by VeryProudofYa on 02/10/08 at 06:06 PM ET

And yes that was bullshit. One of the reasons i think that coaches should be allowed to challenge calls like that. If it was reviewed we would be watching OT.

Posted by Sp4r7an on 02/10/08 at 06:06 PM ET

and besides, can you really be screwed by the officials when the calls against have been 7-2 in your favor?

When those 7 are oh-so-very deserved, yeah.

Posted by TeamDub from The gratch. on 02/10/08 at 06:08 PM ET

Man O Man two top quality teams and the officiating was minor league!!

Posted by Ripped! on 02/10/08 at 06:09 PM ET

Was it the same officiating team that disallowed that Colorado goal last week?  Maybe they were just trying to make amends.

Posted by Earl Sleek on 02/10/08 at 06:10 PM ET

The NHL across the board is bad at making calls IMHO. Too many mistakes and or close calls that go ignored. Again I think each team should get one challenge each game. The NHL has too much influence on the game anymore.

Posted by Sp4r7an on 02/10/08 at 06:12 PM ET

I agree, Sp4r7an. I’m not a football fan, but a challenge system really needs to be adopted.

Posted by Ryan from Syracuse, NY on 02/10/08 at 06:14 PM ET

Amen to the challenges - the penguins just simply make too many horrific calls.

One per period, including OT. A failed challenge (reviewed in Toronto) results in a loss of a TO or a minor penalty, maybe a weirdo one minute penalty. If the challenge is denied, Toronto has to cite the rule by number from the official rule book and their justification.

You’re an ass, Bettman.

Posted by TeamDub from The gratch. on 02/10/08 at 06:20 PM ET

Only fair after what happened to Carter.

Umm no. The Ducks already had their freebe when Ozzie had a frozen puck kicked free by Kunitz that lead to a goal.

What a horrible way to showcase the game on national TV.

Posted by moocat on 02/10/08 at 06:23 PM ET

His feet were clearly in the crease. You’re such a homer. Suck it up princess!

Posted by Jon on 02/10/08 at 06:41 PM ET

Rule 78 Protection of Goalkeeper

The revised crease rule is intended to implement a “no harm, no foul, no video review” standard. The rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

Posted by Ryan from Syracuse, NY on 02/10/08 at 06:54 PM ET

Just watched this over and over on uber-slow replay.  Homer did interfere with Giguere, it just happened after the puck was already in the net.  When Giguere’s stick hit Holmstrom’s leg, the puck was past him.  He couldn’t have made the save anyway.

Nice.

And as much as I hate to say it, it never should have come to that anyway.  The refs botched the Kunitz call and gave the Wings a bunch of power plays as an “evener” (I hate that term).  The no-goal wouldn’t have mattered if the Wings had had any ability to score today.

Doesn’t make me feel any better about it, though.  Just because they couldn’t score sooner doesn’t mean the goal they did score shouldn’t have been enough.

Posted by Clark on 02/10/08 at 06:54 PM ET

Typical NHL call, again doing everything they can to let the Ducks win. Just like last year, Pronger cheapshots 2 players in the playoffs and gets just a minor penalty, and the officiating has been in the Ducks favor for two years now.

Add in the fact that the NHL lets the Ducks cheat the cap, by signing players late, what a joke.

Posted by Johnny on 02/10/08 at 07:07 PM ET

That was for Jon, by the way. If he’d been watching hockey for more than six months, he might well have known all that, but sometimes you’ve got to help the folks out…

Borrowed the image from LetsGoWings.com

Posted by Ryan from Syracuse, NY on 02/10/08 at 07:08 PM ET

Hey Ryan, thanks for proving my point. He clearly impeded his progress while he was in the crease. Keep crying though, I enjoy it.

Posted by Jon on 02/10/08 at 07:13 PM ET

What a horribly officiated game from start to finish.  So you can know poke pucks out from under the goalie’s glove?  Garbage all the way around from that to the disallowed goal.  Only bright spot of the day was seeing Bertuzzi smash his stick in frustration.

Chris Pronger is still an ass!

Posted by hockeychic from Denver, CO on 02/10/08 at 07:39 PM ET

and the officiating has been in the Ducks favor for two years now.

I know you have examples of this and seem pretty sure of yourself, but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the Ducks have been more penalized than any team over the last two years.  But who needs facts?  Rant away, champ!

Posted by Earl Sleek on 02/10/08 at 07:40 PM ET

Actually Jon, the rule states the skates being in the crease isn’t enough to disallow a goal. And from what I saw, the goaltenders movement wasn’t impeded by Holmstrom’s position in the crease. I’d go so far as to say that Giguere purposefully moved forward so he appeared interfered with.

Very bad call by the refs.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 02/10/08 at 07:42 PM ET

I can’t believe the crowd chanting “bullsh*t” on National TV. hahaha stay classy Michigan!

Posted by Aaron from Phoenix, Arizona on 02/10/08 at 07:43 PM ET

Like any other crowd wouldn’t be chanting the same thing?  Give me a break, that says nothing about Michigan one way or the other.

What I can say, is this is shaping up to be a rivalry on a grand scale.  Two skilled teams, both champions in the past, a little nastiness, etc.  Kudos to Aaron Downey for getting the Wings back in the game.  They were way too concerned with the non-calls at the beginning of the game and it affected their play.  I suspect that Anaheim is going to be playing a lot better the rest of the season.

Posted by hockeychic from Denver, CO on 02/10/08 at 07:50 PM ET

sorry if this rubs anyone the wrong way, but i seem to remember our last captan getting in refs faces when they make game deciding bad calls, even getting tossed out of games for it. nick didn’t get angry enough for me. those are the kinds of things leaders do, even if they get booted for the last 10 seconds of a game the refs just blew. where is the guy who is going to fight for his team and the game no matter what?

Posted by christpuncher on 02/10/08 at 08:37 PM ET

You know I was thinking about this today, if players just left Homer alone in front of the net they would never get scored on. Just have the goalie come out make contact with Homer on the edge of the crease or hell even outside the crease and the goal if any will be disallowed. And I think someone may have mentioned this before, but doesn’t it make sense that if a goal is disallowed because of interference with the goalie, there should be a penalty on the play? Just a thought, maybe someone can explain to me.

Posted by Sp4r7an on 02/10/08 at 08:40 PM ET

I can’t believe the crowd chanting “bullsh*t” on National TV. hahaha stay classy Michigan!

Happens all the time on Canadian Broadcasts and other cities.

Posted by moocat on 02/10/08 at 08:41 PM ET

Chistpuncher, I understand where you are coming from, but Lidstrom and Yzerman are two completely different people. Both know that screaming at the ref will do nothing, but Yzerman was more of a hothead than Lidstrom is. Now I think Yzerman was the best leader of our time, but just because you don’t scream at the ref doesn’t make you a bad leader.

Posted by Sp4r7an on 02/10/08 at 08:43 PM ET

And Aaron no other word describes the situation as well as that one.

Posted by Sp4r7an on 02/10/08 at 08:44 PM ET

And yes that was bullshit. One of the reasons i think that coaches should be allowed to challenge calls like that. If it was reviewed we would be watching OT.
Posted by Sp4r7an on 02/10 at 06:06 PM

Then the Ducks should have been able to question the Zetterberg dive that led to the PP in the first place.  No Duck even touched him.

Posted by Norm&Cliffie; on 02/10/08 at 09:18 PM ET

Refs were definitely horrible, for both sides. That should not have dictated the game but I certainly wouldn’t make the claim that the NHL wants Anaheim to win. If it was NYR, Toronto, us or other major market teams, I would buy that suspicion but not Anaheim.

Anyway, I’m happy about the emotion and intensity Detroit showed. We’ve looked like garbage in the past few games and I’m happy to see them pick up the pace.

Also, Downey showed again what his job is and how good he is at it.

Posted by Osrt on 02/10/08 at 09:23 PM ET

Shea from LaVergne is from metro Nashville, so consider the source.....

Posted by Yzerman19 from Nashville on 02/10/08 at 09:28 PM ET

maybe not sp4r7an, but showing some emotion and standing up for his team is a lot different than just “screaming at the refs”. i think it’s sending a message, more than just being a “hothead”. shrugging it off, i think, had a direct link to the ducks attacking franzen at the end. it says “do what you want to us, we will allow you to take advantage of us at every turn”. inspiring his team to stand up and fight for each other is not a bad thing? in fact i think it’s necessary for these wings to take the next step.
who is the emotional leader on this team anyway? drake? downey?
we need more than cleary and he’s gone for the rest of the regular season.
just my two cents, and maybe i’m still a bit cheesed from being at the game, but the wings need some leadership help i feel.

Posted by christpuncher from detroit on 02/10/08 at 09:33 PM ET

“I can’t believe the crowd chanting “bullsh*t” on National TV. hahaha stay classy Michigan!”

Add Nashville to that list of Canadian cities who say that, Nashville also chants <insert goalies name> then YOU SUCK...Doesnt matter if they are down by 6 goals and the opposing goalie is shutting them out....

Wings have to play an entire game, not just parts of the first and third period. Giguere did draw the call, guess ramming his face into another mans posterior doesn’t bother him, whatever it takes eh?

Posted by Yzerman19 from Nashville on 02/10/08 at 09:33 PM ET

“Add Nashville to that list of Canadian cities who say that...”

Sure.  As soon as Nashville moves to Canada

But what arena hasn’t seen fans chanting obscenities? It’s not a hockey game until that happens.

Oh, and I feel terrible for the Wings about this call.  Really, I do.

Posted by Shane from Saskatoon on 02/10/08 at 09:39 PM ET

Then the Ducks should have been able to question the Zetterberg dive that led to the PP in the first place.  No Duck even touched him.

Reviewing a potential goal and a penalty are two completely different situations. I only say that coaches should be able to review plays that involve potential goal situations. The point that I am making here is that refs I think do a fairly good most of the time, they have one view and one chance to look at a play. Having a few bad calls here and there are expected, but when it comes to goals, there should be NO bad calls.

Posted by Sp4r7an on 02/10/08 at 09:42 PM ET

I don’t think it was a terrible call if you remove the context from it. The only thing that made it a bad call was that it was far less egregious than when Kunitz hacked Ozzie’s hand when the ref should’ve long since blown the whistle. Simply because they let that go it was unacceptable to call such a borderline play on Homer.

In any other game/situation, I wouldn’t have been upset about the call. But the refs set a precedent with the no call/no whistle on the Kunitz play, and that’s what made the officiating such a joke.

And I mean, come on. Yes, two critical calls went against the Wings today. But it was just a regular season game… the Ducks are the most penalized team in the league over the last two seasons—the refs aren’t looking out for them, that’s for sure! So let’s quiet the conspiracy garbage, please.

The concern should be that Detroit has received mediocre to bad goaltending for three games now. The Ducks won because they’re netminder played a better game, and their PK did the job when it had to. The Wings played solid defense and generated a good attack, and frankly, Ozzie let them down with a couple of weak goals (though it was a bad call, he should’ve held his ground a lot better on the Kunitz play). The Ducks played well in the two areas they needed to, and the Wings faltered in the one department that can make up for the shot/chance/power play margin.

Posted by Nathan on 02/10/08 at 11:30 PM ET

“Shea from LaVergne is from metro Nashville, so consider the source.....”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Verne,_California

..right.

Posted by VeryProudofYa on 02/10/08 at 11:48 PM ET

The point that I am making here is that refs I think do a fairly good most of the time, they have one view and one chance to look at a play. Having a few bad calls here and there are expected, but when it comes to goals, there should be NO bad calls.

I should elaborate a little more on this. The view that the ref had was probably less than ideal when making a call like this. But since it is so close, I think the league should give each team an opportunity to challenge at least one play per game, or at least make it mandatory to review an interference call like this.

Posted by Sp4r7an on 02/11/08 at 01:38 AM ET

Context is always crucial to determine the reasons that trains of thought gain steam and the motives behind instances where one might suggest, in other circumstances, that people are just “protesting too much.”

The Anaheim Ducks made no bones about the fact that they ran Dominik Hasek at every opportunity during the 2007 playoffs, nor did they deny that they were trying to do everything they could without getting penalized to the Red Wings’ goaltenders each and every time they played Detroit.  That was the case today as several Ducks players skated very purposefully through Osgood’s crease, including Kunitz, who drew Osgood’s ire:

[Mathieu Schneider’s] slap shot from the point beat Osgood after changing directions for his eighth goal.

The goal was made possible when it appeared that Osgood was freezing the puck in the crease, but Chris Kunitz knocked it away into the right corner, retrieved it and then passed to Schneider.

Osgood wasn’t happy about the way Kunitz did it.

‘’You can’t bodycheck a goalie in the crease and knee him,’’ Osgood said. ‘’I don’t know if he even got it with the stick. He just kneed me right in the head.’’

Of course, when you add up the fact that at least twenty-five to thirty goals have been waved off over the course of Holmstrom’s career--of the fifty or so that have been waved off in total for Holmstrom’s contact with goaltenders--that were baseless, including several instances where Holmstrom was nowhere near the crease. 

Again, context.

Context is how a referee determines whether a slash is incidental or intentional, whether Chris Chelios can push Todd Bertuzzi (who broke his stick in frustrated protest) because he “has the lane” instead of being called for an interference penalty for pushing a puck carrier away from the puck, whether Holmstrom is backing into a goaltender or standing his ground, for example.

The fact that the Wings have lost three straight and two “statement games” on Canadian and U.S. television, respectively, against two arch-rivals, one historical and one current, and the fact that the Wings continued to play flat and allow the opposition to cycle the puck and come out from the corners laterally and send pucks to the front of the net, where traffic and deflections resulted in goals because the Wings’ defenders were passive and their forwards never stayed with the players they’re supposed to “track” wide of the net, leading to a 3-1 deficit that was, regrettably, richly deserved, all those facts build context. 

While I am certainly a Red Wings fan, I look at the play through the eyes of my position, that of a goaltender, and as someone who’s pretty bloody upset with the fact that the “Eric Lindros goal,” which generally consisted of shooting the puck into a goalie and then crashing into him, slashing at the puck after it had been covered, or attempting to shove the goaltender into the net using sticks, skates, or whatever other body parts are available, has become commonplace again...As that goaltender, I see Nikolai Antropov skating through Dominik Hasek’s crease in overtime on Saturday, see Rafalski follow him through the crease, then let Antropov set up on the top of the crease, and think, “That didn’t allow Hasek to establish his position.”

Holmstrom was at the lip of the crease, was actually in the crease, and as Giguere moved over, Holmstrom skated forward approximately eight inches, moving his skates outside the crease.  His rear end was still in the crease, which is legal.  In pushing across, whether intentionally or unintentionally, J-S Giguere skated into Holmstrom, and as the shot was taken, the goaltender made contact with the player. 

The referees, who were busy watching the puck at the point, had no context by which to make a definitive determination as to who got where first, so they made a call based upon Holmstrom’s reputation, assuming that there was contact because Holmstrom initiated it, and, thus, the goal was disallowed.

That was simply an inaccurate assessment of context, or the lack thereof. 

Having said all that in a rational manner, as a partisan Red Wings fan who understands that Tomas Holmstrom’s positioning in front of the crease is actually better and more nuanced than the vast majority of the goalie-coached netminders he screens, I think it’s a crap call.  I think that it’s unfortunate both in the sense of wanting to see my team tie the game with a goal that was, in my opinion, legal, and in the sense of watching a team that had lost two straight games and was about to lose its second “statement game” overcome its inconsistent play and salvage something out of a game that the media will use for the rest of the season to declare that the Ducks will certainly win the Stanley Cup and the Wings are certainly deficient...Which is nearly impossible to assess based upon the limited context of a single game.

Hockey is not a game in which one can make the simple determination of what is or is not proper and correct without context.  In a game in which there was contact with both goaltenders, an out-of-context call was made, and it may or may not have determined the outcome of the game.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 02/11/08 at 02:38 AM ET

Great point George.
The only thing that you hope for in an NHL game is consistency, which hopefully will yield fairness. In this view the call was probably not warranted. I also thought that there was no contact until the puck was by Giguere, or at least until the puck was in a position where it didn’t matter (within several feet from going in).

However this would be a non-issue if Holmstrom isn’t in the crease. If Giguere initiates contact and the ref calls it in his favor, good for him. He sold it, but Homer gave him that opportunity. The rule also states that incidental contact is allowed if initiated outside the goal crease. So it may be that any incidental contact should be no goal because Homer was indeed in the crease.

Anyone see the Vancouver shootout? If that isn’t impeding a goalie’s ability to make a save in the crease I don’t know what is.

Posted by stayoutofthecreasethen on 02/11/08 at 04:43 AM ET

Frequently Holmstrom isn’t in the crease at all, but a bit outside of it when the goalie skates out to get behind him.

Still, never assume conspiracy when simple incompetence will do.  And if the NHL was going to conspire for any team to win, it wouldn’t be Anaheim - not enough of a market, and it might start a trend of star players sitting out half the season contemplating retirement.  If anything would make the league into an absolute joke, that would be it.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 02/11/08 at 07:51 AM ET

I agree with George and his dissertation on the subject, it was a crap call on Homer (with no penalty for interference?).  But as a rabid Wing fan, I tend to especially with Geroge on this point:

The fact that the Wings have lost three straight and two “statement games” on Canadian and U.S. television, respectively, against two arch-rivals, one historical and one current, and the fact that the Wings continued to play flat . . .

“Fire on Ice” my ass!!  Yes the Wings have been the class of the league all season.  Yes, they still have a large points lead overall, yada yada yada.

But this past stretch of games, including the OT win against the Wild on Feb 5, the Wing have no passion in their game.  In my opinion, they have been outplayed in all four of those games.  Losing to cellar dweller LAK, and bottom feeder TOR—egad.

I realize teams lose games.  I also understand the occassional “off-night”.  But 4 games in a row, the Wings show very sporadic passion and work ethic in their game. 

I think the Wings are going miss Cleary for more than his 20 g, 20 a.  One of the most consistent work ethics on the team!!

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Hockey Netherworld on 02/11/08 at 08:29 AM ET

Ya know, those calls against Homer have been happening all year long and then some.  The timing of this last one is what makes it so emontional.  If the score was Wings 10-1, it wouldn’t have been so hard to swallow. 

Now as far the all this crying from duckland about the Ducks being the most penalized team… Fact: The Ducks are undisciplined. If you don’t want to go to jail, then don’t break the law, stupid!

Posted by cementslinger from Midland MI on 02/11/08 at 08:32 AM ET

He should post California then, doesnt matter California, Tennessee, Compton, Greektown, his post was one that didn’t carry much more than blatent homerism. Nice usage of Wiki though.

Posted by Yzerman19 from Nashville on 02/11/08 at 09:29 AM ET

Wings were flat again, not much passion lately. I attended the Kings game what a miserable display by a team that seems out of sync.
The NHL will always be a second class sport with Gary B in charge.  We truly need a hockey guy in charge. 
Hockey is such a fast sport with things happening at a fast pace that instant re-play is a necessary tool.  The coach should have one or two chances to call for a re-play on suspect goals. As usual the NHL seems biased to a team that for the past 10 years puts more butts in seats around the league than any other team. That’s not fiscal responsibility.

Posted by rocketman from detroit on 02/11/08 at 10:05 AM ET

Considering I brought the word “context” into play, I’m guessing your response was for me, George?

We don’t disagree here. I tried to make three points, two of which I’d imagine you agree with.

First, the call on Homer was bad because of the context in which it was called.

No, I don’t personally believe that Homer prevented Giguere from getting where he needed to be to make the save, considering Jiggy had no problem getting all the way across the crease and Lidstrom just smartly placed the shot to the other side of the net. However, from the ref’s vantage point (which isn’t as nice as the the “X-Mo, brought to you by Ford” overhead replay), combined with the fact that Homer was, despite what he says, in the crease at least a tiny bit for the duration of that play, that call, isolated from the way the rest of that game was called, does not bother me. If we take the Kunitz (no-)call out of the game, I have no problem with the call on Homer. To me, the bigger issue is the way replay works. The replay official SHOULD have the authority to converse with the on-ice officials on a play like that and tell them what was clear from the overhead—that there really wasn’t any interference.

My second point was that Kunitz should’ve been called for goaltender interference prior to Schnieder’s goal. That was the worst call we’ve seen in a long time. 99 times out of 100, when a goalie covers the puck in the fashion Ozzie did, and the other team has players in the slot, the ref blows a quick whistle. As he should. There’s no sense in waiting when it’s clear the goalie isn’t going to have a chance to play the puck. Given the minimal contact between Homer and Giguere at the end of the game, the speed of the game, and the ref’s vantage point, I can understand how he made a mistake on that call. However, there is no excuse for the no-call on Kunitz. From almost any angle on the ice one of the two refs should’ve been able to see that Kunitz crashed the net after Osgood held his glove to the ice over the puck.

So, however you shake it out, that game should’ve been tied after 60 minutes. In a perfect world, you could argue fairly that the Wings should’ve won 3-2, but I am willing to give the ref the benefit of the doubt on the call with Homer. It’s hard job to do, and while he made the wrong call, the league has to give on-ice officials as well as video goal judges a mechanism to reverse plays like that, either way. The refs are not given the ability to fix their mistakes by the league. To me, this is the problem. And just to clarify, I’m only suggesting that such calls are reviewable when it directly results in a goal/no-goal call. I’m not talking reviewing hooking penalties. If the NHL took this approach, both questionable plays could’ve been properly judged and corrected yesterday.

Last but not least, and this is where we probably heavily disagree, I’m sick and tired of this idea that the Ducks are favored by the league and/or officials. If so, explain why they’re the most penalized club in the league over the last two seasons? The refs are making the calls. The Ducks play down a man a whole hell of a lot. And hey, maybe that’s part of the gimmick… if they take enough penalties, the refs won’t be able to hand out all of them, so they’ll get away with scoring “Lindros goals”. If that’s your take, fine. But I don’t think that’s mandated or planned by the league, give me a break. If Gary had it his way, there’d be a different winner every year. If a true “Poultry-Gate” comes out I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for any conspiracies to be proven right.

Posted by Nathan on 02/11/08 at 10:12 AM ET

I’m sick of hearing “the Ducks are the most penalized team in the league!” argument.  True, they have the most PENALTY MINUTES, but they also get in the most fights.  Fights are major penalties, counting for the equivalent of two and a half minor penalties, but never result in a man advantage, plus there’s really no referee judgment required to figure out if someone fought or not.  We SHOULD be discussing how many minor penalties the teams take, putting them a man down on the ice. I don’t know how many the teams have had, but I bet it seems a lot different when taken with that view.

Posted by BuzzFledderjohn on 02/11/08 at 10:18 AM ET