We certainly didn’t get any breaks.

Yeah.  Those two goalposts hit by Mtl, the own goal by Brisebois, and the flukey one in off Lupul’s leg weren’t breaks - they were all part of the Flyer gameplan.

Posted by sisu from Fredericton on 04/25/08 at 07:32 AM ET

it’s nice to MTL had the league on thier side on the Kovalev goal and the richards penatly at the end of the game. even reaction by Kovalev after it went it thought it wasnt a goal.

FlyersFan

Paul

Posted by FlyersFan on 04/25/08 at 07:58 AM ET

Replay after replay showed it was a goal.  Flyers fans should stop whining about calls.  For all your bellyaching about Crosby being a whiner, maybe you should pay more attention to the crybaby antics of Richards who argues and complains to refs after nearly every call now.

Posted by FeistyFinn from Chicago on 04/25/08 at 08:24 AM ET

It was very, very close, but it was a goal according to the replays.  The commentators on CBC at least pointed out how it was difficult to tell on these shots sometimes because of the black tape on the stick and the black puck, and one of them said he thought that the official shouldn’t have called anything on the ice initially so it wouldn’t be a case of finding indisputable visual evidence on tape, but rather of looking for what happened on the tape and leveing the situation more open.

I don’t think the calls went more for one team than the other any more than they have in any of the other games.  This was a tough loss for Philly, no doubt, but they have a chance to learn from it and build on what I thought was a pretty solid game overall in game two.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 04/25/08 at 08:33 AM ET

As for the penalty call on Mike Richards that set up Alex Kovalev’s tying goal, Richards told Philadelphia reporters he thought he got Kovalev with his shoulder but we didn’t mind the call as replays showed Kovalev tripped up by Richards’ knee. The Flyers shouldn’t complain too much given that they scored the series-clinching goal against Washington on the power play on a play that was much more suspect.

-Scott Burnside

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 04/25/08 at 09:05 AM ET

Feisty Finn and Sisu,
I couldn’t agree with you more. Watching this and most other Flyers games on the local telecast, you’d think that every Flyer’s loss was the result of a conspiracy.  The Flyers NEVER lose as a result of their own doing, and NEVER win as a result of a beneficial call. It truly creates a fan base of whiners.  With regard to last night’s game, the first Kovalev goal was reviewed.  As a fan, you can hate the result, but you have to respect that it was given due scrutiny.  The penalty on Richard’s was certainly a beneficial call for the Canadiens, but he clearly made contact leg to leg with Kovalev (the local broadcasters, including Bill Clement whom I typically admire, tried to make the claim Richards hit him with his shoulder ...he may have TRIED to hit him with his shoulder but missed and made leg to leg contact.) The Flyers need look no further back than game 7 against the Caps to see where they were the beneficiaries of a borderline call.  (I know FlyersFan will argue with it, but if you want the call on Poti, you also get the call on Richards.  On the Poti call, Umberger did not have control of the puck, it was in his feet, where Poti attempted to play it, albeit rather sloppily.  The call resulted in a goal for the Flyers in a game in which they had been dominated for the previous 2 periods.) I guess when you’ve been eliminated 33 years in a row as the result of bad officiating you grow frustrated.

Posted by dip from philly on 04/25/08 at 09:20 AM ET

The argument on whether the hit on Kovalev was a knee or a shoulder is a moot point.  In the same movement Richards stuck his stick between Kovalev’s legs which would have resulted in a tripping penalty.

Posted by Mr. Nasty on 04/25/08 at 10:14 AM ET