auxlepli

Was watching the game last night, and my brother commented that he's seen a lot of NHL coverage on ESPN. He said it without me prompting him too, so it was surprising to say the least. Anyway that's just his opinion, but he's not much of a hockey fan.

Kudos to Michael Farber for telling it like it is. I'm glad somebody did, because I'm still red hot about that call.

That's hardly Versus' and the NHL's fault? Blame the cable provider and ESPN. They're probably working in concert anyway.

Dan O'Halloran called. A Wings goal has already been discounted because Holmstrom was in the crease. I don't know what the final score will be, but as it stands now it's Wings -1, Predators 0.

I'd like to know what the viewership is like in California too.

You mean people like Chelios?

Not in the crease. Not in the crease. Not in the crease. In the crease, but before the shot. Not in the crease. Not in the crease, puck in the net. Not in the crease, puck in the net.

A better version is

Remember that Barenaked Ladies song, It's All Been Done. That's a great song. Anyway I can't really add much that hasn't already been done before. Versus does a great job with the NHL. I just wish they'd show more games. To solve that I wouldn't mind seeing some games on ESPN. The four-letter entity does treat the NHL poorly though. It's been proven time and time again.

He waived off the last "goal!" "Miss on you Pister! You ain't so mucking fuch! Go in your own jack yard and back off!!!"

My favorite part is that it's a goal. Just like Lidstrom's should have been yesterday with about 43 seconds left.

Michelin Man couldn't have gotten to the puck. If Vancouver's SO goal was a goal, then the Wings should've had at least three yesterday.

Michelin Man wasn't going to get the puck either yesterday.

Maybe if it was another team, but this is the Red Wings. It pains Bettman to have traditional hockey market win the Stanley Cup. So no, things won't even out. The Wings have to be good to not only beat the other team, but they also have to beat a ton of bad calls.

I posted that somewhere else too. That yesterday's waive off was as bad as the calls in last season's Western Conference Finals. I didn't realize it was O'Halloran then too. Figures. Bettman should grow a pair a fire O'Halloran. Found it. Posted on ESPN earlier today ... The calls or lack of them were hypocritical in yesterday's game. On one Ducks goal Osgood was clearly interfered with, then interference was called on Holmstrom when he had no affect on Giguere. It was ludicrous. These types of calls or lack thereof were very reminiscent of the calls that went against Detroit in the Western Conference Finals last season.

So what's the point of that blog other than a list of near tragedies. They happen in other sports too. BFD. It's part of the risk associated with playing sports at a high level. It's also a risk to watch a game too. I've heard the warning at warm-ups. I know that going in, and I also don't need a safety net obstructing my view. It's also a risk to travel to see a game live. It's also a a risk to watch a game during a thunderstorm. More people die on the road every year, than those that attend and play a hockey game.

Worst call I've seen in a long time.

McCarty was in the crease when he fought Lemieux. - Dan O'Halloran.

Pretty even, but Downey was in the crease! - Dan O'Halloran.

Avery was in the crease too! - Dan O'Halloran

Cleary needs to get back soon because he can do what Holmstrom can't. Well that's not entirely accurate. He does the same thing as Homer he just doesn't get called for it. Had it been Cleary not in the crease, then today's game probably would've gone to OT.

It's pretty obvious to me that lately, the ice is tilted toward sunbelt teams. Today's calls, and non-calls, reinforced my theory.

Go get you head examined!

Heaven forbid forwards should be allowed to score.

Holmstrom had no affect on the last "goal." I will agree on that. It was a bulls*** call! In my opinion, there's no doubt about that.