• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

puckloo39

3/24 GDT: St. Louis Blues @ Red Wings, 2:00 PM ET

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

You know what? We shouldn't have been in the shootout in the first place. We should have buried this one in regulation. We went down early and couldn't recover until late in the 3rd.

I'm not pissed about the shootout. Even if it had been counted a goal, we likely would have lost on the next round with the way Babcock chooses shooters. I'm pissed about the fact that this team can't get up for games against non-playoff teams like the Blues.

Thats not really the point tho, we were robbed of a possibe win. Who knows we may have lost, or may have won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have NEVER seen such bulls*** in my life.

What a ******* joke.

Hasek actually makes the save and it goes in AFTER the play is dead and that is counted. Yet Bacashiua's entire body is in the net WITH the freaking puck and he pushes it back the last second and that doesn't count as a goal? They just cost the Wings a point for absolutely nothing. What a bulls*** play. Thanks refs. Glad to see you're getting paid for doing your job. Assholes.

And how bout the 5 or 6 trips on Huds during the game that was never called?

Good post, i couldnt beleive how many times huds got tripped up and nothing. Ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Fox 2 would have showed them arguing at the end, but no.... they had to go to some stupid animal programming.

Bulls***. Completely Bulls***. I think Redmond should join the war room in Toronto. He knows the rules... unlike the refs and NHL officials.

LOL at Babs clapping. That was some funny stuff. Would have been better if they called it a goal though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I am so glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. During that shootout I had to put it on mute. How many times did that announcer say the Weight shot was a goal? At least 20 times. Not only that but he would talk extremely fast. That has got to be the worst announcing I have heard in a long time.

Edited by bcwingsfan19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

inconclusive.. you can't give detroit that goal.. although it more than likely was in.

Exactly. Despite the fact that the puck WAS in Bacashihua's pads...you can't SEE it. It like the Schroedinger's Cat problem...as long as we can't see the puck, it is simultaneously in and NOT in the net. You only know for sure once you see it. And once you see it...it's not in the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how bout the 5 or 6 trips on Huds during the game that was never called?

The refs absolutely refused to call penalties in the third for whatever reason.

Now I know I'm sounding like a bit of a whiner here, but the reffing had as much of an effect on our four-game losing streak as the Wings' sloppy play has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babcock should absolutely rip the officiating after getting robbed of that goal. Take the fine, would be well worth expressing your true feelings about the last few games, and especially this one. Them getting the goal was bulls***, yet they say no goal when Cleary scores. Unf***ingbelievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a bad call, , but I don't think the Blues we're unclassy.....he (Baschuia totally killed his name :) ) didn't know where the puck was until he lifted the pad after the shot. He saw that it was out and they thought it stayed out, don't see how that's unclassy...I'd have done the same thing.

I'm dissapointed that Toronto couldn't make the right call, but oh well, it's bulls***, but we'll move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Despite the fact that the puck WAS in Bacashihua's pads...you can't SEE it. It like the Schroedinger's Cat problem...as long as we can't see the puck, it is simultaneously in and NOT in the net. You only know for sure once you see it. And once you see it...it's not in the net.

For those of you saying its no goal because its inconclusive, they changed that rule this year. If by logic we can assume its in the net (say the goalie catches the puck but his glove is behind the goal line) then its supposed to be called a goal

Edited by Echolalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stop crying babies. we did not deserve a win in this game and this Bacarashua(sp) kid had a strong game.

does it really count? we're in playoffs already. who cares about some regular season game. and the refs... who the f* told you they're gonna call our game in playoffs. and most certainly not if we play any Canadian team or any team south of Chicago...

live with this. we didn't look like a winner here, and the game is pretty irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else being swayed towards The-League-is-trying-to-make-Nashville-win conspiracy theories?

:violin: enough with that stuff, the wings need to control the things that they can control. If we had come out and played in the first it we wouldnt be discussing this. After the first period we came out and played the new red wings hockey. we hit, drove the net, and scored some goals. The 2nd and 4rd period were really encouraging even though we could only pull 1 point out of it. Besides, in the playoffs there is no shootout and we will be able to have Bertuzzi wearing down the opponent in the OT. Everyone take a breath, we are tied w/ nashville, and lets wait until monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This principle of having to see the puck is becoming an obstacle the more goalies play in low positions around the ice. This was a regular season shootout call, but when it happens in playoff elimination OT, wow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you saying its no goal because its inconclusive, they changed that rule this year. If by logic we can assume its in the net (say the goalie catches the puck but his glove is behind the goal line) then its supposed to be called a goal

yeah that rule of inconclusive bulls***, how about the nhl changes its policy from f***tard to common sense, id vote for that change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coincodentily enough after I joke around about Bacashihua performing miracles in the shoot out. He makes the puck dissapear bending space and time in the process so that it apparently never crosses the goal line. Does that count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now