toby91_ca

Malkin has actually been pretty non-existent the last 3 games, other than the occasional giveaway he pulls off.

It wasn't borderline at all. Also, Upshall isn't exactly an angel, maybe not in the league of a Tootoo, but not that far behind.

He definately did get under his skin, they almost dropped em. Richards and Crosby are actually friends off the ice, but not sure how long it will last with both of them locked up long term with their respective clubs. The Flyers have been taking a lot of liberties with Crosby in the series, but especially this game and especially by Smith.

Great sportsmanship?? Maybe after that fact, or he also could have been talking trash to him. Have a look at the play again, he flew at him like a missile, his feet were about 18-20 inches off the ice.

Quite the piece of s*** Upshall is, that was a dirty, dirty hit if you ask me. 2 questions at the end, what the hell was Crosby and Hossa doing out there with 22 seconds to go in a game that's all but over and why was Richards slashing Crosby over and over again after the faceoff? Gotta be honest though, in watching this series (I didn't really watch much of Philly's other series), Richards is turning into a pretty damn good hockey player.

He's not playing.

I think you can find at least 1, if not 2 other threads discussing the details.

Was he really the MVP? Not that scoring is everything, but he had nowhere near the stats of the top scorers.

We already had that rule, it sucked big time.

agreed

What does having your skates in the crease have to do with anything? This is my point. If having your skates in the crease plays any role in this, then yes, it would be reviewable, but since there is no rule anywhere in the actual rulebook about having your skates in the crease, then it makes reviewing the play more difficult. You are suggesting incidental contact and intential contact are not that hard to see? Having someone review a video is just giving someone else the opportunity to give their "opinion" on something the ref should be able to do without a replay.

Is Brett Hull your dad or something and this offends you? I agree that there isn't much point this this, its just for fun, but could you help enlighten me as to why the forum needs 2 threads on where the Stanley Cup patch will be placed on the sweater? Do those threads serve any greater purpose?

That's fine, you can disagree, but in my opinion, all the other plays that are reviewable, the actual rules are far more clear. I agree that a replay may be difficult to get conclusive evidence, but what you are actually looking for is very clear in the other cases.

Are you able to back up this assertion? I doubt it. I don't get overly worked up over these things as I truly believe Homer plays on the edge and gets away with things just as much as he gets a bad call here and there. I'm sure if you look up the stats, he'll have the most goaltender interference calls in the league, but he is also in that position way more than anyone else either.

Plus, Ilitch probably doesn't mind the extra revenue he'll get from game 5.

I'd never hope for a loss, but after it happens, you look for the positives and I do think it is good to be able to deal with the loss and bounce back. I've seen many on here suggest the Pens haven't had to deal with any adversity yet, so they may not be prepared for the Finals. The Pens have dealt with some adversity in games, but in terms of a series, they really haven't (have been up 3-0 in all 3 series so far and have only lost 1 game). All that considered, the Wings haven't really dealt with much either, so it goes both ways.

You don't have to make contact either. I'm not saying it was the right call, just pointing out the actual rules. As usual during these playoffs, I didn't see the entire game, I was only home for the 3rd period (had my own game again), so I didn't see the play or any replays yet. It was probably a bad call, which happen, it just makes it more magnified when it results in disallowing a goal.

Because being in the crease and/or whether you are touching the goalie or not are not the clear definitions of goaltender interference. It isn't reviewable for good reason. I think other things shoudl be reviewable that are not, but this one is too difficult.

Are you talking about the play near the end of the game? If so, it wouldn't have counted anyway as I am not even sure the puck ended up in the net. It wasn't even a close play, it was clearly no goal. Maybe I'm confusing what play you are talking about though. For added reasoning though, Datsyuk went down on his own.

You don't have to be in the crease to be called for intereference and therefore waive off a goal, see the actual rule that was already posted.

A defensive forward doesn't necessarily make for a good defenseman. Fedorov was the perfect example of someone you would throw on the point for a powerplay, but I'm not so sure about Datsyuk or Zetterberg, yes, they are good defensively, but how would they do on a one on one playing as a defenseman? Also, neither guy has an overwhelming shot from the point, so it wouldn't make much sense.

EVERY goal is reviewed from a video replay judge, but most of the time, this is simply to make sure the puck went into the net. I'm not sure if video replay would be extremely useful on a play like goaltender interference because it is so subjective. For example, if the ref called interference, the video replay judge would have to see something conclusive to overturn that call. What would be conclusive? I know many may think it is easy to tell, but I'm not so sure. Not sure I like the coaches challenge idea either, this isn't football, the game and pace of the game is completely different. Also, a disallowed goal should not change a series, especially when one team is up 3-0. I can see it being a huge deal in the 7th game, which is tied, but this doesn't change the series.

Are you Gooner? http://www.faniq.com/poll_results.php?poll_id=117893

Ducks didn't ignore the CBA at all.

Almost never actually. Well, maybe not almost never, but very rarely.