Call me disallusioned.
How that robbery can happen in the NHL’s biggest game to date without being reviewed (How much time have we waited for reviews in much less meaningful games this past season?) is a fatal blow to the league’s credibility with me.

I may not watch another minute of this farce…

Posted by knowntome from out of here on 05/15/08 at 06:33 AM ET

I’m not into the conspiracy thing, but after what had transpired earlier, when I saw Stuart’s stick being held for about, oh, seven seconds or so, and no call forthcoming, it certainly gave me pause.

Sometimes, infractions aren’t seen by the refs. It’s part of the game.  There is no way, however, that Stuart’s stick being held that long could’ve gone unnoticed.  The ref simply chose to ignore it for whatever reason.

Is there perhaps a grassy knoll somewhere in the American Airlines Center?

Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 07:13 AM ET

To clarify, I’m still not buying the conspiracy angle.

I have to ask though, why did Kelly Sutherland choose to see interference when clearly there was none?  (Yes, the Homer Clause, I get that).  On Datsyuk’s second apparent goal, why did Kelly Sutherland choose to blow the whistle so quickly when clearly the puck had not been frozen by Turco?  And why did Sutherland choose to ignore Stuart’s stick being held for so long?

Whatever.

The Stars expended a lot of energy with their backs against the wall.  They were certainly the more desperate team, if not the better one last night.  And thanks to television scheduling, they get an extra day of rest heading into Game 5.

Slam the door on this guys Saturday, please.

Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 07:29 AM ET

Call me disallusioned.
How that robbery can happen in the NHL’s biggest game to date without being reviewed (How much time have we waited for reviews in much less meaningful games this past season?) is a fatal blow to the league’s credibility with me.

I may not watch another minute of this farce…

And thank you for explaining why the NHL can’t generate the kind of coverage and widespread fanbase that the NFL can. It has little to do with parity. If an NFL fan flips that game on, he’s going to ask, “Why wasn’t that a goal?” And when his hockey-savvy friend explains it to him, he’s going to shit a brick and never watch the game again because it’s clearly stupid.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 05/15/08 at 07:54 AM ET

Welcome to the *#$%@& Gallery, Turckey.  On your left is Sasquatch, on your right Sheriff Chaps-And-Hat-And-Nothing-Else.

Awesome Andrew; anger does wonders for one’s writing.

If an NFL fan flips that game on, he’s going to ask, “Why wasn’t that a goal?” And when his hockey-savvy friend explains it to him, he’s going to shit a brick and never watch the game again because it’s clearly stupid.

Something very close happened with my cousin last night. I was trying to explain why that wasn’t a goal–––while trying to emphasize that it should have been–––and he had a dazed look; “Wait, so you can check people all day but can’t have your heel in the crease?” ummm...no actually...well, you see...there’s this guy name Gary and he’s an Ass…

He saw the Antti Miettinen’s goal and looked at me stupified; I was too busy eating a pillow to explain. But he’s quick on the uptake;

“Gary?”
“F&*#$# that little motherF#$@ing midget and his motherF#$@&#xin;g NBC...” Then I apologized, in my head, to all Small people for ever comparing them to Darth Douche.

Posted by Osrt on 05/15/08 at 08:37 AM ET

That said, we didn’t lose the game on that call. If Sutherland, however, gets to ref in the SCFs I’ll be royally pissed.

Go Philly!

Posted by Osrt on 05/15/08 at 08:43 AM ET

And thank you for explaining why the NHL can’t generate the kind of coverage and widespread fanbase that the NFL can. It has little to do with parity.

Correct, it has to do with integrity.

Look, I’m all for letting them play.  The slew-footing, hacking-and-whacking and ‘finishing of checks’ before the opposing player even touches the puck?  I’m all for that, provided the non-calls on that kind of stuff goes both ways.  (I’m even okay with Ott’s antics at the end of these games.  That’s just him doing his job trying to get into the Wings’ collective head).

Last night, Dallas chose again to engage those tactics while Detroit, for the most part, did not.  The Wings just tried to play their game.  That was their choice, so I’m still good. 

It’s the holding of Stuart’s stick for that length of time that has me scratching my head.  The fact that the Stars didn’t score in that particular sequence is irrelevant.  From what I’ve read from officials about officiating in the playoffs, even when they decide to “let them play,” situations where one player clearly causes a distinct advantage for his team-—be they offensive or defensive players--while play is underway in the scoring zones will be whistled. 

The first goal waive-off can be explained away simply as incompetence showing itself.  The second goal waive-off is one of those situations that occur many times throughout the season.  No big deal.  There is no way, however, that the Stuart situation can be as easily written off.  It was willfully ignoring a situation that gave the Stars an unfair advantage in the scoring zone for a prolonged period of time and I have to wonder why that was.  Had Stuart been the one holding a Stars’ player’s stick, for even half that length of time, you can bet your last dollar that it would’ve been called.

From an officiating standpoint, the whole game seemed to have a slight undertone of “helping” Dallas out a little.  And that goes straight to the integrity of the game.

Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 08:44 AM ET

From an officiating standpoint, the whole game seemed to have a slight undertone of “helping” Dallas out a little. 

and it very well may be unintentional, a subconscious feeling of sorrow for them.  but that’s equally unacceptable.  the refs are supposed to be professionals, and professionals overcome those kind of things.  clearly the refs in the NHL are not professional.  this whole “the game is so fast” bs is just that - a bs excuse.  football plays are just as fast with a helluva lot more going on - and the refs there, for the most part, get it right.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/15/08 at 08:53 AM ET

ORST said:

Darth Douche

Chief, I think you may have to start a synonyms section for Gary. Darth Douche is priceless.

Posted by wingsfanindenver from 'lancheland on 05/15/08 at 09:01 AM ET

Oh, and for what it’s worth, one of the TSN analysts in post game coverage last night stated that in his opinion the linesmen were making tight line calls on Detroit while loosening up a little when Dallas was entering the zone.

I didn’t notice this, but apparently it’s not just me thinking the Stars were getting some minor assist from the officials and the help wasn’t coming from jsut the guys wearing the orange arm bands.

Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 09:02 AM ET

and it very well may be unintentional, a subconscious feeling of sorrow for them.  but that’s equally unacceptable.

Right, which is why I don’t buy into the Lil’ Gary conspiracy theory.

Fact of the matter is, even with this unintentionla or subconscious assit, the Wings still should’ve won the game. They are that much better than the Stars.

Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 09:08 AM ET

*unintentional/assist.

Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 09:09 AM ET