What really bothers me about this whole situation is that the official said the play was blown dead before the puck went in.  Not the intent to blow, but that it had been blown dead before it went in.  Did he not see the shot May took?  I think that if Abdelkader hadn’t pointed to the puck in the back of the net after the whistle, it may have been overturned by Toronto.  As it stands now, it ranks as the worst officiating mistake in the modern era of replay sports.  Can’t wait to see little gary wiggle his way out of this one.

Posted by tigerjeb from East Lansing on 11/19/09 at 10:34 AM ET

George Malik, Snapshots said it best:

By the time Dennis “Screw You” LaRue intended to blow the whistle, theoretically speaking, the play was not dead, and the puck was already completely over the goal line, inside the net.

The puck didn’t squeak through in that magical, mysterious time between the referee’s decision to place his whistle between his lips and blow and the physical act of blowing the play dead.  Brad May scored the 2-2 goal and the Detroit Red Wings tied the Dallas Stars before the play was theoretically “dead.”

Obsecenity taken to new lows.

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 11/19/09 at 10:34 AM ET

Kudos to Dallas Morning News writer Mike Heika, Dallas Stars Blog:

Let’s get the Brad May no goal stuff out of the way first.

It was a goal. It should have been caught on review. I think these officials are going to get into big trouble, because the review went to Toronto and they still defiantly tried to follow the rule that ``intent to blow the whistle’’ should overule good sense.

But let’s let Detroit coach Mike Babcock explain his feelings:

``It wasn’t blown dead. It was a goal. The guy never meant to blow the whistle. It was a shot. It was in on the shot. It’s as dumb as I’ve ever seen,’’ Babcock said. . .

Brad May, who had the goal taken away added:

`` I just saw a highlight of it and I have no idea why that’s not a goal. There was no whistle. You get a shot from slot . . . look I recognize the referees are in a tough spot but we have video replay in hockey for a reason. To make the right call in those circumstance. It makes no sense to me.

``I think it’s a joke. It’s a 2-2 game and it’s a different outcome for us. Frankly, I’m not happy.’‘

Agreed to all of that. My hope is that this will force the league to study the dumb rule that ``intent to blow the whistle’’ means something. Maybe this is all a part of a huge plan by the hockey gods.

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 11/19/09 at 10:40 AM ET

Hey, guys… it could have been worse.

http://worldsport.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/19/henry-handball-leaves-les-bleus-red-faced/

Buck up, puckheads. The sun will come out tomorrow.

Posted by JG on 11/19/09 at 10:52 AM ET

From Heika:

I think these officials are going to get into big trouble, because the review went to Toronto and they still defiantly tried to follow the rule that “intent to blow the whistle” should overule good sense.

I’m glad to see someone at least have the balls to even mention possible league punishment for this (not that it would happen as the league stands now). It’s important to call this exactly what it is: One of the all-time worst examples of an official thinking he’s bigger than the game.

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 11/19/09 at 11:23 AM ET

Bottom line is, for the “intent to blow” thing to work, the ref would have had to intend to blow the whistle before the puck ever got to the net.

The most incredible thing about the situation is that this kind of thing is theoretically the reason that there is instant replay!

Posted by Garth on 11/19/09 at 11:27 AM ET

A similar thing happened in the playoffs 8 or 9 years ago between Buffalo and Philadelphia.  The Flyers were credited with a goal that went in a hole in the side of the net, this was confirmed with television replays and yet the goal was allowed to stand.  That is what I was reminded of when I saw this farce last night.

Posted by Mike from Idaho on 11/19/09 at 11:45 AM ET

McCosky’s wondering what the heck’s going on, as well.  He thinks there will be explanations.

It was a horrible call and LaRue and Auger showed some arrogance, too, steadfastly refusing to budge when it appeared even the bosses in Toronto were imploring them to do so. It’s very off that Toronto will call back on a play they weren’t asked to review. But they did Wednesday night.

http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/wingsblog/index.php?blogid=3250

Posted by inhyung from I'm still a New Yorker, damnit on 11/19/09 at 11:49 AM ET

Here’s the other weird thing - in the NHL’s play-by-play, they didn’t even give May a shot on goal (http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20092010/PL020295.HTM, starting at the “13:56 left in the third period” mark):

Posted by BuzzFledderjohn on 11/19/09 at 12:55 PM ET

Apparently the official scorer assumed that the referee ruled that the play was dead after Abdelkader’s shot. The intent to blow the whistle must have been after Abdelkader’s shot went off of Auld and back out to May, in which case May’s shot could not count and the goal would, of course, be waived off.

I don’t think that was really what LaRue was thinking, but that’s probably what he told Toronto and the scorer’s table.

Posted by PRS from Philadelphia, PA on 11/19/09 at 01:43 PM ET

Funny how there was no intent to blow the whistle when Detroit was on the other end of a similar situation 2 weeks back against the Sharks. Nabokov had the puck completely covered for 2-3 seconds and no whistle before Zetterberg digs under his pads to push it across.

It all evens out in the end boys.

Posted by Patrick from San Jose on 11/19/09 at 01:58 PM ET

Just posted on KK the NHL explanation...

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 11/19/09 at 02:01 PM ET

Funny how there was no intent to blow the whistle when Detroit was on the other end of a similar situation 2 weeks back against the Sharks. Nabokov had the puck completely covered for 2-3 seconds and no whistle before Zetterberg digs under his pads to push it across.

Posted by Patrick from San Jose on 11/19/09 at 01:58 PM ET

To call you retarded would be a low blow to retards everywhere. How can you even compare the two situations?? If the same thing happened to Detroit that you mentioned, ya I’d probably complain that the whistle should have blown b/c the goalie covered the puck. But that type of thing happens from time to time and isn’t that outlandish.

However when is the last time you remember a puck going straight in the net, sitting there for 1-2 seconds, then being disallowed? I’ve watched 20+ years of hockey, and never seen something so ridiculous. And it’s not just Wing fans that think so. Oh by the way, Sharks fans don’t count as real hockey fans. I mean what do people in Southern California know about hockey? Stick to surfing buddy…

Posted by cainer4wingsglory on 11/19/09 at 05:38 PM ET

The fact that you think San Jose is in Southern California tells me just about all I need to know about your credentials (nonexistent) to judge Sharks fans.

Posted by wraith985 on 11/19/09 at 09:57 PM ET