Abel to Yzerman
Next entry: Batten Down The Hatches: Game 5 In Hockeytown Tonite
Previous entry: Could It Be The North Wind They’d Been Feeling? Yep. And A Game 4 Live Blog’s Coming With It
The Potential Effects Of One Mistake
by IwoCPO on 05/15/08 at 06:49 AM ET
Comments (102)
There are a few housekeeping details we should square away before I get into this. First, there is no chance in Hell the Wings lose this series. None. Stress about it. Ruminate and discuss. But, sorry, ain’t gonna happen.
Second. The disallowed goal wasn’t the only reason the Wings lost. Did it contribute? Yes. Greatly. But the Stars played well. They were determined and, frankly, they played like they wanted that game a bit more than the Wings.
For the first time this series, they outhit the Wings 24-23 (according to the stat sheet, which typically favors the home team). Their faceoffs were better, winning 43%. They still didn’t muster any sort of shot total (22). But the ones they put on Osgood were tough ones. The first twelve minutes were theirs, and Osgood kept Detroit in it.
Dallas hustled, hit and played better on the worst ice in the NHL.
And there’s my objectivity for the day. I guess that’s required of me from time to time, a little non-bias, some open-minded thinking. Well, if you’re looking for more of that in this post, you’d better stop reading.
Because the Wings were shafted last night. Bent over by Kelly Sutherland and violated while Little Gary Bettman stood on four phone books and grinned like some sort of fiend who doesn’t even understand what he’s watching. So much that is wrong with the NHL can be explained by that one call.
Coaches, media, players complain about Tomas Holmstrom. In some cases, it’s justifiable. We’ve all seen legitimate interference calls take Red Wing goals away. But more often, way more often, the calls are bogus and we see the scoreboard unjustly affected. Last night’s was a travesty.
The Wings get that goal and the whole tone of the game is established. They withstand the initial rush, pop one, demoralize an already fragile Dallas team. I fully believe that had that counted, as it should have, the Wings win that game.
Nope. The whispers were in Bettman’s ears, Daly’s, Campbell’s. And those whispers turned to strong suggestions when they reached the difference-making level: the refs. I said it last night in the live blog. That call was the result of a mindset. Sutherland had it in his head that if the Wings scored with Homer anywhere near that crease, he was calling it off. It was so blatantly wrong, there can be no other explanation.
And your commissioner endorses that kind of judgment. It’s no better than pro wrestling. Anyone who saw that play knows what a travesty it was, knows how wrong Sutherland was. And we all know that replay, had it been used, would have overturned it. But…replay’s not allowed in that situation.
Why not Gary? How many goals are bogusly overturned? How many more CONFERENCE FINAL games have to be affected?
Wings get that goal, they win the series. Over in four. Over on a Wednesday. Woops. A Wednesday, and not a Saturday on NBC? Can’t have that, can we Gary…you little frigging troll of a league-wrecking piece of garbage.
So the Peacock gets its game this Saturday, so it can pull in a 2.0 share while the few Americans who were riding the fence vow not to watch a sport so blatantly idiotically officiated.
Am I pissed the Wings lost? Yeah. I’m pissed that they didn’t play their best game and end this thing when they could have. All the Wing haters out there can laugh like Little Gary eating cotton candy while he cranes his neck to see over the 5’5” fan in front of him. But while you’re laughing, you’d better consider this: that was an example of just how far this league has sunk. Your NHL. Not just mine, or other Wing fans.
Game 5. Saturday. On NBC. Just like Gary wants.
Filed in: | Abel to Yzerman | Permalink
Comments
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
JHC, why are there even discussions coming from coaches, officials and fans about having body parts in the crease? There is no rule against that.
Did Holmstom’s presence interfere with Turco’s ability to see and play the puck? Goddamn right it did. That’s the friggin’ idea. There were no body parts in the crease, above the crease, under the crease or beside the crease when Datsyuk took the shot. And there was no physical contact between Homer and Turco at any time prior to the shot. Period.
It was a blown call.
Did it cause the Wings to lose the game? No. They played like shit both before and after. But getting a one-zip lead after having your asses handed to you for half the game can be an energizing event. And getting a one-zip lead taken away from you is deflating. So, Detroit took it in the ass two ways on Sutherland’s one screw-up.
No, make that three ways. The Stars went from complete dejection to utter relief on the call and it energized them even more.
F*ck it. I’m done talking about it.
Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 01:18 PM ET
didn’t this same thing happen last year vs the ducks? I forget if it was the playoffs or just the beginning of this season… Exact same scenerio. just a different time and shooter.
Note to Gary:
F*CK YOU!!!
and your little booster chair. Ass!
Posted by cementslinger from Midland MI on 05/15/08 at 01:25 PM ET
Alanah has posted this on the main page:
Detroit Red Wings GM Ken Holland will be the guest on the NHL Hour today, hosted by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. The show is on from 4-5 p.m. ET today.
She also noted:
* While on the air, listeners can call into the show at 1-877-645-6696, or send questions/comments via this email address: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Perhaps the “A 2 Y” crew can help the Organ-I-Zation some and call in with questions, perhaps:
What exactly is the standard in enforcing the goalie crease rule??
Did you see the replay of the waved-off goal; that was a blown call wasn’t it?
Why do the Rules allow for an attacking player, outside of the crease to get repeatedly cross-checked?
Don’t the rules allow for an attacking player to screen the goalie so long as he is not in the crease?
Inquiring minds surely want to know.
Now, we may have to fool the screener, and think of some B.S. line to get past him/her, use your imagination!!!
My work load is light today, I may give it a go.
Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 05/15/08 at 01:25 PM ET
It’s the playoffs. 9 wins in 10 games…we’ve been spoiled rotten.
Agreed disch.
In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
This was not enforced, hence the contradiction. I actually wish he did call Homer on a penalty. The blown call would be magnified that much more and we could almost positive that Sutherland wouldn’t ref the SCFs.
Posted by Osrt on 05/15/08 at 01:31 PM ET
Did Holmstom’s presence interfere with Turco’s ability to see and play the puck?
which as we all know is perfectly legal. just ask Avery…
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/15/08 at 01:38 PM ET
Now, we may have to fool the screener, and think of some B.S. line to get past him/her, use your imagination!!!
At least with Wings fans all over the country they couldn’t block by area code. 
Let it know how it goes - I’m swamped like the Okefenokee today. And all your suggestions are better than the questions i was muttering darkly at the television last night during the game.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/15/08 at 01:53 PM ET
The music selection at the Joe needs to be amended to include that rap song by Sir Mixalot “I Like Big Butts…..”.
They can play it before face-offs when Homer is stationed in front of the net. The message will excite the squirrels in Turdco’s head.
Posted by Rumbear from Sandy Eggo on 05/15/08 at 01:54 PM ET
d. If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
e. If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
I’m no longer stipulating that Homer’s goal in Game One should have been interference. Not after reading the above.
I looked at that play a number of times from the overhead. Homer started backing into the crease as Lidstrom wound up for his shot. Turco backed up as well, matching Homer’s movement. While close, there was no physical contact between the two.
If Turco wanted to claim interference on that, he should’ve stood his ground and let Homer bump into him. He didn’t do that. That’s why it was ruled a good goal.
Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 02:02 PM ET
A bit of a random question. On Bubba’s first goal, that guys entire f***ing body was in the crease when the puck bounced off of him. Is the argument that it wasn’t interference because he was on the other side of Ozzie and Homer was in front of Turco?
Posted by Rae Carruth's Trunk on 05/15/08 at 02:10 PM ET
yep. the other guy’s goal was similar to Homer’s that wasn’t called back - he was in the crease but did not interfere with the goalie. (although I saw the Stars’ stick last night firmly wedged against Osgood’s right pad, preventing him from moving to his right)
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/15/08 at 02:12 PM ET
I need the help of someone at A2Y to photoshop a picture of Little Gary. Put a small mustache on his upper lip and in uniform and I think you get the REAL look of our NHL Commish.
Posted by Mike from La-La Land on 05/15/08 at 02:15 PM ET
Better idea - what was the name of that thing from the Lord of the Rings movies? The creature that was always talking to its master?
It makes me think of Gary making damn sure that NBC has at least one game on the weekend.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/15/08 at 02:19 PM ET
Rae:
You can be in the crease when scoring a goal as long as your presence didn’t prevent the goaltender from making the save. This is what I’m talking about in reference to the two Holmstrom situations that have come up in this series.
Last night, Homer was the goal screener. You can’t be in crease screening as a goal is scored by someone else. And he wasn’t.
In Game One, he was the goal scorer. As I said, had Turco stood his ground there, forcing contact with Homer as he moved backwards into the crease, it would’ve been interference. That’s not what Turco did. By backing up, he ceded that space to the goal scorer. He did not establish presence.
At least that’s my interpretation of the rule and it’s the only one that matters, bitches.
Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 02:33 PM ET
Oh, and you can also be in the crease when someone else scores as long as it’s a momentary thing and not a “significant presence.” I presume that’s the Brett Hull thing in effect.
Posted by O-Joe on 05/15/08 at 02:39 PM ET
didn’t this same thing happen last year vs the ducks? I forget if it was the playoffs or just the beginning of this season… Exact same scenerio. just a different time and shooter.
Yes it did happen and it was this season against Anaheim.
The official that called Holmstrom for interfering with Giguere?
Kelly Sutherland.
Posted by HockeyJoe from NY on 05/15/08 at 02:43 PM ET
Given the way the rule is currently written (it’s changed at least a few times since Brett Hull won the Cup with his foot in the crease—illegal at the time—in 1999), why do they even have a crease any more?
Seriously?
Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 05/15/08 at 02:46 PM ET
...Maybe they’re waiting ‘til they get those spiffy new, curved goals instituted.
Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 05/15/08 at 02:49 PM ET
Well according to a sportsnet reporter, the NHL is ok with the call. I’m not sure why or how they are ok with the call, unless they are dealing with it privately. Thanks Gary. Ass. The Turco quote about him not being able to make the save was pretty funny, particularly when you take into account that he was screened and didn’t even see the shot. But really what else do you expect him to say.
When you combine this call with the non-call in game one and the call earlier with Pittsburg and the replay judge at the world championship, you have to wonder what refs are seeing. I understand that refs are trying their best but you would think that the judgement of the refs at this level would be a bit better.
Posted by UMFan from Colorado on 05/15/08 at 03:05 PM ET
My comment from Alanah’s “NHL Hour” post ‘splains it all…
I hope they have an in-depth discussion of Mr. Bettman’s “flex officiating” system. Refs can call—or not call—whatever they want, whenever they want to, regardless of whether it actually happened or not! The only catch is there’s a strict limit of seven penalties per team per game. So, if for example, “Team Texas” were to commit 60 penalty-worthy infractions in a given game (that’s one per minute for the sake of a nice, round number to work with), they could receive an absolute maximum of seven actual penalties (although pushing the upper limit is somewhat frowned upon). Conversely, if—oh, I don’t know—“Team Michigan” commits three penalty-worthy infractions in the same game, they would be assessed somewhere in the range of four to six penalties. So, you see, it all pretty much evens out in the end!
It’s really an amazing innovation, light years ahead of all those other silly sports with their crazy, “carved-in-stone” rules. And, best of all, it works perfectly in tandem with Colin Campbell’s Wheel o’ Justice.
Then, if there’s any time left, maybe “Kenny” and “Gare” can broach the question of exactly how much revenue a Saturday afternoon game on NBC really generates.
(end of rant)
Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 05/15 at 03:33 PM
Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 05/15/08 at 03:10 PM ET
Yes it did happen and it was this season against Anaheim.
The official that called Holmstrom for interfering with Giguere?
Kelly Sutherland.
This doesn’t raise a flag? I mean, one can say, okay, I will say it… That Kelly (girls name) Sutherland is a prejudice prick! I remember his excuse back with the quacks was, “Well he was going to interfere with the goalie!”
and last night it is, “well, his but was going to be in Turco’s face!”
WTF, eh? At least McGeough(sp) never hid the fact that he hates Detroit.
This girlie named dude… he needs to go
Posted by cementslinger from Midland MI on 05/15/08 at 03:19 PM ET
Commissioner Bettman:
If you are going to beat the drum that hockey fans are the best and most tech-savvy fans in sports, then kindly do us the courtesy of allowing that we have enough intelligence to spot when the officials have been requested to ensure that the corporate media masters have at least one* weekend game for their troubles? You aren’t fooling anyone.
Sincerely, the community of hockey fans
(* pending the results of tonight’s game in PA. Let’s see if they want a Sunday game, too!)
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/15/08 at 03:35 PM ET
I have a dream. In my dream, the Wings win the Cup on home ice. Instead of the boos the Rodent usually experiences when he braves Detroit, he’s pelted with dozens of octopi when he walks the carpet for the presentation.
Posted by BosS. on 05/15/08 at 03:47 PM ET
Stupid NHL.com’s link to the show isn’t working! I don’t want to read either the whole transcript or selected segments later, damnit.
Either way: Look. We’re all bloody angry at the game and refereeing last night. Great. We’re loosing track of some people (especially Mac) making crucial mistakes and other (Cleary and Hudler included) who almost but didn’t score.
I can also recall *at least* four instances when the puck clearly got caught in a puddle. (I only encountered puddles if the Zamboni just refreshed the ice; makes you look like a retard during practice). Our transition game was impaired and a few odd man rushes ended before they began because of either bad luck (broken sticks) or bad ice.
Finally, and I’m merely following the ever classy Nick Lidstrom here. Dallas really *did* win that game; we didn’t *just* lose it. Remember those gripes about MSM fellating Dallas while ignoring our play. yea. We’re kind of doing the same thing.
The Wings didn’t get out of their zone in the opening minutes because they met with desperately rabid dogs. Good for them. They beat us. Fine. Forget. Fix. F&*! them up next time.
I realize we’re also using Homer’s goal as part of a larger indictment against NHL officiating and the quality of the game, but let’s now conflate the two so quickly. We are a better team and will win.
Posted by Osrt on 05/15/08 at 03:52 PM ET
WAhhh!
Posted by Mel on 05/15/08 at 03:53 PM ET
Bettman just said “Turco had trouble moving his stick.”
How that happened while Homer wasn’t in the crease and wasn’t close, I’m not sure.
Posted by number9 on 05/15/08 at 03:57 PM ET
I talked to the Comm!!!!
In my, admittedly poorly posed question, I told him they do in fact review for goals with high stick and goals which were kicked in, so why not interference;
He says they only review for pucks crossing the goal line. Complete B.S.
Oh, and after I asked the question, they cut me off, so no rebuttal.
I do note the caller before me also asked L’il Gary about “The Homer” call; and Little Gary gave Holland an opportunity to vent about the call at the end of the segment.
Thanks, Gary. Your still an Ass!
Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 05/15/08 at 04:06 PM ET
@ Osrt:
Point taken (probably by everyone here), but everybody needs to vent once in a while. It takes longer on the internet because as people see comments they respond to them, instead of a few minutes in person with someone in the same room. I think that’s why it seems to be going on longer than it warrants.
I’m most annoyed at the fact that the potential last game of the series is on Saturday afternoon. No matter how big a hockey fan I am, there is no way I’m going to be indoors watching television if the weather is at all nice - it happens too rarely in Michigan. If they wrapped it up on Wednesday, it would have been more convenient for me. 
Regardless, at least the ice will be better. You can’t play decent hockey on a Slurpee!
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/15/08 at 04:15 PM ET
Jeff, you didn’t expect Mein Fuehrer… er Little Gary to admit the ref blew the call did you? I’m pissed, but after all the bilge being spewed here and elsewhere, It’s time to move on. Game 5 Saturday, national audience, SKATE TO THE THROAT! Because that’s how we roll motherf*&kers;.
Posted by Mike from La-La Land on 05/15/08 at 04:16 PM ET
And kudos to Dallas for actually attempting to make a series of it. Maybe if they’d played like this a couple games ago, we wouldn’t be griping about the phenomenon of “even-up officiating” and both teams would have given their fans a more entertaining series.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/15/08 at 04:18 PM ET
I am not one to complain about the zebras but last night was a joke. A bad joke at the Wings expense. Yes Dallas did play probably the best game they ever have but, they were given everything. This is not the first time. I’m sure it won’t be the last time. The difference being that at the Joe we have better ice, the home crowd, and the ability to clinch in front of the fans.
Now I can only hope that McCreary will be a part of the officials that call the game. He has been, in the playoffs, one of the zebras that has called a game fairly. Or as fairly as the Wings will get.
Anyway, forward and onward. Yesterday is over. Saturday is going to be another story.
Fu*k Dallas!
“BRING IT ON!”
Lets Go Red Wings!!!!!
Posted by Kate from Pa.-made in Detroit on 05/15/08 at 04:25 PM ET
Bettman just said “Turco had trouble moving his stick.”
Let me get this straight: Holmstrom isn’t in the crease, doesn’t make contact with Turco, Turco “had trouble moving his stick” without another person touching him or his equipment. And somehow that equates to goaltender interference. Marty’s “inability” to properly navigate his stick means that someone else had to be at fault? What a bunch of BS.
Whatever. What I want in game 5 AKA game 4 part deux: A devastating hit by Kronwall, a goal from Datsyuk (at least one to make up for his lost point), a dominant game from Zetterberg, a goal from Flip—just because, and an entire team effort to smack down the Stars like a pimp on his misbehaving ho. Domination, pure and simple. Apply skate to throat and push down hard. No mercy.
Posted by Aphaea from Pennsylvania on 05/15/08 at 04:34 PM ET
****OFF-TOPIC WARNING****
Proof that being a sports fan is indeed akin to insanity:
For some people the sense that events are both structured and connected is quite distorted. In 1958, the German psychiatrist Klaus Conrad coined the term apophenia for an “unmotivated seeing of connections” accompanied by a “specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness.”
(Such as a team scoring a goal only when you walk out of the room, and getting scored upon only when you are watching.)
Apophenia is a well-recognized symptom of schizophrenia. When people with schizophrenia experience florid hallucinations, they have a tendency to interpret random events as not only meaningfully connected but often related to themselves, a tendency that forms the basis for paranoid delusions.
(from Your Brain on Cubs: Inside the Heads of Players and Fans, edited by Dan Gordon)
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/15/08 at 04:53 PM ET
Baroque - oh my, where is the nearest psych ward? I better go check myself in!
Posted by hockeychic from Denver, CO on 05/15/08 at 05:05 PM ET
Hockeychic:
I know - that made me laugh, so I figured it was worth sharing.
I haven’t finished the book yet - just published last month - but it takes a look at sports fandom from the standpoint of neuroscience and using the science of the brain to justify the madness. So far, it’s excellent - for a science geek like myself, anyway.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/15/08 at 05:13 PM ET
if “he had trouble moving his stick” is valid for disallowing a goal, then the crease should be triple the size. watch the top-down replay, Turco basically whacked his stick into the back of Holmstrom’s leg. had Holmstrom not been standing there, it wasn’t going to be a stick save anyway…it was top corner over his right shoulder.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/15/08 at 05:22 PM ET
Vote on the Douche Canoe on KK. this link, or somewhere close.
http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/media/comments/hockey_media_approval_ratings_pierre_mcguire/
Surprise, running 2:1 that he’s a Douche.
Posted by RWBill from the Land of 12 in 12. on 05/15/08 at 06:04 PM ET
The other unspoken side of the get-Holmstrum mindset is the merciless slashing and cross-checking he receives every night. How many penalties does Holmstrum draw from receiving all that stick abuse? Probably none, he’s a free target. Cross check him at any time without fear of a whistle, jab him in the back of the head, slash him in the calves freely, no call will be coming. Yet if he’s within 6 inches of the crease with no contact with the goalie that’s close enough to penalize him and the team. The NHL has been bent on the Drunk Chipmunk all season. It is disgusting the way this is slanted.
Posted by RWBill from the Land of 12 in 12. on 05/15/08 at 06:14 PM ET
Agreed B; I was frustrated with everyone’s frustration (including mine).
In Babbles I trust!
BTW: half watching the Pens-Flyers game. It’s 3-0 Flyers at the end of the second. Have at it conspiracy theorists….there have been many many penalties.
Posted by Osrt on 05/15/08 at 08:19 PM ET
Can someone please tell me what rule states that the offensive player can NOT be in the crease?
I thought that got overturned.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something.
Posted by Scott H from Kalamazoo on 05/15/08 at 08:20 PM ET
Wow….Philly won too…and it was like a bar brawl at the end. YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tire Crosby, Hossa, and Malkin out for us Philly.
By the way…if anyone watched the game or is still reading this thread, I was impressed to see what Upshall did with 14 seconds left. Anyone else catch it?
He got called for charging, and rightly so, and while the rest of both teams brawled behind him, he bent down intent on making sure the Penguin he sent to OZ was ok. Sign of weakness or sportsmanship, I have gained a new respect for Scott Upshall. That was pretty cool. I’ll bet his coach will give him hell for it tho.
Go Wings….
Posted by Scott H from Kalamazoo on 05/15/08 at 09:33 PM ET
Good to hear Scott!
I’m not sure his coach will give him hell but I know Cherry will!
NBC now has Saturday and Sunday games. Huh. I would never have guessed that such convenient events would transpire. What a friendly place this universe is.
Posted by Osrt on 05/15/08 at 09:36 PM ET
You know what OSRT…it pleases me that NBC will have Sat and Sun games. What is better than a weekend full of beer, hockey, and the DC.
If only Barry Melrose would stop in for a couple impromptu commentaries….THAT would make my weekend perfect…
But wait….perhaps better yet would be Barry and Cherry doing a little puppet show during intermissions.
“The Mullet and the Mouth” with their cute little sock puppets DC and Little Gary…
Oh how I wish I had photoshop skills. The image of Melrose with his hand up Gary’s puppet skirt seems so perfect!
Is there a puppet show/entertainment stage on the train?
Posted by Scott H from Kalamazoo on 05/15/08 at 09:56 PM ET
Scott, I saw that with Upshall and was also impressed. Watched on CBC and was a bit surprised the announcers didn’t point that out too.
Pretty solid game for the most part. Yeah, there were a lot of penalties, but that was after Philly was up 2-0, and most of those penalties were stupid aggression penalties. There really weren’t any weak calls in that one. Quite the opposite really.
Flyers nearly blew it in the 3rd and played very sloppy shut down after a fantastic first 2 periods.
Of course, I expect Pens to close it out on Sunday.
Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 05/15/08 at 10:01 PM ET
Can someone please tell me what rule states that the offensive player can NOT be in the crease?
scroll through this blog post. a few of us have posted the rules and discussed them. you are correct, in general, that in the crease (or not) isn’t much of a determining factor in anything any more.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 05/15/08 at 11:18 PM ET
Flyers win! Who knew?!! Wow, where’s my Harvard MBA?!!!
NHL…hey, it’s just business.
Little Bettman’s sipping cognac tonite in a hot tub….he’s got a Saturday AND Sunday game. Just a little profit center. Integrity be damned…what a prick.
Might as well watch wrestling…said someones wife.
Thank Gary. ASS!
Posted by Rumbear from Top O da Hasek, sippin rum & catchin some rays on 05/16/08 at 02:57 AM ET
Been a little bit late to the group therapy. Sorry, I was listening to some Townes Van Zandt in honor of Dallas. “Won’t you lend your lungs to me, mine are collapsing…”
If the rule on interference and when it can be reviewed by video is unclear and is causing conflict (and it cleary is, from commentators on down), there really is no reason that it can’t be changed immediately. Even in these playoffs, there’s precedent. The Sean Avery rule was rushed through after his antics in Round 1. But then, the Devils were losing, and with the League’s new favorite word being ‘parity,’ it’s unlikely they’ll put through a rule that will benefit winning teams.
I’m not going to push any conspiracy theories, but the Pens still scare me. The NHL is a business, and they want to promote themselves. What better way than to have Sidney Christ and his ragtag bunch, the youngest team in the League, defeat Goliath, the best team in the league with three recent Cups to its credit? They won’t have much of an opportunity again—as many of their outstanding picks—Malkin, Whitney, Fleury—approach UFA status, they’ll leave. But to have all these present and future stars on one team? You can take that all the way to the bank.
I’m not suggesting that games will be completely stolen. But I expect an SCF series against Pittsburgh will play out a lot like the Dallas series; they will get away with a lot more than we will. As I understand it (though I haven’t watched the games) Fleury has been getting away with whacking players in the groin, shoving, interfering, and so on. We need to be prepared for that stuff not to be called. So the games can’t be close. Take few penalties (especially with the first PP unit they have), come out flying, score early and often. Take the wind out of their sails before the refs have a chance to help them out.
Looks like NBC gets their Sunday game too.
“Hush now, don’t you believe it,
Cover your head and close your eyes now,
Take it or leave it,
Go back to bed now and don’t you cry…”
Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from the massive record library of Texan musicians on 05/16/08 at 05:19 AM ET
Also to say that if we’re to storm out in the Finals, we need Playoff Franzen back—with his scoring abilities of course, but also for his defensive play, which has been a great (both in the quantitative and qualitative sense of the term) part of his game for a while now. Without him, it’ll be full steam ahead on the Stress Train, and The Hasek will need the post-Nashville cleaning crew again. Thankfully they seem to be making sure that he’ll be back and in good shape for the next round.
“If they are real hockey players, then they should be able to take a check like a man. Otherwise stay in the damn crease where you belong!”
Baroque, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, and I’ll still sound creepy: your mother rocks. Like mother, like daughter.
Posted by AndrewFromAnnArbor from the field, getting behind the Mule and plowing... on 05/16/08 at 05:47 AM ET
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
GDT - Game #56: Red Wings host Ducks (7:30)
GDT - Game #55: Red Wings host Oilers (7:30)
The F Stands For Finger And The Finger Could Really ______ Us All
GDT - Game #54: Red Wings at Coyotes (8:00)
So Far 4 In 2, Why Not 6 in 3?
About Abel to Yzerman
Welcome to Abel to Yzerman, a Red Wing blog since 1977. No other site on the internet has better-researched, fact-laden and better prepared discussions than A2Y. Re-phrase: we do little research, find facts and stats highly overrated and claim little to no preparation. There are 19 readers of A2Y. No more, no less. All of them, except maybe one, are juvenile in nature. Reminding them of that in the comment section will only encourage them to prove that. Your suggestions and critiques are welcome: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker
Get the top online sports betting bonuses available to sports betters!
Here’s Rule 78 (Protection Of Goalkeeper) Give it a read. It’s pretty interesting.
Note the potentially pertinent sections:
a. If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
No contact, so no interference.
g. If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
(NOTE) For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.
Homer was outside of the crease, so this doesn’t apply either.
h. Subject to (i) below, if an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
Again, he was never in the crease. So this should have been a goal. You bastages.
This part of the rule doesn’t apply to the goal in question, but I found it pretty durn interesting nonetheless:
d. If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
e. If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
(NOTE 1) The overriding rationale of subsections (d) and (e) above is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player.
(NOTE 2) If, while attempting to establish position within his goal crease, a goalkeeper commits an act that is worthy of a penalty (i.e. cross-checking, slashing, etc.), then the appropriate penalty shall be assessed by the Referee.
So, basically if you try to push a guy out of the way, he is technically required to move. But if you pull a Turco and slash him repeatedly about the shins, or punch him in the back of the ehad, that’s a penalty.
Posted by Modnar from Cincinnati, OH on 05/15/08 at 01:13 PM ET