Nightfall

Vladifan has spoken!

http://detnews.com/article/20110407/SPORTS0103/104070462/1128/rss16 Really nothing new to report. MRI results are not there. Extent of the injury is unknown. I guess we will see if he returns. I hope for a speedy recovery, because winning the cup takes health and the Wings have not had that on their side the last couple years.

Like I want the Craphawks to win anything. Please.....

I agree 100%. Wings are playing not to get hurt and the Hawks are fighting for their lives. Always bet on the hungrier team to win games.

So, in summary.... Wings score off kick in goal, all good! Hawks score off kick in goal....AAAAAARGH! Whaaaaaaa! Conspiracy! Refs fixed the game! What a bunch of crap! All good because its a Wings forum. Carry on! --- Got it. Please carry on.

As I mentioned before, when Bert kicked the puck into the net, the Wings fans all cheered when the puck when in and was counted. When this goes in, even though it was even more blatant of a kicking motion, the Wings fans denounce the system. You can't have it both ways. As for how I can't be outraged, what will getting outraged about it solve? It really solves nothing to get all pissed off about things. I just understand that the refs are human and mistakes happen. There was a reason why it was called a goal, and I would just like to hear the reasoning. Aside from that, I am not concerned about it one bit.

Read Eva's analysis above. I am thinking that is what happened. Not what I believed to happen.

So far, what i predicted is coming true. Sharks in 2nd. Preds in 4th. Hawks in 8th Bank on those for sure.

I have season tickets to the Griffins this year and been to about 30 games as well as the last 2 years prior to this one. Here is my honest opinion on the Griffins this year as a fan of the team. The team has been very inconsistent this year. I don't blame individuals. Some nights they play lights out, and others they played poorly and stunk up the place. McCollum is young and hasn't really had a solid team to play with yet. Unlike Howard who made the AHL playoffs and actually had a good team to play with. People think that McCollum getting sent down is a sign that he is bad. That isn't the case here. Some nights the goalie would play well but the team would lose 4-1 because they didn't give him help. Others would be 6-4 nights were the offense was good, but the defense would leave the goalie out to dry. Then you have the horrible nights where the goalie couldn't stop anything and they lose. IMHO, the Griffins really have to come out and play hard every night. Will a new coach shake them up? I really think so. Do they just not have chemistry? That could be true as well. Could also be team leadership. Just something needs to change. Last season and this season both, I got tired of watching .500 hockey from an inconsistent team.

This I can also agree with as a possibility. Be careful man, people will say you are trolling because you have a different opinion than the majority. Thanks for that total exaggeration of the facts. Its obvious you don't want to bring this to IM for some reason. Maybe your epeen needs a little growth or something. Just let it go man. People are going to have different opinions than you have. Belittling them is childish. Debate it. As a ref, I thoroughly enjoy this discussion because I am involved in this aspect of the game. Can't handle it? Then don't come in and whine about it. Very true. I thought he was closer than that. Would be nice to know at what point in the play this picture was taken.

Thanks for sharing! These are awesome.

Everyone wants the Wings to get 2nd place, but they want to rest their starters. Personally, I say rest the starters and lets go in at 3rd place. The Hockey gods have not been nice to us the last few years with all the injuries. Winning a cup takes a healthy team.

Yea, that is a bummer. I don't see the Wings taking 2nd though. Hawks are going to take 1 of the next 2 at least.

So a disagreement between users or another user having a different opinion from yours is called trolling? Fascinating. I think you can step off your high horse and put a sock in it. Just because someone states an opinion that differs from yours doesn't mean that you get to stoop to name calling and being insulting. Haha! Awesome photoshop.

Not factoring in what the ref saw, I agree with you. Hell, the camera doesn't even show it over the line. You add the referee into the mix and thats where it gets not so clear.

I remember goaltending in a game where I was beat on a breakway. He backhanded it right between my legs and I was sitting in the net. I just scotched forward out of the net slowly, and the puck was out of the net just under me when I stood up, and the ref waived "No Goal". The team that scored went ballistic. The ref really wasn't in position to see it, but my team couldn't argue the call. After the game, my team all said it was in and couldn't argue with their team when they all bitched. Now that is honesty. I am not saying it is a good goal. I can't see it, and I wasn't on the ice to see what the ref saw. I am just saying I understand the call just based on a number of factors. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

My point exactly. The Wings benefit from a call similar to this, and its ok. The Hawks benefit, and its CONSPIRACY THEORY time! Lame..... Calls like this can go for you or against you. They go for you, and all is right in the world. Against you? It has to be crap reffing or a conspiracy.

Because it relies upon human beings to make tough calls in a sport that is extremely fast where not everything can be seen from the ice. I really liked the NHL combine when they had a ref standing above the ice in the scorers table at center. He caught more penalties, legit penalties, in the course of the game than the refs on the ice did. I love that instead of the refs on the ice.

Not to the camera, but the ref is right there in position to see it. No one can say conclusively what happened unless we have an under the ice camera angle or one in the net. We have to rely on the ref's own eyes. My gut tells me one of two things happened... 1. The ref saw something and credited the goal. Odds are he saw the puck go in when Conklin reached back for it and just nudged it past the line. 2. The ref thought he saw something and it didn't happen. In that case, human error and the hawks got a break.

I realize that. If that happened, then the goal should be disallowed. My point is that if the puck was put in by Conklin when he reached back for it, and the ref saw that, its a goal. Yea, who knows what he saw. As a ref, I would want both sides to agree with the call that was made but that just isn't the case. He is the closest guy and in position to see it thats for sure, so I cannot say the ref was mistaken in what he saw since he was right there in position.

I think you and I can both agree that if the league applied common sense into the rules, the game would be much better. If a goaltender makes a save and goes into the net, and the puck is under him, you don't need a camera to call it a goal. The ref can conclude it was in the net if it was under his leg and his leg was in the net. Course, common sense could apply here too. No camera angle? Did the ref see it go in when Conklin reached back and just tipped it in when he swiped it out? Yes? Good goal. Wait, no its not. Conspiracy theory. Chicago got a break. IMHO, its a no win scenario no matter what. Player kicks the puck, it hits the goalie, and goes in? No goal. Player kicks the puck, the puck goes into the crease and sits there not crossing the line, and the goalie tries to push it out but ends up pushing it into his own net? Thats a goal. Check the rulebook sometime sport.

You are right on #2. Any cup winning team should be excelling through the playoffs. At least that is what I thought until I started playing the game. I have won 28 league championships in the last 12 years. All my teams have not been the best in the regular season. Some just barely make the playoffs. Yet, there are certain players who just know how to turn a switch and play hard in playoffs. I don't know why, but it happens. I really believe that the Sharks are going to have a great playoff run this year because of Niemi in net. As for Crawford faltering, as much as I think they will do well, there is always a chance of that happening. Look at Brodeur in his last few playoff series. He used to be dominant. Now, he is average. We will never know until the playoffs start. Thanks for the great discussion on this by the way. Its great to have a good debate and discussion on the Wings and hockey in general.

Do I have to bold the part where I said that in my original post? Or should I just call you captain obvious for repeating what I said? As you said though, it makes no sense. It should have been called back just based on common sense alone. Yet, it was allowed to stand. I am just pointing out that the Wings HAVE BENEFITED from a call like this before. Yet, when I point it out, and you say it was a kicking motion, all of a sudden it "is not the same thing"? Come on now. Seriously? If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck. In the case with Hossa's "goal", the ref is the main player in this. I wish there was a inside the net and an under the ice camera angle we could see.

How can you be sure he didn't? He could have hit is with the bottom edge of his glove and it squirted over the line. The pocket of the glove hand does have mesh on it, and the ref could have seen the puck move through the mesh part of the glove. Here are the things we know. 1. The ref is in perfect position to see it. 2. The camera angles we have on youtube cannot see it Conspiracy theorists can speculate all they want. Hell, as a ref, I have been told the same thing come playoff time and a team thinks they got screwed on a goal or no goal call. Since we don't have a camera angle inside the net or under the ice, we have to rely on the referee. If the ref screwed up, then the bad call is on him. If the ref saw the puck cross the line entirely when Conklin reached back for it and just knocked it in enough before he brought it out, then it is a good goal. I am NOT saying that the goal is good. I am just saying that the ref's eyes are there and he has to make the call. I understand the call if everything I said is true, but I don't agree with it if the ref screwed up or the kick in went over the line. Anyone saying that the NHL fixed the game or something really is talking out of their ass. They have to understand that it COULD BE a good goal.

If the puck was swept in by Conklin, then it wouldn't matter if he kicked it or not. Good job ignoring that fact. As for when the Wings benefited from this, this goal reminds me of that. When I first saw this goal, I would have called it no goal as well if I was Toronto. Hossas was much more blatant, I will give you that. Still, you have to be a total homer to actually believe that Bert didn't kick that in. Sorry, Legace on the head. From video, you can't tell if it crossed the line. The ref is the closest guy there. Maybe he saw Conklin push it in the net when he was trying to pull it out. Thats the best explanation I can give. As a ref, I have had to call goals like that before. He is in perfect position to see it, so no one here can debate that. The overhead camera doesn't show it thats for sure. Anyone have a inside the goal cam video they can post? Point is this. No one here can actually say that the puck wasn't pushed across the line by Conklin when he reached back for it. The camera doesn't show it. Hossa's blatant kick wouldn't matter then so that is off the table. So then it is all up to the ref that is down there and the camera in the net that Toronto has. If the ref screwed up and called it a goal when it wasn't, then that is on him. If he saw Conklin push the puck over the line when he reached back for it and then dragged it out, then it is a good goal.