LeftWinger

...not unless this was an edited video, thank God they didn't catch the blood squirting out as he skated off the ice. Must have been pretty graphic for the fans and players though. You can see him go limp as they get in on to the bench, lost a lot of blood. SO glad he is ok and stable...

...sure Malarchuks injury was almost 20 years ago, but either of these guys could have died on the ice if the cut was a little deeper or they didn't get off the ice fast enough. How long until the NHL mandates some kind of neck guard of sorts? Like I said, 2 incidents in 20 years isn't that much, but do they wait for a player to actually die until they do something? Someone, somewhere can come up with some sort of protection that doesn't restricted a players ability...

...truley horrible accident. I don't want to see it, wierd that Buffalo was one of the involved teams again. I remember the Buffalo/St. Louis game when Malarchuk got it. I got such an uneasy feeling in my stomach, yech! ...I do pray for Richard and his family, glad he is stable. Godspeed... ...on a bit of a lighter note, in this picture doesn't it look like that ref is wearing a diaper? Adult Depends maybe? LOL! ...get well soon Richard, the NHL is a worse place without you... ...also, check the look of horror on the kids behind the bench. I pray for them, they are certain to have nightmares after seeing something like that up close. I would!

...right, but without the ability to review such a play and with it happening at the speed of life, the ref made a judgement (which is what is is allowed to do) that it all happened at once. Hence, rule stands, no goal, Wings lose, "you get nothing, you lose, good day sir!" (willy wonka quote.)

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. (NOTE) For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time. ...Holmstrom's skates were both in the crease along with his a$$ hanging over the crease (which still means in the crease) it was the refs judgement that he was in the crease with a substanstional portion of his body, enough for Giggy to initatiate contact while trying to establish position to make a save. Rule stands, no goal. Should have given Holmstrom a penalty though, that is what the rule states must happen in order to substansiate a goal crease infraction...

If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

...it was the right call in every sense of the rule as it is stated. look back a few pages I posted the entire goal crease rule. Now, do the refs always make the right call, consistantly? No, hardly ever. But consider this, the ref has to make the dicision to call it or not, if he calls it, we cry that you cannot call it at the junture in the game, if he doesn't then Anaheim cries about not calling it by the rules. (I have a feeling if the ducks were disallowed a goal in the same situation, the roles would be reversed, we would love the call, because the rule is in black and white.) The decision the ref made was to call the penalty, maybe because of what could come down on him. Will he get reprimanded for making the call and stealing a point, maybe 2 away from Detroit? Or could he get reprimanded for NOT calling the play by the rule as written and stealing 2 sure points away from Anaheim? If Detroit goes to the league to complain, the league says "Hey, that is the rule whether it's one minute into the game of 24 seconds to the end." If he doesn't make the call and Anaheim goes to the league, the refs gets (whatever it is they get penalized) for not making the call according to the rules. ...plus no penalty was called because the interference was coincidental and not intiated by Holmstrom. Read these parts of the rule: If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty. ...incidental contact is what happened, No goal, No Penatly, Right call, just not consistant enough, as is the case throughout the league...

...here's the entire rule. It's a lot to read, I will highlight what pertain to todays game... Rule 78 Protection of Goalkeeper The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review. If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). See also Rule 47© -- Charging). (NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact. (NOTE 2) If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed to be contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. (NOTE 3) A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact. If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference. (NOTE 1) The overriding rationale of subsections (d) and (e) above is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. (NOTE 2) If, while attempting to establish position within his goal crease, a goalkeeper commits an act that is worthy of a penalty (i.e. cross-checking, slashing, etc.), then the appropriate penalty shall be assessed by the Referee. When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent. If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. (NOTE) For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time. Subject to (i) below, if an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and offensive player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed. In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed. In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 55© -- Falling on Puck). A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. An attacking player who, in the judgment of the Referee, initiates contact with the goalkeeper, whether inside or outside the crease, in a fashion that would otherwise warrant a penalty, will be assessed an appropriate penalty (minor or major and/or game misconduct) and will be subject to additional sanctions as appropriate pursuant to Rule 33A -- Supplementary Discipline. (NOTE 1) For purposes of this rule, "contact", whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body. (NOTE 2) The above-stated standards relating to when a goal will be disallowed will be applied in all situations in which the puck enters the net regardless of whether it was directed into the net by the attacking or defensive team. Whenever the Referee stops play to disallow a goal as a result of contact with the goalkeeper (incidental or otherwise), the resulting face-off shall take place at the nearest neutral zone face-off spot outside the attacking zone of the offending Team ...yeah, the refs made the right call according to the rule, but they are not consistant, and it was the wrong time for Detroit for them to get needle sharp to to the rule. The right time if your Anaheim (or the Network/NHL)

...face it, Anaheim is the "Network's" team. Even though Detroit has the the BEST team in the NHL since 1993, the "network" refuses to acknowledge and support Detroit. They always have 'their" team which always gets the iffy calls, always gets the free pass on obvious penalties. And can do no wrong in the eyes of the NHL and the Network. Anaheim is that team right now, just like Colorado was their team in the 90's and early 2000's. I don't want to hear anything about conspiracy's and junk. It's fact. Anaheim needs to win games and championships because Gary Bettman needs to prove that the NHL can exist in Non-NHL markets. Hence the Stanley Cup's watered down victory's in Anaheim, Carolina and Tampa. The Cup used to be the hardest trophy to win in pro sports. Now Gary Bettman has made it pretty easy. Where-ever he needs to promote his sport, the Cup and the big games go. Everyone in the world knows that the Wings are the best team, how exciting would it be for them just to roll over everyone? For us, very, but for the rest of the country, they'd rather see a team beat the best in the world. Hence, the networks and money rule the outcome. That was so not a penalty, let alone enough to call the goal off. Maybe, Homer's back half of his skate was in the crease, Giggy came out and bumped into him. I guess if you followed the rule by ecery word and every period, then he was in the crease and was in contact with the goalie. But he hardly interfered with the goalie, as the rule states, if he did interfere wth the goaltender a penalty will be assessed. No penalty was called. So he did not interfere with the goalie. If you ask me, the way the Wings played most of the game, Anaheim deserved to win, but, that is why we play the game for 60 minutes. With the network, I mean the NHL, whoops I mean the refs calling the goal off, the NHL missed a golden opportunity to showcase an Overtime/Shootout game for the world involving two of the best teams in the league. But they couldn't risk Anaheim losing and being just another team that the Juggernaut known as the Red Wings steamrolled over. No one wants to see that...

...who's not slumping now? The Wings need and will make a major deal at the deadline. All we have is 1 line consistantly scoring, that's it. Everyone else seems to be playing at an amateur level. Something aFOOTE at the Circle K. Major deal coming up...

...do you really think Hudler is Omnipotent? What is he the God of Suck?

...stats don't lie. I suppose you are gonna tell me that without Yzerman, Fedorov woul have sucked? On the contrary, Fedorov extended Yzerman's career. Without Fedorov coming in and taking the scoring onus off Steve, he was able to change gears in the way he plays the game to a more defensive posture, thus extending his career. If Sergei hadn't come to Detroit, Steve would have been relied upon to keep scoring 120 points every season. Once Fedorov proved he was a MVP superstar on this team, Steve became expendable, thus the almost trade to Ottawa in 1994 (need I remind you it wasn't just a rumor, it was a agreed upon, done deal, with Marian Illitch nixing it at the last minute) ironically the same season that Fedorov won the Hart and Selke and took this team over in the absense of Steve while out with a neck injury. If the deal would have be finalized, Steve would have been the face of Ottawa, not Detroit. If he would have lasted 10 more years up there. You cannot change history, stats are recorded, it's all in black and white. Steve was great, but so was Sergei... ...Yzerman all Heart, Fedorov all HART... ...dear sir, what are you smoking? ...oh BTW, did you know that Yzerman was once "traded" before? 1988, for Wayne Gretzky. That summer, the "Great One" was to be traded to either Detroit or Los Angeles. The NHL decided that Gretzky would serve a better purpose in LA, thus revitalizing hockey in southern California. So the Great Steve Yzerman was to be an Oiler in 1988 if not for the NHL wanting to sell the game of hockey in southern California. That was sort of a prelude to the Gary Bettman era and his ideals of selling hockey in the southern states. This came directly from Gretzky's mouth on the David Letterman show. So much for Steve being the face of the franchise back then as well, seems like he was the face of trade value up until 1995... (I, for one, am glad we didn't make that trade, I dispise Wayne Gretzky, yet respect his accomplishments. I am also glad we didn't trade him for Yashin either.)

...exactly, take Lids off we still win back in 1997, but remove Feds as well, then we win nothing. And without Feds in 1998 then forget about even getting past Phoenix...

MY a dick? Maybe you should have said "YOU'RE a dick" that would make me a dick. But "YOUR a dick" makes no sense... ...if being a dick means no Hudler, then My a dick! ..ok, now that the kids are in bed...

you think I didn't? Yzerman averge nearly 80 points per season over 22 years. Fedorov 63 over 18 years. That is only 17 points difference a season. Not too shabby really. Very comparable. BUT during the championship years, lets say starting in 1995 to 2002 we have Yzerman at 77 average per year and Fedorov at 72 average per year that is only 5 less points and consider Fedorov's 211 goals to Yzerman's 189 is obviuos that Fedorov scored more goals during that time, perhaps with setups from Yzerman. Look, I am not saying Fedorov was the better player, but the argument was "was Fedorov just as important to this team as Yzerman was?" I think the stats prove it, especially in the playoffs when Yzerman had 109 points to Sergei's 127. Grant it, Yzerman is 4 years older than Sergei and that could've played a role in the difference's but I did state that at this point in their respective careers, Yzerman meant more to this team for his heart and leadership and Sergei was looked to put the puck in the net. Remember he played nearly half the year in 2002 as a defensman as well. To sum it up. Sergei was just as important to this team as Steve Yzerman, bottom line, like it or not, facts are facts, stats are stats and awards are awards. Without Fedorov, we are STILL waiting to end our Stanley Cup drout. Steve Yzerman proved that he alone couldn't take us to Lord Stanley, he needed lots of help... ...I hope that satisfies your need for stats to back up my statement...

...apology accepted. J/K! ...listen, as much as you like Hudler, I dislike him. That's it. And that is what makes this forum a wonderful place! Opinions! Yay! No offense and non-taken... ...in may not be a synonym, but there is but one Omnipotent being and that is the aforementioned God. That is another great thing about free speech, maybe Hudler is God-like to you. To each their own... oh, and just an FYI: Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits i.e. unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God. In the philosophy of most Western monotheistic religions, omnipotence is listed as one of God's characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and benevolence.

...all I am saying is Steve was the face of the franchise because he was here so long. During Fedorov's tenure here, he was more important to this team statiscally than Yzerman. No, nobody had more heart than Yzerman and a lot of times that makes up for a scoresheet on some nights. But, bottom line, scoring wins. So on that note, what Yzerman meant to Wings with his leadership and heart, Sergei meant to them with his scoring. He deserves #91 in the rafters based on his production while in the Winged wheel...

...don't look now, but Wings are slumping... ...sure they are 3-2 the last 5, and 8-2 the last 10, but of the last five, they could easily be 1-4. They didn't beat Colorado until 2:00 minutes left in the game, they could've lost to Minnesota in OT and they lose to LA and Toronto. Even the Coyotes played them rough last week. Wings have found a way to go 8-2 in the last 10, good teams do that, but they are not beating teams as handily and they once were. 8-2 could easily been 4-4 or worse. Slumping. That's ok, first time really all year, but a little concerning none-the-less...

...you don't have to call me names. Ken Kal said "Healthy Scratch" so choke on it... ...Oh, BTW after Hudler IS dealt, we can stop looking at your name comparing Hudler to God... ...Hudler :puke:. Healthy Scratch, for Aaron Downey none the less! :rotflmao:

...hey Omnipotent_Hudler, your guy is a healthy scratch today, you know what that means... ...TRADE FORTH COMING!!! Bye Bye Overated Hudler! :puke: ...ok, all the earlier talk about Yzerman/Fedorov , whether or not the #91 will go up, who was more or equally important to this club's success... ...I am a fan of Steve Yzerman. He deserves all the accolades he gets, but lets look at the facts and the numbers. Steve's teams prior to the European invasion were pretty much useless. Yeah (unlike someone eluded to earlier) they made the playoffs, but other than 87 and 88 they didn't make many waves and were eliminated in the first round most the time, not including TWICE they didn't even make the playoffs. Sure Steve piled up the points, yet other players paled in comparison and he was all too often the guy who was solely relied upon to get it done for his team. Petr Klima was a little help, but he self destructed. Now, the ONLY reason Stevie means so much to this city is because he was there when they sucked and he played thru those years to the glory years. Remember, he was once traded (unofficially) to Ottawa after losing to the Sharks in 1994. I cannot remember Sergei EVER being mentioned in a trade. As a matter of fact, the Illitch's and Holland love this guy so much that they paid him $26million to play a handful of games in 1998. I know, you are gonna say Yzerman never got traded because they loved him, yet it was Marian Illitch who nixed that trade. Scotty had the deal done and Illitch was ready to approve it until the wifey stepped in... ...Ok, enough of sentimental reasoning for Sergei being just as important, lets get to the stats. If Yzerman and Fedorov entered the league at the exact same time and left the exact same time, Stevie would have edged Sergei by 24 regular season points. Fedorov has 163 playoff points to Steve's 135 points in the same time span. As a matter of fact, Fedorov has only 22 less playoff points now than Stevie had his entire career. Fedorov will top the 500 goal mark, if he plays for us 5 more years, there's no reason why he wouldn't top 600 and maybe even crack the top 10 in goal scoring all-time. He is already the highest scoring Russian born player n the NHL, he has more MVP's than Steve, I think Steve only has one Selke as well, so he has him beat there. The only reason Steve beat him out for the Conn Smyth in 1998 is because he had 4 more points than Sergei, yet Sergei had led the team in goals that playoff season with 10. He will be in the Hall of Fame after he retires. There's no reason why #91 shouldn't be in the rafters just on those merits alone, but who was more important to this team's success? Fedorov is my answer. If you take the time that we were the best team in the NHL, between the years of 1995 to the last Stanley Cup in 02, Fedorov clearly was a bigger player on this team. If Yzerman and Fedorov entered the league the same year, Fedorov becomes the face of this franchise, not Steve... ...with that being said, Yzerman was a HUGE part of this teams success, but, when it comes down to where it counts, that is in the statistical catagory, Sergei was the top dog... ...you cannot compare Fedorov to Lidstrom, two different position, two totally different approaches to the game, but I will tell you this, and call me all kinds of names if you want, take Lidstrom off this team and we still win a Cup or two, take Sergei off that team and we win 0, zero, zilch, none, natta. Not even with Yzerman... ...Most of you know this to be true, but you are afraid to admit it... ...Steve Yzerman was the face of this franchise, but Sergei Fedorov was the face of this Championship franchise, the face of the Cup...

...you know as soon as he puts that Red & White back on, everyone will cheer him... ...we are not going to have to pay his entire $6m salary. Very little of it as a matter of fact, and everyone knows he will not re-sign for that much. I can see him coming here and signing for $2.5m - $3.5m and finishing his career here... ...I haver been beating the Fedorov/Foote drum for a long time here, nice to see that other folks are with me on that trade! It wouldn't cost too much and it surely gives us hude amounts of depth in the playoffs! ...Come home Sergei and bring the Yeti with you! The #91 will skate again...and then hang from the rafters where it belongs!!!

...we need depth, not atop 2 d-man. Blake would git nicely here, only if we could get him for a draft pick or two. No players! Especially if he is going to be a rental. I would rather go for a depth defensman like Adam Foote, he'd prolly be in our top 4, but he wouldn't cost us top 4 talent. Then (if we cannot get Feds until UFA) we can get someone like Glenn Murray out of Boston for a draft pick. If we aren't going to land Sundin or Hossa, then we must go for depth like Foote & Murray... ...BTW if we do end up trading Hudler in a deal, he is VERY replaceable with plenty of talent in our minors... ...I'd rather give Ryno the shot next year in place of Hudler or maybe if this Fabien cat is all that. (if we get him) ...my vote. Blake for picks or forget it. Foote and Murray would help us more... (and cost less)

...would Redden cost us much to get him here? Is he worth getting?

- Fedorov - - Foote - - Hudler Gone! - ...that's what I want...