Jarret_G

In hockey canada we'd be forced to either give a delay of game or an interference from the bench penalty which, in HC is a minor and a game misconduct, i'm not sure what the NHL does.

awesome hit...hated the commentary afterward. "and that's the stuff the nhl is trying to avoid, it's ridiculous, that's a clean hit" Those guys have no clue what the nhl is actually trying to avoid...hits targeting the head, this was just an awesome hit and Umberger still doesn't know where he or what hit him

Quick and painless. I really hope this doesn't offend anybody.

I made this one during last years playoffs but wasn't a member of LGW then. It's on the detroit red wings facebook group enjoy.

my last shave was today after the 'hawks game...i hope to take a pic before everygame to have a collage at the end of the playoffs....hopefully it gets so big that small birds decide to take up residence in it. Go Wings.

Upon looking at the replay...i don't think Rask pokechecked it, i think the player just lost control. The puck kept moving forwards towards the goal (albeit very slowly) then the player went back and shot it into an open cage.....good call. And guys, not to be cynical or anything, but get a clue as to how a game is officiated and what the rules are. This board is just filled with posts of how bad refs are, has anyone stopped to think...maybe it's the league's standard that has to be changed? A lot of NHL reff's i know don't agree with the current standard, but they still have to call it if they want a job. As for punishment of officials, occasionally officials will get "suspended" but never will it be a public thing, they just won't get the same number of assignments they usually get. But if you want a real test try getting a buddy to load up a youtube video of a questionable call (because if you load it yourself you'll know what's going to happen), watch it once, then say what you'd call, it's not that easy.

Also missing the point. Sure...his stick was high, it was bad, was it a penalty, no. Was it his fault his stick was high and hit Berard?...yes. Was it his fault Berard is no longer in the NHL and can't see out of one eye?....no What i was saying that it was luck that it hit Berard in the eye and not somewhere else. We can't BLAME Hossa for what happened...noone should have that pressure on their backs. The two examples i used were just that...examples, there's other demonstrations of luck and coincidence in hockey. Another one....Bertuzzi on Steve Moore. Can we fault Bertuzzi for punching Moore in the back of the head and knocking him to the ice?...yes. Can we then say it was Bertuzzi's fault Moore's neck broke.....not really, 4 other guys came on top of him after that, who's to say that didn't cause the break. What about Robert Lang's ankle injury. Is it Stephane Yelle's fault his stick was where it was?...sure. Was it his fault Lang's achilles tendon was severed and his career could be over?....no. Let's not blame Hossa for something out of his control, i'm sure he feels bad enough that it happened.

Seriously? Check the distance between your chin and your eye...now get someone to take a stick and try to hit your chin when they're coming up high after a shot, it's hard, probably luck. It's luck...be it bad...that it hit Berard in the eye. "but missed the puck" i thought you said you had a better quality video than that. He hit the puck. But that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. You're confused and thinking i'm taking a pro-hossa argument to this, but i'm not. I'm just saying it wasn't a penalty. Whether or not it should be is a completly different argument as i've already stated. I think that if a stick hits someone above the normal height of the shoulders...it should be a penalty...but thats not what the NHL wants, so lets not even try and argue that. .....it didn't hit anyone, but his stick could if a player was there

Actually, i think Hossa did have control of his stick. Look at slapshots taken by other guys around the league...the probably come up higher. Whether or not it was a penalty is clear....it wasn't, it was a normal follow through on a shot attempt, just unfortunate that there was a guy standing so close to him. Whether or not that should be a penalty is a different matter, and a whole nother topic. If Berard had of gotten the stick in the chin and received 6 stitches....we wouldnt be talking about this incident, not even the day after it happened. To say Hossa had "poor control of his stick" is ridiculous. He was going off for a line change and wanted the puck to get in deep....how do you do that? shoot it. What do you do when you shoot...take your stick back, hit the puck, and follow through. That is what he did and, although the injury was quite sever, you cannot penalize, disown, fault or point fingers at Hossa for doing what he did. That's like blaming Olli Jokinen for cutting Richard Zednik's neck, or Holmstrom (i think it was homer) for tipping a puck into Yzermans eye...it's just bad luck

But not Lidstrom. Seriously though...he was one of my favorite d-men when he was with the Islanders. The ironic part is that he was drafted by the Senators first overall...i'm not sure how he ended up with the Islanders but sort of a twist of fate how he got injured by the team that drafted him. He was still great with Boston...he can QB a powerplay better than anyone i've ever seen.

A high sticking penalty can't be called on the regular wind-up or follow through of a shot....just the rules. I'd look up rule reference cuz that's what i like to do...but i'm tired. I watched that game that night..it was pretty bad. Berard had the potential to be a great defenseman too.

A LOT of players in the NHL use illegal curves, it's very common, and sort of one of the unwritten rules to just not call a player out on it...google Peter Schaefer and try and tell me that's not illegal. Even at the minor hockey level, a lot of stock blade patterns sold in stores are illegal, that's why Hockey Canada no longer has a rule for curvature of the blade. Also, in Hockey Canada, a player receives a 10 minute misconduct if they break their stick when asked for a measurement, along with 2 minutes for the illegal stick. I guess in the pros, where they have multiple sticks with all the same blade pattern a referee can just simply take another one and measure it...so they don't have a penalty for that. Still a dumb move on Spezza's part. Oh, and a goal wouldn't be disallowed if a players stick is found to be illegal, even if they measure it right after the goal. EDIT: check out this thread...a lot of them aren't retail, but pro returns http://www.modsquadhockey.com/forums/index...urve&st=195

I think the biggest thing about that article is Babcock's last quote on Ericcson, "Good. Big E, he's going to be here for 15 years." Also, Kopecky has finally been playing to his potential in the last few games with the absence of Hossa...hope he keeps it up

i think what's exceptional about Datsyuk's performance is that he's out there for the PK a lot of the time too. And look at his PIM's.....14, that's incredible. Normally defensive forwards suffer in the +/- category because they're out there for a lot of PK's, this guy is the ultimate all-round player in the game today. Sure, Ovechkin and Malkin can snipe, Savard and Crosby can set up plays, but who does all of these just as good as any of those guys...Datsyuk. Plus he has the pain threshold of a dying giraffe and never knows when to stop. You, Mr. Datsyuk, get a cookie.

sort of reminds me of the south park episode...."cripple fight" Where Jimmy tried to get Timmy to put the hat on. "Come on timmy, just p-p-put the hat on"

Sergei's the man, i made sure i traded for him in my NHL 09 dynasty....see ya later osgood and samuelson

You'll have to get one made at your dentist. That's really the only way to go if you want a decent mouthgaurd. If the dentist is good they should have different thicknesses available, and different colours. They'll basically take an impression of your teeth, then make the guard out of that, so it's a perfect fit. I have a thin one, it's great, hardly notice it's there half the time.

Going back into the archives...the rule was a player needed to have posession AND control before their skate was in the crease. It was clear he had posession, the puck went off his skate. But he didn't have control until it touched his stick...at which point he was in the crease. A lot of people will say he had control when it hit his skate....ironically i couldn't find the definition of control in the NHL rulebook, but i know for hockey canada a player is considered in control when he propells the puck with his stick. Going back to the Hull goal....by hockey canada definition he wouldnt have had control until his foot was in the crease....therefore no goal. Horse$hit rule...that's why it was eliminated, would have been nice to see a game seven though. .....on another note, you'd think i would have let this go by now, it's been almost 10 years. If you liked that goal...also check out these. and

I wasn't saying it wasn't a goal or not...just how it was disapointing that it wasn't reviewed. A player can cover the puck inside the crease...if he pulls it from outside the crease first. That way it would only be delay of game as if it was covered anywhere on the ice, not a penalty shot, two separate situations. After watching the video many times, it probably was a goal, but if you also look at how many goals were reviewed during the year for really no reason...it was just disapointing.

I wouldnt trade for anyone on Anaheim. I think every player i despise is on that team. Getzlaf, Perry, Pronger...the list continues. They got rid of the one player i admired....Schneider. The only player i'd trade either of them for would be Iginla or Pavel Bure...since Bure no longer plays, i'd go with Iginla. He's fast, has a laser of a shot, and one hell of a temper. He'd bring the toughness that Detroit lacks and would lead by example. Contemplating that decision he would probably mess up the chemistry in the dressing room though...since he'd be so different than the current makeup of of the team. Alexander Semin is the runner up

.

I heard Bowman actually had these guys room together. I read it somewhere...in SI maybe? I clipped all the articles that i could find from the 2002 team so i'll take a look to see where Hasek said that. I also remember reading from Hasek that he never brought it up, and that it was in the past so it didn't matter. For the record i was a Sabres fan at the time (became a wings fan after they signed Hasek). And stayed up to watch the entire game. The fact that they didn't even review the goal was ridiculous. They reviewed nearly every goal that year (first year without a 50 goal scorer) and didn't review the goal that cost a team the stanley cup. I still have nightmares about that. I mean sure, Hasek did win a cup in 2002, but he was in his prime in 1999 and easily would have won the conn smythe. It would have been nice to see him win a cup then. But i suppose...if he won a cup in '99, would he have signed with the wings in '02, and then would i be a wings fan? I guess everything worked out in the end.

also got tickets...2 rows behind the benches. I am so stoked....will this be Hossa's first game as a red wing?