NeverForgetMac25

No touch icing doesn't exist in the NHL....yet. So at this point there's nothing to get rid of.

No, this is not like the Brett Hull's Stanley Cup Winning goal at all. This is a "play" that the league has never once told its officiating crew to not only watch, but penalize. It may not be legal, but as imisssergei said, its called paying the price, and the league has never told its officials to monitor it and make calls accordingly.

If you agree with Eva, how can you refute the fact that no penalty is called?

Whether its legal or not, this is hard to argue with. I'm not saying I don't see your point Eva, but imisssergei got a valid one as well.

But what if its neck-and-neck and an offensive player has the knowabouts to not only get his stick out but simultaneously hit the defending player from the side?

Ok, I hear you Eva, but now its my mission to find a scenario where a hit would be considered "legal" during an icing. I will find one!

Yeah that first part makes complete sense but just to play devils advocate, you keep using the word "possession" which is what's throwing people off. First of all, as you said, there is no "possession" on an icing touch-up since the play is blown dead at the exact moment the puck is touched. Now, if you have two guys skating to grab the puck (one to cause icing and one to negate it) and the defender is hauled down on the blue line, then you've got interference. However, when a defender gets within a couple feet of the puck, couldn't it be considered that they are in the vicinity of the puck, thus making the hit legal as long as it was performed before the puck was touched. Here's my reasoning for this. Let's say a team fires a puck down ice in the last few seconds of a period into what would be considered icing, and while two players charge down to create icing/negate it, the offensive team gets charged with a too-many men on the ice delayed penalty. There are times where teams on the PK are about to be charged with another penalty and rather than touching the puck they stand over it trying to run off as much time as they can to create less time on the 5-on-3. Now, the defending team technically could do the same in an icing situation if a period was about to end (I.E. there's only a few seconds left in the period and thus holding off the full PP until the start of the next period). The point is, while this is beyond a far-fetched scenario (in fact, I think this is Sirdrake territory) it is a possible scenario, and thus making a hit on a guy that just charges down and wants to hold off the icing call until the last second legal since they are impeding the progress of the offensive player. My point is...whether this is right or wrong, maybe this is the reasoning for allowing the defender to be hit before the puck is touched up.

Not that I'm picking my poison, but if I had my chance to pick who the Wings would play in the first round, Nashville would probably be my number 1 choice. It's teams like Luongo (not misstated...the Canucks don't scare me, Luongo does) or the Flames that worry me simply based on their goaltending. The Wings showed a ton of character last year beating Kippur who still played brilliantly, but the Wings have struggled against solid goaltending both in the playoffs and the regular season. Regardless of up-front talent, I'd like to play a team that doesn't have an intimidating goalie (I.E. Nashville, Colorado). Of the teams that the Wings will realistically play, my order from what I feel would be the best situation for the Wings to the worst would look like this: 1. Nashville 2. Colorado 3. Vancouver 4. Calgary

I hear what you're saying Eva, and maybe I'm just having a case of Monday morning sleepiness given that I'm drinking a Rockstar in order to wake up, but correct me if I'm wrong. Not being the puck "carrier" and getting checked isn't automatically interference or unsportsmanlike conduct. There are plenty of instances where the puck is being passed to a player and they get lit up right as they are about to gain possession. A prime example of this was the center ice Vladdy hit against the Flyers in the 97 finals. The player never gained "possession" of the puck, but it was in the vacinity of them, thus making Vladdy's hit legal. Now, if the defending player is hit a split second before they touch up, technically they are "in the vacinity" of the puck, and it took place while the game was in play. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am still waking up from a long weekend.

End of 2 2-0 Wings

Huge Kill!

Downey off for tripping. Big PK.

The Wings haven't been great, but they've also changed their gameplay based on the BJ's inability.

Don't get me wrong..."Insert hilarious LGW in-joke here" was priceless, but this new one is great as well.

Malts having a great game. Great pass that Drapes couldn't finish.

Another Sidenote: I love the new sig.

Sidenote: You're getting screwed too.

Where do these FSN Ohio sportscaters come up with their words? Apparently Dom didn't see the last shot until the last second even though it looked like he had it lined up the entire time. I swear, some sportscasters just like to hear their own voices.

$300/month? What the hell kind of package do you have?

You can thank Malts for that. He was great in drawing that PP. Pasta and meatballs, huh? Can I assume marinara or is it a swedish sauce?

According to FSN Ohio the Blue Jackets are being outshot by the *Canucks* 10-2 Am I missing something?

So you felt the need to scream it at all the members of LGW?

Great play by Malts to draw a penalty!

Bad start to the second. BJ PP.

2nd Underway