I’m sure that’s not quite how Detroit fans would word the headline right now…

Posted by Dan from Pittsburgh, PA on 05/06/09 at 12:35 AM ET

Is the “Intent to blow” rule not the stupidest rule in professional sports?

Posted by Red_Hugh from Ann Arbor on 05/06/09 at 12:38 AM ET

Brad Watson should be fired.

Posted by Brad Watson Should be Fired on 05/06/09 at 12:46 AM ET

Don’t ask me how you could implement it; however coaches should be able to challenge (like in football) and this type of situation should be a challengable circumstance.  Give the ref a second chance to make the right call.

Posted by Tuba Guy from Royal Oak, MI on 05/06/09 at 12:52 AM ET

RE: the intent to blow rule….

The ref truly and emphatically does blow.

Posted by MisterT on 05/06/09 at 12:53 AM ET

stay classy NHL. this tops ed hochuli’s screw up this past season in nfl

Posted by FlyersFan on 05/06/09 at 12:54 AM ET

stay classy NHL. this tops ed hochuli’s screw up this past season in nfl

I agree with you.  Hochuli didn’t mess with a playoff game.

Posted by Tuba Guy from Royal Oak, MI on 05/06/09 at 01:01 AM ET

Series tied.

Wings - 1
Ducks - 1
Refs - 1

Posted by Red_Hugh from Ann Arbor on 05/06/09 at 01:05 AM ET

The “intent to blow” rule is fine. The problem was he should never have intended to blow the whistle. At no point was there justification to blow the whistle. The puck never stopped moving for an instant. There is no way Watson should have lost sight of the puck.

Posted by Brad Watson Should be Fired on 05/06/09 at 01:11 AM ET

if this proves to be the deciding game, the NHL should implement capitol punishment.

Posted by sola_gratia on 05/06/09 at 01:17 AM ET

The “intent” rule is horrible—it’s far too subjective. It should be the whistle, cut and dry. Take out the gray area of the “intent”.

The fact that he blew this play dead tonight is ridiculous.

Posted by Matt on 05/06/09 at 01:20 AM ET

You know what…when the Canes lost an OBVIOUS goal that would have sealed the game for them against the Bruins they didn’t complain they kept playing and won the game. 

If Babcock thinks staring down the ref and complaining is going to give the Wings an edge with the refs, it’s not…he should know better.  The wings put 1 goal behind hiller tonight (at least on paper), he shouldn’t be yelling at the refs he should be yelling at his insanely talented scorers.  Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hossa, etc.  If your team is only scoring on the power play with the best talent in the nhl then that’s a problem.  If they need to grind in the corners and in the crease to get them past hiller then they have to do it…or break out the golf clubs.

Posted by stoneman from Vegas on 05/06/09 at 01:38 AM ET

The “intent to blow” rule is fine. The problem was he should never have intended to blow the whistle. At no point was there justification to blow the whistle. The puck never stopped moving for an instant. There is no way Watson should have lost sight of the puck.

Agree. But…

You know what…when the Canes lost an OBVIOUS goal that would have sealed the game for them against the Bruins they didn’t complain they kept playing and won the game. 

Agree part 2. How about giving some props to Mr. Hiller’s ridiculous save percentage in the playoffs?

Posted by Mike Chen on 05/06/09 at 01:48 AM ET

Stoneman yea those guys shoud step up.  however they haven’t and is a moot point because that was a goal. no matter if they were up 10 or down 10. These refs have been terrible in pretty much all the games throughout these playoffs. they should make these reviewable, that would take care of most of them. They coulda looked at that one tonight, heard no whistle, puck was never covered and was put in the net, and called it a goal. Just like the ones that hit the netting and bounce back in play that arent caught. its happend twice with the wings. one went against and one went for. these should be reviewable also or they should make the rule that the ones that bounce off a still in play.

Posted by ME on 05/06/09 at 02:56 AM ET

You know what…when the Canes lost an OBVIOUS goal that would have sealed the game for them against the Bruins they didn’t complain they kept playing and won the game.

Agree part 2. How about giving some props to Mr. Hiller’s ridiculous save percentage in the playoffs?

Was it a bad call or not Mike?

Did the call decide the game at that moment Mike?

Would the game have gone to OT if not for that garbage call?

Do you really think Wing fans are thinking about “props to Mr. Hiller” or even what kind of idiot uses the word “props”? 

You may be part of the empire and I suppose I should be the guy holding back in this situation, but you’re an *#$%@& and a Wing hater so your point of view is completely tainted.

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 05/06/09 at 04:27 AM ET

How about giving some props to Mr. Hiller’s ridiculous save percentage in the playoffs?

You cannot possibly be serious.

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 05/06/09 at 04:56 AM ET

Wings got robbed here.  Game shoulda gone to ot.  That ref was pretty jumpy on that.

Posted by Luongo-is-my-hero on 05/06/09 at 05:26 AM ET

You may be part of the empire and I suppose I should be the guy holding back in this situation, but you’re an *#$%@& and a Wing hater so your point of view is completely tainted.

Chief, let’s stay civil. I’ve said this a bunch of times over the years, regardless of teams. The refs screw up—sometimes, big time. It doesn’t mean that the team they screwed hasn’t blown their chances, or that the other team hasn’t done something to rob them. Perhaps this is giving the refs too much credit, but bad officiating—and there’s been a ton of it this playoff—tends to even out. It’s crappy and it shouldn’t be that way but for better or worse, I tend to look at a quick whistle the same way I look at a goal scored on a phantom penalty. It sucks but %!$# happens because there’s no consistency in officiating.

Blown chances…as a Sharks guy, I know that well, and I’ve said this same thing to fellow fans and friends walking out of the Tank over recent playoff years. I’m not hating on anyone here. Bad call irk me as much as the next guy but if you’re pumping 40+ shots on the goalie, he was doing something right that night and deserves some credit.

Posted by Mike Chen on 05/06/09 at 05:59 AM ET

Chief, let’s stay civil.

I’ll pass.

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 05/06/09 at 06:13 AM ET

Chief, let’s stay civil.

You come into a thread that’s discussing how the ref cost the Wings the game last night, say “Hai guyz!1 Didn’t Hiller play grate !11”, and expect not to be flamed by Wings fans? That’s either a lack of tact or a lack of smarts.

How does the play of Hiller have anything to do with the fact that the officials basically gave this game to Anaheim?

Posted by Mandingo from The Garage on 05/06/09 at 06:37 AM ET

Mike, the Canes call didn’t affect the outcome of the game. These are two very different things. The Canes were already ahead, the Wings were battling from behind in the last minute of the game.

How the fu&& can you even compare them??

Unbelievable call. I didn’t watch the game last night, but heard a guy on a local radio station this morning talking about the no-goal. He said those of us that hadn’t seen it yet won’t believe it.

He was right. Unreal. The incompetence is staggering.

Fu** you, Bettman.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 05/06/09 at 06:42 AM ET

Compare the reactions of Jonas HIller

“I didn’t know where the puck went, I saw it on the replay after, it was definitely an early call. We were lucky there,” said Hiller.

and director of officiating for the series:

“(Watson) didn’t make a mistake,’’ McGuire said in a statement. “In hindsight, if he had a slow-motion camera to review it, he may not have (blown the whistle). He did what all officials are instructed to do: Blow the whistle when they don’t see the puck.’

Way to dodge responsibility. Making a call in error is one thing, denying it ever happened is another. Gutless.

Posted by I didn't do it on 05/06/09 at 06:42 AM ET

K, so i’m not sure, maybe this “intent to blow” rule you guys are talking about negates my comment.. . . BUt. . . after watching this video [. . stopping, and starting, and pausing, and playing]. . . it is clear the puck goes in BEFORE the whistle is even blown.  Not to mention the fact that the whistle never should have been blown. 

I am pissed

Posted by Wingssssssss on 05/06/09 at 06:42 AM ET

Brad Watson should be fired.

This.

He can’t claim he lost sight of the puck, because everyone could see it, and you could see form the camera angles that HE could see it.  So in other words, he in fact knew the puck was loose and chose to blow it dead anyways.

Posted by Primis on 05/06/09 at 06:53 AM ET

Whoa, shocker.  The Wings get screwed be the NHL.

Guys, look… this is how it is going to be from now on.  Holland has made Bettman’s CBA into a joke with his contract offers to Zetterberg and Franzen, and a team like the Wings stands directly in the way of Bettman’s strategy to market specific, pre-selected individual players over other teams accomplishments.

That’s just the way it’s going to be.  As Wings fans, we better just get ready to deal with this exact kind of thing happening from now on, or at least as long as it takes for Bettman to shift the Stanley Cup into either Ovechkin or Crosby’s hands.

At the very least, the league offices are going to do every last thing in their power short of obviously destroying the sanctity of the game to keep Detroit from winning.

The league isn’t going to let the Wings get those calls.  The League isn’t going to do anything but their usual ‘even up the PIMs’ thing, because calling the game straight would have Detroit on the PP 10 minutes a night and scoring 2 or 3 power play goals.

If that’s going to chase you away from watching hockey, you may as well stop watching now.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 05/06/09 at 06:59 AM ET

Holland has made Bettman’s CBA into a joke with his contract offers to Zetterberg and Franzen, and a team like the Wings stands directly in the way of Bettman’s strategy to market specific, pre-selected individual players over other teams accomplishments.

So last night was Holland’s fault because you feel he cheated on the CBA, HD?

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 05/06/09 at 07:04 AM ET

I’m saying that while the Wings have been on Bettman’s poop list for quite some time, Holland pantsing the CBA like he has clearly moved them up a couple notches.

Perhaps to the point where the NHL would take some steps in allowing stuff like last night to stand.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 05/06/09 at 07:19 AM ET

If Babcock thinks staring down the ref and complaining is going to give the Wings an edge with the refs, it’s not…he should know better.  The wings put 1 goal behind hiller tonight (at least on paper), he shouldn’t be yelling at the refs he should be yelling at his insanely talented scorers.

I absolutely love that you have the balls to critique Babcock’s complaining to the refs during the game… when Carlyle has been whining, complaining, and essentially petitioning the league before the series, and after every game…even when they win…Maybe Babcock should just try that instead…seems to work.

Posted by Bingo Bango Jessie on 05/06/09 at 08:26 AM ET

This is why the NHL can’t draw in and keep new fans. And it’s also why the NHL risks losing die-hard fans. It’s got nothing to do with the total number of goals scored in a game. It’s got nothing to do with the trap. It’s got nothing to do with the games being too physical or not physical enough. And it sure as shit has nothing to do with playoff OT being too long and needing to go to 4-on-4 or some other gimmick.

It has everything to do with two things:
- Casual fans see plays like this, it’s not immediately clear why the goal wasn’t allowed, and once the “intent to blow the whistle” rule is explained, it still leaves you wondering why there’s no way to fix such an obvious, critical mistake, just as there is in the NFL, NBA, and MLB now.
- Casual fans can tune into the NBA and NFL and get it right of the bat. They can watch two totally different games in each of those leagues, and generally, a charge or block in one NBA game will look the same as a charge or block in another NBA game, and a hold in one NFL game will look like a hold in another NFL game. And when calls go wrong? A three-pointer is called a two? Or an incomplete pass is called a fumble? The leagues have a method to fix the mistake. As a casual sports fan, that makes it easy to appreciate. You’ll never feel like you (or anyone playing the game) is being robbed.

But in the NHL? Watch one game at 7:30pm. Then watch a game at 10:30pm. Chances are, infractions like interference, holding, and roughing will look completely different in the two games. They will be called differently. Things called interference in the 7:30 game will happen like crazy in the 10:30 game, but won’t be called.

The NHL is the only league that accepts, expects, and cultivates a system where the rulebook is used with discretion, instead of the rulebook being exactly what it sounds like—the goddamn rules.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 05/06/09 at 08:41 AM ET

Coming from someone who doesn’t have a dog in this fight, the Wings was robbed.  Bottom line is the puck was over the line when the whistle was blown.  End of discussion.

Posted by davids from montreal on 05/06/09 at 09:00 AM ET

The “intent to blow” rule that’s been discussed is paraphrased as “The instant the ref determines he has lost sight of the puck and therefor will blow the play dead IS the instant the play is dead, not when he actually blows the whistle.”  There seems to be some people above who hadn’t heard of it.

That being said, and in an effort to remove mildly-to-flamingly irrational opinions from the discussion, the conversations that Detroit fans/players/management are having basically boil down to this:

1) he lost sight of the puck and blew the play dead and it is therefore the correct call,
2) he didn’t loose sight of the puck and inadvertantly raised his hand to his mouth and blew the whistle, which would be an incorrect call, or
3) there is a grandiose conspiracy perpetrated at all levels of the NHL from the commissioner down to the linesman and refs to prevent the Detroit franchise from achieving success and to prosecute this agenda, a professional referee blew dead a play that was a 100% sure game-tying goal in the waning minutes of the third period.

I know which one I think happened.

On another note, and this is just spit-balling, is it possible that some of the chatter coming from BOTH coaches this series has been directed at the refs to protect goalies from some of the physical shenanigans in and around the crease, and that in this instant, there may have been a quick whistle as a result of that chatter?

Posted by Mike @ MHH from Oklahoma City, OK on 05/06/09 at 09:27 AM ET

Mike @ MHH-

What in Hiller’s body language suggested that he was a man in full control of that puck?

What in the body language of any other player on the ice suggests that the puck is dead?

Posted by shanetx on 05/06/09 at 09:28 AM ET

Or better yet:  If you can see a puck laying in the crease, in the open, how can you blow the play dead?

This isn’t a case of where Hiller had it partially-covered even.  It was laying there in the open for all to see…

Posted by Primis on 05/06/09 at 09:47 AM ET

Maybe Babcock should just try that instead…seems to work.

No, he shouldn’t, I prefer to have my hometown team just worry about playing the game. Let the fans worry about this shit publicly, and let Holland and Babcock make their phone calls behind closed doors, and not air dirty laundry to the media.

On another note, and this is just spit-balling, is it possible that some of the chatter coming from BOTH coaches this series…

Don’t know what series you’re watching. Most “chatter” from Babcock in relation to any officiating issues in this series has been: “Not touching that one with a ten foot pole…”

The closest he’s come to real “chatter” was when he said in an interview Tuesday morning that he thought officiating would be a factor in the game. And that’s all he said. He didn’t whine like Tubby McBitchcock or Turtlehead Carlyle, even though he’s had plenty of reasons to do so.

The “intent to blow” rule that’s been discussed is paraphrased as “The instant the ref determines he has lost sight of the puck and therefor will blow the play dead IS the instant the play is dead, not when he actually blows the whistle.” There seems to be some people above who hadn’t heard of it.

We’re all aware of the rule. I, for one, don’t blame Brad Watson for this. I blame the league for not having a mechanism to overturn what was obviously such a horrendous call, for the following reasons:
- The linesman up at the blue line on the penalty box side of the ice had clear view of the loose puck.
- Watson may have intended to blow the whistle, but the whistle didn’t go until the puck was in the net.
- Being that the whistle didn’t go, no players from either team let up on the play.
- Therefore, why doesn’t the NHL allow the linesman to skate down and call it a goal. Then, the linesman and Watson can exchange notes, and determine, oh yeah, the puck was loose, it’s a goal!

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 05/06/09 at 09:47 AM ET

You know what…when the Canes lost an OBVIOUS goal that would have sealed the game for them against the Bruins they didn’t complain they kept playing and won the game. 

OBVIOUSLY, the playoffs bring out the stupidity in people.

Wing fans remember the song by The Eagles, “Dirty Laundry”???, the one line,” Kick em when they’re up,kick em when they’re down”, I would say this was a hard kick to the nads.

giving some props to Mr. Hiller’s ridiculous save percentage in the playoffs?                                   

Posted by akus on 05/06/09 at 09:54 AM ET

in an effort to remove mildly-to-flamingly irrational opinions from the discussion, the conversations that Detroit fans/players/management are having basically boil down to this:

1) he lost sight of the puck and blew the play dead and it is therefore the correct call,
2) he didn’t loose sight of the puck and inadvertantly raised his hand to his mouth and blew the whistle, which would be an incorrect call, or
3) there is a grandiose conspiracy perpetrated at all levels of the NHL from the commissioner down to the linesman and refs to prevent the Detroit franchise from achieving success and to prosecute this agenda, a professional referee blew dead a play that was a 100% sure game-tying goal in the waning minutes of the third period.

I know which one I think happened.

1. Like Chen, your bias provides you little to no credibility. 

2. The last time I used the word “grandiose”, another guy slapped me hard in the face and I deserved it

3. When’s the last time a meaningful whistle blew in a Dive game? November?

Posted by IwoCPO from Sunny San Diego, bitches on 05/06/09 at 09:55 AM ET

To the jackass that said:

You know what…when the Canes lost an OBVIOUS goal that would have sealed the game for them against the Bruins they didn’t complain they kept playing and won the game. 

How *#$%@& stupid are you? Scoring a game tying goal with ~1min left with the series tied is not analagous to scoring a third goal when up 2-0. They didn’t “whine” because they didn’t lose and/or the game wasn’t put in jeopardy. If you listened to the radio and read the news plenty of people “whined” big time. And, grinding in the crease is what they were doing when they scored the game tying GOAL.

This call was a *#$%@& up and Wings’ fans should be allowed to bitch and moan about it all they want. Its their right as a fan of the game. if you don’t like it, stay away from the posts regarding the Wings.

And Chen? WTF? No one is saying that the Wing’s didn’t have any chances that were blown; conversely, they are saying that they CONVERTED a chance that was then BLOWN. And who gives shit about Hiller? Is the video at the top of the post “Swedish Gay Porn live from Santana Row”? Nope. It is a video of a *#$%@& up call by a lame-ass ref. So that is why no one is spinning a propeller in Jonas Hillers direction. Give him a hand if you want, but we finished using our hands for that after the BJs.

Posted by SharkBaiter from at play in the Labs of our Lord on 05/06/09 at 10:01 AM ET

Before I comment I must confess I am a Ducks Fan. But I want to comment as a Hockey player myself. I cannot even count how many times during my games a ref blows a whistle on a loose puck. It must happen once or more during a game. It sucks…especially when you are on the team that has an opportunity to score. Hockey is a fast moving game. The fastest of all sports. If I were a Redwings fan I would be upset…but I also know these calls are not uncommon. A ref is suppose to stop play as soon as sight of the puck in lost. This can help teams and it can hurt teams depending on the situation. As much as I like to complain about the officiating in hockey…it does make for exciting times. Redwings are a good team. After last nights games…There is no doubt in my mind they are going to come out swinging the next 3-4 games. Win or lose it is a great series so far and it is only going to get better.

Posted by Hockeyfan2009 from Cali on 05/06/09 at 12:20 PM ET

Hockeyfan2009,

Just because it is an accepted part of the game doesn’t make it right.  Nonetheless, you bring up a good point and I appreciate your comments.  You are one of the good Anaheim fans.

Posted by Tuba Guy from Royal Oak, MI on 05/06/09 at 01:00 PM ET

Shanetx: Nothing in his body-language would have indicated TO ME that he had control, other than he was sprawled out on his stomach and not moving, but there’s nothing in the rule about goalie/player body language, so I don’t see how that’s relevant to the discussion.

Primus: All to see apparently didn’t include the ref who blew the whistle, in this case.

IwoCPO: Thanks for elevating my opinion of the intelligence of Detroit fans.

Posted by Mike @ MHH from Oklahoma City, OK on 05/07/09 at 01:03 PM ET