Third Man In

He probably tried. The refs couldn't hear him since he lost his voice.

That was the same move that worked for Richards on the first goal. It almost worked again.

I don't understand the connection between fans and calls here.

What do you wanna bet the words "Steve" and "Moore" just passed Ott's lips in that exchange?

Wings were way too passive on the PK. What happened to pressuring the puck along the boards?

I think Pavs left his feet on that hit there

The Wings are starting to keep the Stars hemmed in and are creating some turnovers in the Dallas end. Now they need to capitalize.

Nice work by Abby to create a couple opportunities. He's been the only dangerous player this period for the Wings.

3-2 Hawks thru 1 in Columbus. Good defensive struggle there.

Outshooting them 40-20 didn't work last time. Guess the Wings are trying something different. True. It's hard to get back at people like Ott who won't take on a true fighter, and are hard to hit because they never have their head down since they're never looking for the puck anyway.

I know. Have a useful fight against one of the Stars for once, eh?

Ping! That's one for each team now.

It's a good thing Texas doesn't have a hockey team. They would end up with a penalty every time someone in the crowd yelled that.

Still love the two ticket 'family packs'

Dallas has hit a post and missed a couple other opportunitiess. So the lead is a bit fortunate. Babcock has laryngitis and the Wings are up 2-0. He'll have to be quiet the rest of the year.

I can agree that the league makes some decisions that are not so much pro-Pittsburgh as pro-Crosby, since it's decided to hitch its marketing bandwagon to him. And I'm willing to bet that few people seriously believe the NHL would have rushed the start of the Finals and compressed the schedule if it were Crosby and not Datsyuk that were injured. But to think there's an anti-Detroit conspiracy stretches the bounds of credulity. The Wings have been incredibly successful for the fix to be in against them. Must be a pretty crappy conspiracy. Bettman can't do anything right.

Shush harold. Don't let things like this get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Especially since the league review hasn't even occurred yet, so we don't know what its determination will be and if there will be a response from the league.

I didn't realise either until this happened that they didn't. But apparently Toronto gets its feeds from the local affiliates, and in this case Philadelphia's affiliate (Comcast) didn't carry the game. That's not to say that FSN Pittsburgh purposely withheld the video in this instance, but it does show that the review system is open to shenanigans as well as errors.

Except Lidstrom, who's probably been given more ice time than was intended, but won't see his minutes cut down the stretch if the Wings are fighting for a playoff spot. Ozzie should be nice and rested though

Honestly, would that surprise you this year?

I took that to mean that a penalty before the goal awarded upon review would be nullified, as would happen with a normal goal scored on a delayed penalty, but that a penalty on either team after the goal would still stand. (Is that clear as mud to everyone else? Friggin' byzantine rules.) I think that there's an argument that major and especially misconduct penalties after a missed goal should stand, but I agree that minor penalties out to be erased.

Courtesy the Sharks' boards: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3245...id=240521978801 Edit: I didn't realise that this was posted in a separate thread. Sorry, eh?

Again, the clock did get set back after the review. Gonchar's goal and and penalty both are listed at 14:44 of the second in the box score.

That's just not true. The Wings have 6 OT and SO losses ('loser points'), which puts them 12th in the league. Pretty much middle of the pack, and nowhere near Dallas (11) and Tampa Bay (10). OT/Shootout records

I guess that the logic is that refs 'losing sight of the puck' aren't really disallowing a goal so much as saying play stopped before the goal was scored (like a puck shot in the net after an offside). A whistle interferes with the flow of the game as at least some players let up, whereas a missed goal doesn't interfere with the flow because there was no whistle. Overall, the logic makes sense to me, except the 'intent to blow' rule in instances where replay shows the puck is never covered and clearly in the net before the whistle blows *coughcough game 3 against Anaheim coughcough*