What a crock of ... It

[pavyaz19 1]

just so you all know you're right...

http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule78.html

[DaKineMaui 8]

Well I hate to Lang y'all, but can someone find me a youtube of this goal? ::yawns::

::Sips beer:::

::waits::

::Langs::

thanks

[pavyaz19 1]

thought i'd throw this one in here too...

http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/rulebook/rule47.html#c

oh noooo, one hundred dollar fine? that's like me finding a penny, putting it on a traintrack for a train to flatten, then chopping it into 1000 tiny pieces and having Gary Bettman take half of one of those pieces.

by the way, mcdonald has gotten away with leaving his feet to make hits... would be nice the the refs read the rule book. I noticed though that McDonald has been careful not to injure faces while leaving his feet to make hits - now i understand why, ha.

[Disney is GONE 0]

I just watched this several times and this was such an obvious no goal. Wings got robbed plain and simple. Like has been said, puck was clearly in the net but it was laying between his knee pad and was clearly not in the net untill he was pushed in. The rules clearly state any opposing player pushing a goaily into the net carrying the puck with him will NOT be a gaol.

I am emarrased for the officials and the review staff as per the rules was a very easy no goal call to make. Blowing a call that huge this time of year is a travisty. :battle:

But is doest matter now any way. Best of 5 now.........Wings in seven!!!!!

You left out an important phrase "after making a stop".

j. In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed

"Making a stop" means that the goalie has control and possession of the puck. He did not. So the previous rule applies...

i. In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and offensive player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

We can argue with our Homer glasses on about which rule applies in this case, but the refs called it as Rule 78i applying, not 78j.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Disney is GONE

[Guest bullocks]

You left out an important phrase "after making a stop".

j. In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed

"Making a stop" means that the goalie has control and possession of the puck. He did not. So the previous rule applies...

i. In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and offensive player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

We can argue with our Homer glasses on about which rule applies in this case, but the refs called it as Rule 78i applying, not 78j.

hasek was in possession of the puck, it was not a rebound situation...they were both not "simutaneously attempting to play a loose puck"...hasek had it in his body...saying that, we had 15 mins of the 3rd to do something, then another 15 or so in OT which we did absolutely nothing...we didnt deserve this one.

[pavyaz19 1]

You left out an important phrase "after making a stop".

j. In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed

"Making a stop" means that the goalie has control and possession of the puck. He did not. So the previous rule applies...

i. In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and offensive player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.

We can argue with our Homer glasses on about which rule applies in this case, but the refs called it as Rule 78i applying, not 78j.

ok, i see what you are saying... but i think there is an important phrase in 78i as well, "incidental contact." The puck was not on the ice and Niedermyer dove in, using his stick to push at Dom's skates. I think incidental contact would have been in the case that Niedermyer was aiming his stick at the "loose puck" which resided in Dom's mid-section / upper leg pad. Incidental contact can only be legal if you are both going for the puck. I can't say Niedermyer had a clue where the puck was. Either way, good hustle, he outsmarted the refs, who happen to be lazy and suck.

[Disney is GONE 0]

ok, i see what you are saying... but i think there is an important phrase in 78i as well, "incidental contact." The puck was not on the ice and Niedermyer dove in, using his stick to push at Dom's skates. I think incidental contact would have been in the case that Niedermyer was aiming his stick at the "loose puck" which resided in Dom's mid-section / upper leg pad. Incidental contact can only be legal if you are both going for the puck. I can't say Niedermyer had a clue where the puck was. Either way, good hustle, he outsmarted the refs, who happen to be lazy and suck.

I believe that Nidermeyer thought it was under the leg of Hasek where he was jamming, not in Hasek's pads on top of his knee.

It jarred loose and fell on Hasek's arm as Nieds push him into the net. That's why I feel Hasek did not have full possesion and control, because it fell out as he slid.

I feel the call is more gray than most LGWs are willing to admit. But I'll admit, in a perfectly called game with perfect "Ref Vision" and instantaneous whisle speed, the best call would have been no goal.

Good luck next game.

[pavyaz19 1]

I believe that Nidermeyer thought it was under the leg of Hasek where he was jamming, not in Hasek's pads on top of his knee.

It jarred loose and fell on Hasek's arm as Nieds push him into the net. That's why I feel Hasek did not have full possesion and control, because it fell out as he slid.

I feel the call is more gray than most LGWs are willing to admit. But I'll admit, in a perfectly called game with perfect "Ref Vision" and instantaneous whisle speed, the best call would have been no goal.

Good luck next game.

well, i can't say i wish you good luck next game, you had enough today! ha. (but i suppose we had enough in game 1). Either way, the situation was not at all black and white, but like you said, the right call was no goal... that's why you don't see any gray LGWers.

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

I'm not going to ***** about the goal it counted so be it it happens to every team. However, I must say I think play was dead before Hasek got pushed in, then again I couldn't hear anything because I don't have Versus thus, I had to watch it at a sportsbar. But i do want to ask one thing of Disney is GONE. How is it Hasek did not have posession of the puck if he was laying on top of it? Granted Hasek has a very unorthodox style, but that is how he usualy makes his stops. I think if the goalie is covering the puck by a pad, or a trapper, or his body especially in the case of Hasek play is dead.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Gordie Howe hat trick

[Matt 1,049]

hasek was in possession of the puck, it was not a rebound situation...they were both not "simutaneously attempting to play a loose puck"...hasek had it in his body...

No, he had it on his body. Not under it, not in his glove, not in his blocker hand -- it was sitting on top of him. That is not a frozen puck. Hasek may as well have been lying on his stomach with the puck laying on his back between the 3 and the 9 -- it's the same thing.

The puck isn't automatically frozen when it's sitting on Hasek's body.

Was it a goal? I don't know. Hasek's momentum was heading back into the net and Rob Niedermayer helped him out with a well-placed jab with his stick. I didn't rewind the TiVo to check (was there a whistle?), but that'd be my only gripe.

Be more frustrated with the softy rather than going on a referee witch hunt.

[calfan 0]

Perhaps the ref didn't blow the whistle on the play because he saw the puck sitting on top of Dom's pants. His view of the play would be different from that of the cameras.

As well, the puck often disappears from a ref's sight and they don't automaticallly blow the whistle. They have to give it some time to reappear, especiallyl if they judge themselves not in the best position to call the play. That's why you often get a whistle after the puck has disappeared and then is again loose. The flow of the game would be terrible and scoring chances would go way down if they literally blew the whistle everytime the puck is out of sight.

[Guest Don Corleone]

Ok, so maybe they can only review whether its in the net, and not whether the goalie was pushed in.

But, you can bet the only reason they didnt bother to call Hasek being pushed on the play was because they didnt think it was worthwhile bc they didnt think the puck had gone in...

So.. if they didnt think it was in then why the hell didnt they whistle the play down when they lost sight of the puck... and whne it was no longer loose for like 2 seconds.

In the words of Lindy Ruff "This is a JOKE"

You guys need to quit whining about all that shiite. Hasek didn't have control and they obviously didn't lose sight of the puck.

Care to comment about all the slashing Chelios-thug got away with?

[calfan 0]

ok, i see what you are saying... but i think there is an important phrase in 78i as well, "incidental contact." The puck was not on the ice and Niedermyer dove in, using his stick to push at Dom's skates. I think incidental contact would have been in the case that Niedermyer was aiming his stick at the "loose puck" which resided in Dom's mid-section / upper leg pad. Incidental contact can only be legal if you are both going for the puck. I can't say Niedermyer had a clue where the puck was. Either way, good hustle, he outsmarted the refs, who happen to be lazy and suck.

How many times do you see guys jamming away at a goalie after a save with their stick. Incidental contact is body contact, not contact with a stick. The referee would have to decide whether or not the intention was to push Hasek into the net. They made a judgment call. This one went against the Wings. How many times a game does Homer bump a goalie and the judgment is that its incidental and no penalty is called.

The refs are well trained, impartial and they do their best because they don't want to look bad. Any other view is just whiny bulls***.

[Spinner 6]

Actually it's 2 on 1. The refs and the Ducks against the wings. Aside from all the bad calls and non goals allowed, the refs seem to be interfering with actual play more than normal. Maybe it's just me but I have seemed to noticed more pucks hitting the refs when the wings are trying to clear that end up back in the Ducks posession in our defensive zone, or plain and simply , refs just getting in the way. It just seems that there is more of this going on than I've ever noticed before. They need to jump higher or just get the "F" out of the way better than they have.

[Guest Don Corleone]

Actually it's 2 on 1. The refs and the Ducks against the wings. Aside from all the bad calls and non goals allowed, the refs seem to be interfering with actual play more than normal. Maybe it's just me but I have seemed to noticed more pucks hitting the refs when the wings are trying to clear that end up back in the Ducks posession in our defensive zone, or plain and simply , refs just getting in the way. It just seems that there is more of this going on than I've ever noticed before. They need to jump higher or just get the "F" out of the way better than they have.

Refs in hockey are like umpires in baseball. In hockey they are part of the ice. The Wings just need to clear the end better. Are the blue lines painted OK for you?

Edited May 14, 2007 by Don Corleone

[Spinner 6]

Refs in hockey are like umpires in baseball. In hockey they are part of the ice. The Wings just need to clear the end better. Are the blue lines painted OK for you?

Just sayin that I seem to notice it more than usual. I never had a problem with the occasional puck hitting a ref in the past, it just seems to be occuring a lot more than usual. Maybe not specifically for the wings but all around.

[drwscc 212]

I hope Babcock takes note of the way the Duck has been getting away with running the goalie, and all the extra stuff that's not getting called. Hopefully, he'll send Bert or Calder in there to "accidentally" plow right into Giggy. See how much the Duck likes it, and see what kind of bitching and moaning they come in here with.

[motorcitykid 42]

The goal shouldn't have counted since the video showed Dom getting pushed into the net. It did count. Game over. Win the next game and we're right back where we need to be.

The Ducks should make Las Vegas plans, cause luck is the reason they aren't down 2-0 in this series.

Also, if anyone knows where the BIG, BAD Ducks are - let me know. I haven't seen 'em. Is THIS the oh-so-scary team everyone was talking about?

[Guest Don Corleone]

I hope Babcock takes note of the way the Duck has been getting away with running the goalie, and all the extra stuff that's not getting called. Hopefully, he'll send Bert or Calder in there to "accidentally" plow right into Giggy. See how much the Duck likes it, and see what kind of bitching and moaning they come in here with.

Be careful for what you wish for. They may start calling Chelios-thug for all his fancy stick work.

[motorcitykid 42]

What a f*n joke.

Chelios-thug? Funny.

***-for-tat. Pronger loves to use the lumber and cheapshot guys. Stickwork is his forte. But Niedermayer? That's a suprise to see him cross-checking guys. Even sent an elbow to Pavel's head.

Edited May 14, 2007 by motorcitykid

[ZAMBONI 0]

What a f*n joke.

Chelios-thug? Funny.

***-for-tat. Pronger loves to use the lumber and cheapshot guys. Stickwork is his forte. But Niedermayer? That's a suprise to see him cross-checking guys. Even sent an elbow to Pavel's head.

Its called chippy play its the playoffs,i love to see hard-nosed in your face defense. Niedermayer was getting fed up with Chelios crosschecking rob in the back so he dumped him,that happens all the time lets not cry over spilt milk. And if the Ducks are lucky so be it,we'll take it seven ways to sunday and back again. Rather see them in the finals then not. My thoughts on the goal in question,the ref saw it was loose in his gear and Hasek had fallen backwards so they let it go. Keep calling the Ducks lucky the whole series and i'll be happy.

[AUWingsFan 0]

I just can't believe that no one at the time the play happened (the 3rd Anaheim goal) mentioned that maybe Hasek was basically still and then he was bumped which caused him to slide over the goal line.......

Also, I love how as soon as Hasek goes to play the puck the whistle is blown very quickly, but it isn't blown too quickly once he makes a save and is laying on the ice tryin to cover up the puck....hopefully they'll start blowing the whistle once they lose sight of the puck from now on instead of just sitting there for 2 minutes looking for it while both teams scramble to score or stop a goal. Oh well, let's win one (or both) in Anaheim and I will be very happy! Go Wings!!

[regwinguofmfan 0]

People from SoCal should stick to things they know, Drive Bys and Police chases.

Leave hockey discussion for people who actually grew up playing and being around the game.

[Getzlaf15 0]

People from SoCal should stick to things they know, Drive Bys and Police chases.

Leave hockey discussion for people who actually grew up playing and being around the game.

Funny, same thing Minnesota fans and Vancouver fans said. Im glad those that have spent their lives watching, playing, and knowing hockey will all be doing the same thing soon.

[ZAMBONI 0]

People from SoCal should stick to things they know, Drive Bys and Police chases.

Leave hockey discussion for people who actually grew up playing and being around the game.

And where exactly is the hockey talk in this post? Congratulations