eva unit zero

The lines used Monday were: Datsyuk/Zetterberg/Holmstrom Hudler/Filppula/Cleary Drake/Draper/Samuelsson Maltby/Helm/McCarty Lidstrom/Rafalski Kronwall/Stuart Lebda/Lilja Osgood Dupuis/Crosby/Hossa Malone/Malkin/Sykora Kennedy/Staal/Ruutu Laraque/Talbot/Hall Gonchar/Orpik Letang/Whitney Gill/Scuderi Fleury The only expected change is Gary Roberts in for Georges Laraque.

Except the puck hitting the netting SHOULD be reviewable. It can be definitively seen on video whether or not the puck hit the netting. Interference is a referee's judgement. High sticks, pucks crossing the goal line or making contact with the netting are not; they either did or didn't happen and this can usually be observed on video replay.

What is not reviewable is the judgement that Holmstrom interfered with Fleury. Whether the puck crossed the line or whether the puck was knocked in by a high stick are finite things that can be proven or disproven on video review. Whether a player interfered with anotherp layer is a pure judgement call that cannot and should not be reviewed. Because ultimately, if you review to see whether interference occurred when it IS called, you would also have to review to see if it occurred when it ISN'T called. And that would be like reviewing every single pass play in the NFL to see whether pass interference happened. Some rules can be proven or disproven on video review. Judgement calls cannot.

My response to all of the venom directed at me? All I did was explain that, within the rules, this play CAN BE called goaltender interference. Everyone was going nuts about how 'obviously that's not interference' when technically by the letter of the rule, it is. Things like incidental contact? That's up to the referee's judgement. I have yet to see someone explain to me how this call, by the book, cannot be called goaltender interference like so many here seem to believe. You can say that you don't agree with the call, but you can't say that it is definitely wrong and an incorrect interpretation of the rule, because the way the rule is written, it was technically goaltender interference. Everything past that is judgement which, much to the chagrin of this board, CANNOT be reviewed on replay, nor should it be.

Ok...a few clarifications: If a goaltender is attempting to establish position to make a save, and an attacking player initiates contact, it is goaltender interference ANYWHERE ON THE ICE. Not just in the crease. Admittedly, the goalie won't be up by the blue line trying to make a save...but the rule is not limited to the crease if contact is made. Furthermore, if a goaltender is attempting to establish position to make a save, and a player via his POSITIONING prevents the goaltender from doing so, THAT is ALSO goaltender interference. Homer made what was likely minor contact with Fleury, but in doing so he prevented Fleury from being able to establish the position he wanted to. Homer initiated the contact when he tapped Fleury on the pads. As noted below in Rule 78 subsection a, this should result in no-goal. And finally: Goaltender interference does not automatically result in a 2 minute minor. That is typically reserved for cases where the goaltender is in his crease and attacking player initiates contact. The goal crease is not used to determine whether interference matters; if you interfere with the goaltender outside the crease it is STILL INTERFERENCE.

No. What is getting L-U-D-I-C-R-O-U-S is the fact that people think "ludacris' is how you actually spell that word!

I don't think it's a stretch. Why? Because generally, when a goalie has a clear view of a shot going for the corners, he'll attempt to stop it. Fleury's view of a shot going high on the net was clear, but he had legs partially in his way hiding some of his view of the puck. When Homer tapped him, it's reasonable that he would have reacted thinking they just shot the puck and it had hit his leg pad. This then leads to not knowing where the puck is, and as the moment he looked down thinking he would see a puck was a fraction of a second before the puck whizzed past his ear, it is reasonable to suggest that Homer's tap directly affected his ability to attempt to stop the puck.

Before the shot? If Homer didn't know when the puck was coming, that doesn't matter. He jabbed his stick into the goaltender; he wasn't going after the puck as the puck was not there yet. Other goals where guys do that are usually attempts to scoop up rebounds. Homer's was not.

My point is that while yes, worse situations have been allowed at times, if you go by the rule what Homer did is absolutely goaltender interference worthy of disallowing the goal over. It's not like Homer was just standing there and they called it...he interfered. That is a fact. Whether you think he interfered enough to disallow the goal is another judgement; O'Halloran clearly thought so, and the rule doesn't state 'Interference with the goaltender so that analysts think it is as bad as other previous calls" it states "interference that impairs the goaltender's ability to position himself or defend his goal" and Holmstrom absolutely interfered to that degree. Anyone who claims this is a 'wrong' call or that O'Halloran is trying to screw the Wings with this call is either a homer, doesn't know the rule, or both. Sorry. Fact.

In that clip, you can see that Holmstrom tapped Fleury on his right pad. It's noticeable, and important, because Fleury looks down at where Holmstrom taps him literally a fraction of a second before the puck cleared his shoulder. Fleury didn't have a great view of the shot to begin with, and the fact that he likely thought the puck had just hit his foot, he was reacting to smother the puck rather than stop a shot that was going for the corner. Watch the clip again, and watch Fleury's head. Moments before he is scored on, he looks down at his right foot where Homer taps him.

Holmstrom interfered with Fleury based on the FIRST statement, by having his stick between Fleury's legs. It had nothing to do with contact.

Lidstrom did not shoot until after Homer's stick was between Fleury's legs. And as I already stated; even though the actual interference likely did not have the effect of preventing the goaltender from being able to stop the puck had he not gone down, the fact that his stick was there and did impede Fleury's overall movement is enough for the goal to be waved off due to interference.

Holmstrom didn't just put his stick in the crease. He put it BETWEEN THE GOALTENDER'S LEGS. The penalty was not the correct call, but the goal absolutely should have been waved off. Regardless of the fact that it the shot went over Fleury's shoulder and Fleury instinctively went down, the fact that the presence of Holmstrom's stick limited Fleury's movement is enough to wave off the goal. Had they not sent Homer to the box, I don't think nearly as many people would have said they disagreed with the call.

Find me an example of another goaltender with numbers like Ozzie's making it to the Cup Finals and not winning the Conn Smythe since the inception of the trophy. Has it even happened?

Before this thread gets any further... Holmstrom DID interfere with Fleury. No, he probably didn't deserve the 2 minutes...but the goal absolutely should have been waved off. Just because Homer was outside of the crease doesn't mean that it wasn't interference. Bill McCreary would have disallowed that goal. The only reason this is a controversy is because it was such a judgement call, and the referee in question is Dan O'Halloran.

Many players have put up numbers like Zetterberg's on a Cup winner and not won the Smythe. I can't think of a time a Cup-winning goaltender put up numbers like Ozzie's and didn't win.

If the NHL expands, it will be two of Portland/Kansas City/Houston. All three cities have repeatedly expressed interest and have arenas that can readily host an NHL team.

If Osgood keeps his numbers where they are, and DOESN'T win it, it's a joke. I can further back this up: Only one Conn Smythe winning goaltender has ever posted numbers anywhere close to what Osgood is doing. That was Giguere in 2003. And Ozzie has better numbers all-around. If Ozzie keeps his numbers close to where they are right now, he wins it. The only chance of someone taking it away was Franzen and his goals...and Johan just missed six huge games, four of which the Wings won.

McCarty. The bigger question is, does Franzen get inserted on the second, third, or fourth line?

Samuelsson's offensive numbers, however, suggest that a top-six forward is exactly what he is. Especially given the fact that he is defensively responsible. He may not be an elite scorer, but he is definitely a top-sixer. And one of the reasons I have been saying all season that the Wings had enough offense to win the Cup. By my count, the Wings have eight legitimate top-sixers. ZDH, Hudler, Filppula, Cleary, Franzen, and Samuelsson. When Franzen comes back, I expect one of two lineup changes. Either Franzen is placed on the third line, and Drake moves to #4 in Mac's place, or Franzen is placed on the second line, and one of the current inhabitants (likely Cleary, as he has been the least offensively effective player on that line this run and is also the best suited of the three to a checking role) is moved to the third for Drake or the fourth for Mac. Imagine those lines for a second: ZDH Hudler/Flip/Cleary Franzen/Draper/Samuelsson Drake/Helm/Maltby Rock on.

Ok. Here's my analysis of how my analysis went...for those that care. Other than having Chelios in where Lilja played... It went pretty much according to what I posted. Of note is my prediction of the DDS line vs the Malkin line as a key matchup, and that the advantage was to Detroit. Any Pens fans care to pick on that one now?

The goal was correctly called off. The BS part of that call was the fact Homer went to the box for it. He definitely interfered with Fleury's ability to attempt the save, but not enough to warrant a penalty.

Anyone for no-touch icing?

Jack Adams would be closer. I just tried to think like Babcock and Therrien would, based on my knowledge of the players and teams.

Not to toot my own horn... But so far, the game has stuck pretty closely to what I said would happen in my matchup comparison...