• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About njf520

  • Rank
    Jr. Prospect

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. Malkin's penalty rescinded (merged)

    the rule in unequivocal that the league will review the suspension.
  2. Malkin's penalty rescinded (merged)

    "47.22 Fines and Suspensions - Instigator in Final Five Minutes of Regulation Time (or Anytime in Overtime) - The Director of Hockey Operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria. The criteria for the review shall include, but not limited to, the score, previous incidents, etc."
  3. Blackhawks' Brian Campbell: "Gutless"

    i very much agree with you. i had just heard so many people say that havlat had possession of the puck or "was playing the puck" and that because of that it was by rule a legal hit. and i was just pointing out that that isn't true. now, let's be realistic, there is NO way the ref called the penalty because he thought havlat hadn't touched it. you could only tell he hadn't after watching 5 slow-mo replays.
  4. Blackhawks' Brian Campbell: "Gutless"

    *i'm* not saying this, the rules say this. i agree with you, it sounds nuts. but the rules clearly state that you can only be legally checked if you have possession of the puck and you can only have possession of the puck if you touch the puck. but, to answer your question, yes, in theory, you could dodge the puck and take the hit to try and draw a penalty. brian engblom said on versus that he didn't touch the puck but he had possession of it. well, according to the rules, that's impossible. still an amazing hit, though.
  5. Blackhawks' Brian Campbell: "Gutless"

    whoa, whoa...i didn't mean anything by it. i was just pointing out that in over 80 years of the league only one player has died during a game. pretty amazing stat for such a physical sport. i wasn't attacking the post.
  6. Blackhawks' Brian Campbell: "Gutless"

    this is well done but the 1.5 inches thing does not make it legal.
  7. Blackhawks' Brian Campbell: "Gutless"

    only one player has ever died in an NHL game.
  8. Blackhawks' Brian Campbell: "Gutless"

    to play devil's advocate, the NHL rules on interference say that the player must touch the puck, not that he just has to be really close to it. havlat didn't touch the puck in any of the replays i have seen. campbell's comments are still garbage. kronwall didn't jump or use his elbow or headhunt or anything. but the puck being 1.5 inches from havlat doesn't mean it isn't interference. you must touch the puck. here is the rule: --- Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession. ---
  9. Worst/best announcers

    the best: play-by-play: bob cole (CBC) bruce martyn ken kal (came to detroit from the CBC) foster hewitt (CBC) danny gallivan (CBC) color: harry neale paul woods the worst: gary thorne pete weber bill clement terry crisp eddie olczyk just ok: mike emrick (much better when doing new york games locally) mickey redmond (sorry, but he is the homer type we'd hate if we didn't love the wings) most everyone else on FSN a couple comments: most of the best are CBC trained. also, the more you talk, the worse you are. listen to bob cole. he talks just enough but knows when to shut up. and, when he does talk, he talks about the current game. but, NBC has forced the hand of their announcers by requiring "interesting" anecdotes about the goalies dog or something else which has nothing to do with the game. during this time, the usually forget to tell you what the last penalty was or who assisted on the last goal. but, they try to tell stories like it is baseball and it doesn't work for hockey. if you have never heard hewitt or gallivan, you are missing out. look them up on wikipedia.
  10. Does everyone want Bert to re-sign?

    i do think smyth will be expensive but having $3.8mil of lang's money will help. plus, many people are saying they want bert at $5mil. that's a lot for a guy with a limp. i don't agree that if we don't get bert or smyth that we'll have "no one." we had a quite a year before bert came around. plus, there are other FAs out there, not just bert and smyth. gomez comes to mind. ken holland will have a VERY good idea about what his chances are with smyth before he makes a move re: bertuzzi. you don't have to put all your eggs in the smyth basket.
  11. Does everyone want Bert to re-sign?

    i'd much rather have smyth. he is a year younger, has always played 60+ games a season since his first full year in the league and is really coming on as a player whereas i feel bert is declining, although some disagree. it comes down to whether you feel bert can regain the form he had a few years ago. if the wings sign bert, i really hope it has performance clauses because a tweek of that back in mid october and we could watch the $5mil dollar man sit for the whole year.
  12. Does everyone want Bert to re-sign?

    my feeling is that many of us like the *idea* of a player like bertuzzi. a big, tough forward with some grit and a nose for the net. my opinion is that bert was that player but no longer is that player. and i would *not* spend $5mil to find out if i am right.
  13. Does everyone want Bert to re-sign?

    no, "whenever" he had the puck he did not go end to end. that's not what you meant, was it?
  14. Does everyone want Bert to re-sign?

    well, i'm glad we're not exaggerating his play in the playoffs...geez.
  15. Does everyone want Bert to re-sign?

    i point wasn't that he is 33 and therefore his career will now go downhill. my point is that yes, just as you said, back surgery is very serious and since that surgery he has not been 100% yet, and i don't think he will ever be 100% again. same thing happened with a friend of mine, wendel clark. hurt his back and was never the same. people said that the reason he wasn't playing as well was because he hurt his back. true. problem was he couldn't get back to 100%...and i don't thnk bert will either. either way, i'd be interested to know what amount of money people would want to see the wings pay bert. i say $2mil or under.