the linesman near smith should take the fall for this. i hope this opens the use of shootout in hockey in general. i know gary wants display offense but seriously dont you think the whole concept has been totally tarnish over the past few years?

they should do a 10 min overtime or do 3 on 3 overtime before they let circus ruin hockey games.

Posted by FlyersFan on 12/19/08 at 07:48 AM ET

this was one of the worst calls i have ever seen. i feel bad for Smith the most. he played a great game and for it to end like that is very disappointing.

Posted by josh from tampa on 12/19/08 at 08:08 AM ET

If that’s a throw, he throws like a girl

No seriously he didn’t throw the stick at all there. Piss poor call.

Posted by Yankee Canuck on 12/19/08 at 08:11 AM ET

That’s a horrible call.  It’s very evident that he lost grip on his stick and just followed through with his blocker hand.  It could be argued that he connected on the poke check, too, so that would be a rebound goal in a shootout.

Posted by George James Malik from South Lyon, MI on 12/19/08 at 10:00 AM ET

What a terrible, terrible call.  Just horrendous.  Unforgiveable.

WOW!

Posted by Garth on 12/19/08 at 11:11 AM ET

I guess I’m in the minority here, but when you let go of something while you’re flailing your arms, that’s a throw. 

As to whether it was intentional, Hejduk went from right to left, with Smith following with his stick.  It’s not like he dropped it away from the play.  That’s where I think the judgment was made.  In the few seconds the referees had to observe and then decide, I think they made the right call.

Posted by PRC. on 12/19/08 at 11:27 AM ET

PRC, you’re wrong. That was not a throw, if he’d have thrown it, it would have been in the corner or gone into Hejduk’s skate. He’s letting go of the stick so he can raise his blocker to try and stop the shot. An absolutely horrible call by the refs. If this is considered a throw, I’d like retroactive goals awarded for all of Hasek’s saves.

Posted by philduba from New Jersey on 12/19/08 at 12:14 PM ET

There’s no argument to saying Smith might have connected on the pokecheck. At least not one that I could see.

But I can completely see how the refs thought he threw his stick. His arm was in motion, the stick came out of his hand and voila.

I don’t think it was Smith’s intent to throw the stick but that’s how it appeared.

The real problem here is the inability to review the play upstairs. Although I’m not certain they would have overturned this decision.

Posted by Shane from Saskatoon on 12/19/08 at 02:01 PM ET

OK, I’ll join the fray…

The only rule applicable to what occurred in Thursday night’s game is 26-4, which states that a goal will be awarded when, during a penalty shot, a shot is disrupted by a deliberately thrown stick.

I haven’t gone to the rule book, but if that’s true then it most definitely is a goal.  The shot is in no way disrupted—in fact, the shot is already on the way before the stick leaves Smith’s hands.  Puck and stick never touch.  A horrible call.

Posted by BobTheZee on 12/19/08 at 02:07 PM ET

No, PRC, you are wrong.  By definition that was NOT a throw.  For it to be a throw, he would have to be propeling the stick forward.  He didn’t.  It basically dropped straight down.  There is no way in the WORLD that was a throw…

Posted by Garth on 12/19/08 at 06:44 PM ET