Priceless. 

Good seeing you back on the your page Paul.  hope you get to feeling 100% soon.

Wonder if Campbell will “see” the same thing. 

The officiating last night was atrocious shameful.  For petes sake, these are the conference finals!

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Hockey Netherworld on 05/23/09 at 08:05 AM ET

Hope you’re doing well, Paul. And glad the screen cap is helpful. I was frustrated by the misleading screen caps Empty Netters posted, so thought I needed to do a little justice to the situation.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 05/23/09 at 08:13 AM ET

Since a picture is worth approximately 1000 words, I’d like to see the NHL be required to issue an annotated picture just like that justifying each suspension or non-suspension - and even for major penalties.

Instead of “blah, blah, blah” SHOW everyone exactly what you were looking at, you bureacratic dorks.

(And if that had been Tootoo, most of the teams in the league would have given Kronwall a medal.)

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/23/09 at 08:19 AM ET

The only thing wrong with the Kronwall hit was that someone truly deserving of such a masterpiece such as Jordan Tootoo, Steve Ott, Matt Cooke, Sean Avery, Ben Eager, Adam Burish or Robyn Regehr wasn’t on the receiving end of it.

lol at including Robyn Regehr with the rest of the motley crew above.  Not surprising, though, Staples is an Oilers fan and probably doesn’t like the business that Regehr hands out to wittle Alice Hemsky.

Not that that’s off my chest, great hit by Kronwall, he does have a history of leaving his feet to deliver devastating checks, but last night’s was a thing of beauty.

Posted by dash_pinched from Rumour Mill Bay on 05/23/09 at 08:38 AM ET

Just a reminder.

Possession of the Puck:

The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

Strictly speaking, Havlat neither had nor lost possession of the puck immidiately before the Kronwall hit. There’s no “Within two inches of either skate” amendment to the definition.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 05/23/09 at 08:47 AM ET

If that play was “interference” (simply because Havlat didn’t have his stick on the puck), the league will have to start calling every play where a puck is dumped into the zone and one of that team’s players hits the other team’s defenseman who’s trying to play the puck. Since that happens about a dozen times a game, we can look forward to a lot more penalties being called in the future.

As for those who claim Kronwall was “charging”, look at the replay again. He covered less than 10’ before the hit. And that’s probably one reason Kronner’s feet were not off the ice when the hit was made.

That hit is very similar to the one Stuart laid on Umberger in the first round. Both Umberger and Havlat looked up, saw the defeseman coming and both players chose to ignore the possibility of being hit in favor of trying to make a play. As Mickey Redmonds loves to say, “You’re responsible for protecting yourself out there, so keep your heads up, boys and girls.”

The officials clearly pandered to the home-town crowd by deciding, long after the play was over, that Kronwall had to be punished for Havlat’s condition. The penalty (and especially the game-misconduct) had nothing to do with the hit. It had everything to do with what happened to Havlat after the hit.

The penalties on Kronwall and the wave-off of Hossa’s goal in the last series are two of the worst calls I’ve ever seen.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids on 05/23/09 at 09:02 AM ET

Absolutely brutal call.

The Wings must fight through inept officiating yet again.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste. Marie on 05/23/09 at 09:02 AM ET

Strictly speaking, Havlat neither had nor lost possession of the puck immidiately before the Kronwall hit. There’s no “Within two inches of either skate” amendment to the definition.

I don’t have a problem with the puck being close enough in the vicinity for an opponent to reasonably assume that it would be played - what if a player intended to play a puck but whiffed, and didn’t touch it at all, and then was hit?  Strictly speaking, that would then be interference as well - even though pulling up and waiting until he was absolutely certain that the puck was on a player’s stick would result in him being caught flat - and probably a hooking call as he tried to catch up to a skater going past him.

It strikes me as similar to a double play in baseball - as long as the foot of the second baseman or shortstop is “in the neighborhood” of the bag before he throws over to first base, it is counted as an out.  Strictly speaking, sometimes it shouldn’t count - but as long as it is close enough, it does count.  And it counts for every team equally, because all the officials call it the same way.

No one grumbles about the strict interpretation of the rule because they know if hte identical thing happens in the next half-inning, they will get the identical benefit - and it protects the infielder from getting upended as often because he has an extra split-second to move out of the way.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/23/09 at 09:22 AM ET

I’m not privy to the exact instructions given to officials concerning various grey areas of the inteference rules. But I assume that there’s a less stringent interpretation of the rule in case of an equal opportunity battle for the puck between two players. Especially if it’s a body position battle without the use of hands or stick. I also suspect that vicinity of the puck is accepted along the boards within reason, ie. no excessive force used by the attacking player.

In my estimation, Kronwall wasn’t looking for the puck but focused only on the vulnerable Havlat. I have no problem with Havlat benefitting from the stringent interpretation of possession in this case. There were no good intentions turned bad from Kronwall’s perspective.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 05/23/09 at 09:49 AM ET

Losing in OT is like getting kicked int he gut, twice. But I think when the dust settles we’ll see that the Wings played pretty damn well. To battle back from a 3-0 deficit and terrible officiating says something about the mettle of this team.

The Hawks have given their all in the last two games, the Wings have had periods of bad play and bad calls, and still the Hawks have only managed to pull of one win in those two games.

And did anyone notice the usually raucous United Center was pretty quiet last night? The fans are like the Hawks, they are very wary of this Wings team, and they are holding their breath, waiting for that offensive explosion everyone knows the Wings are capable of. The fans are very nervous of this Wings team.

It’s hard to cheer with vomit in your mouth.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste. Marie on 05/23/09 at 10:01 AM ET

In my estimation, Kronwall wasn’t looking for the puck but focused only on the vulnerable Havlat.

Then your estimate is wrong. Kronwall saw the puck coming, and did what he was supposed to do. Kronwall may be known to leave his feet at times, but Niklas Kronwall is not Chris Pronger. Kronwall is not a dirty player. He does not lead with his elbow, he does not stomp on people’s legs, nor he does not head hunt. Hav-flat’s head hit the boards, hence him going out cold. Hav-flat has an legacy of being fragile, and last night was just another example.

Posted by mrfluffy from Cincy on 05/23/09 at 10:06 AM ET

It is a well-established fact that O’Hallaron has a bias against the Red Wings. It has been proven over and over again. That happens in sports. Some teams and certain officials just do not mix, for any number of reasons.

All sports deal with this problem. Though not a huge problem, it is something that rears its head from time to time. Leagues simply adjust, and make sure issues do not occur by being creative in their scheduling of officials.

So, the NHL puts O’Hallaron in an absolutely pivotal Game Three in the Det/Chi series.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I hate that type of thinking...but this is getting strange.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste. Marie on 05/23/09 at 10:24 AM ET

that was a clean hit. No Hitting League was in action last night. it was a hit scott stevens would of done. if im a wings fan im worry because based on “reputation” that cholly in his ivory tower uses as a standard to suspended someone, sadly Kronwall is looking at a suspension.

those are kinda of hits that make the game exciting to watch.

Posted by FlyersFan on 05/23/09 at 11:38 AM ET

It’s a well-established fact that fans will come up with just about any excuse to free their own players of guilt and presume utmost evil from the opposing team in any altercation. Regardless of the evidence presented.

Had it been Brooks Orpik, I would probably try to find mitigating circumstances as well (and he’s bound to do something stupid before the playoffs are over). But not the biased official excuse. That’s too old school and primitive.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 05/23/09 at 11:43 AM ET

It’s a well-established fact that fans will come up with just about any excuse to free their own players of guilt and presume utmost evil from the opposing team in any altercation. Regardless of the evidence presented.

That’s great.

But you ignored the fundamental issue: It was a clean hit.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste. Marie on 05/23/09 at 12:20 PM ET

I decided to take a few hours and sleep on it before commenting on a thread like this.

In my estimation, Kronwall wasn’t looking for the puck but focused only on the vulnerable Havlat.

First off glad to see a level-headed person arguing against the Wings position in this forum, wish there were more of you, Moq.  Also glad to see a fellow Dane.  I agree with you that the hit was more the intention there for Kronwall.  However, big open-ice hits is his job, among other things.  Clean ones.  That’s part of the game.  One could argue that Havlat wasn’t skating the puck up the ice, so that makes it a little questionable, sure.  One could argue that maybe Kronners could have looked at the number of the player, realized it was Havlat, and calculated that maybe he’s a fragile guy and he shouldn’t have hit him so hard, but that’s a tough one to make happen inside of a couple of seconds.  The image on this article lays it bare, it was a legal, clean hit.  A doozy of one, sure, but legal.  It is plain to me that while its an unfortunate incident, the call made there was a crowd-sympathy call; had Havlat gotten right back up there would have been none.  There’s no room for that kind of officiating in the league.

It’s hard to cheer with vomit in your mouth.

I was kind of taken aback how stricken the fans looked when we tied it up.  It’s the same look the hawks had at the end of game two.  It made me almost feel bad to be a Wings fan seeing how bummed they all looked.  Almost..

So, the NHL puts O’Hallaron in an absolutely pivotal Game Three in the Det/Chi series.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I hate that type of thinking...but this is getting strange.

Remember the article from that one guy who threw an octopus on the ice at one of the Columbus games and while sequestered away in security’s room claims to have heard Bettman walk by saying, “I don’t like this one bit.”?  I have a feeling Gary doesn’t like sweeps.  You may not be a conspiracy theorist but between the goal-line puck call with Anaheim, and 11 minutes of penalty kill in the first period last game, not to mention all the times goals were disallowed by Homer in the last finals series against the Penguins, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the fix is in.  It is appaling to me the way calls against us get more and more outlandish and numerous whenever we go up 2 in a series, then magically even out once we’re at a game 6 or 7.  That is no way for a league to introduce “parity” into its competition.  Sure, hate the Wings for being a good team, but supporting this sort of BS is incorrigible.

Posted by Hippy Dave from San Francisco by way of Detroit on 05/23/09 at 02:28 PM ET