YzerTinov 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 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" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
e_mcgrath88 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 I was thinking about that too... was a bizzare play.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyGangsta 79 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 its only game 1 ... dont worry guys hasek will get his revenge next game dont worry ... he didnt have a great game ... but he was still good but dont worry were a good away team too Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YzerTinov 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 well, hopefully it doesn't end up mattering. But, Im more than a little pissed. The announcer may say the ducks controlled this game. But I'd say other than the first, we had as many quality chances as they did, maybe more. Just straight up ridiculous that this call occurred. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roberto Who? 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 why cant u say...what a good game for both teams, we'll get em next game...instead just like on the canucks board u throw out excuses... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YzerTinov 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 Because its no longer a good game, when a blunder this big on the part of the refs and the league as a whole flies under the radar. It was plain to see that should not have been a goal. And it completely changed the momentum of the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airborn 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 The whistle should have been blown - period! If Shick had lost sight of the puck, he should have blown the whistle. If Shick could still see the puck, he should have blown the whistle, because it was clearly controlled by Hasek. The play was bulls*** squared, which is pretty much par for the course when it comes to NHL officiating. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wingsor 2 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 why cant u say...what a good game for both teams, we'll get em next game...instead just like on the canucks board u throw out excuses... because it wasnt a goal, and the game would have ended 3-2 wings....nuff said, bye quacker, good luck next game NOT! smug @#)( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airborn 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 why cant u say...what a good game for both teams, we'll get em next game...instead just like on the canucks board u throw out excuses... Because this is a discussion board about the game! If you want to hear crap like that, watch the post game interview. This site is where fans come to talk about the game, not to throw out politically correct statements. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YzerTinov 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 Nah i don't blame overall officiating, it is a tough job. But things this big dont usually happen. A missed hooking call or a phantom hooking call don't equal a goal. This goal may have changed the outcome of the game beyond the control of the players. Its not like a phantom penalty where you can kill off a penalty... once they called it a goal, its a goal... ridiculous Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roberto Who? 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 because it wasnt a goal, and the game would have ended 3-2 wings....nuff said, bye quacker, good luck next game NOT! smug @#)( well looked like a goal to everyone except red wing fans...and the game would have ended 3-2? dude there was tons of time left on the clock... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ILWingsFan1 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 The play was bulls*** squared, which is pretty much par for the course when it comes to NHL officiating. That says it perfectly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barabbas16 499 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 why cant u say...what a good game for both teams, we'll get em next game...instead just like on the canucks board u throw out excuses... He could say that. And it would be correct, you are right. But instead he chose to say what he said, which is a legitimate excuse and also is correct. The game should not have been in overtime. The goalie was pushed in. That's not legal. It should have been negated and it wasn't. It's a valid point. Does that mean that what you say about it being a good game for both teams is not true? - no, it was a good game for both teams....I hope we will 'get them next time'....EVEN THOUGH we should have had a win in regulation, but were robbed by a poor officaiting decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wingsor 2 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 (edited) well looked like a goal to everyone except red wing fans...and the game would have ended 3-2? dude there was tons of time left on the clock... tons more ice time doesnt equal a goal.... no sorry even the lousy canuck cbc reporters who hate the wings said its not a goal and i dont care who says its a goal, it the lame brains in toronto were allowed to review the play youd be down 2-0 quack quack PS if the ducks won without a non-goal, noone here would be crying foul. Edited May 14, 2007 by Wingsor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YzerTinov 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 The game wouldnt have necessarily ended up 3-2, honestly it coulda ended up 4-3 for anaheim. BUT, that goal wouldnt have been one of them. To say the rest of the NHL saw that was a goal is straight up false. Even after several looks pretty much all of the analysts agreed that he was shoved into the net after a save, and that it shouldnt have been a goal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sixer 37 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 The whistle should have been blown - period! If Shick had lost sight of the puck, he should have blown the whistle. If Shick could still see the puck, he should have blown the whistle, because it was clearly controlled by Hasek. The play was bulls*** squared, which is pretty much par for the course when it comes to NHL officiating. Exactly, whistle should have gone and/or should have been called for pushin Hasek into the Net JOKE!!!!! Screw the NHL, instantly replay should be able to make the call, because it's obvious Refs are idiots. Get instant replay right or get rid of it!!! I'm so pissed!!!!! This is what I call a Lucky Game for the Ducks!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adtthosa 5 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 There's a couple of things about that goal that really bothered me. First of all, the fact that Dom got pushed into the net. The guys on CBC were saying that it doesn't matter that he was pushed into the net because that call can't be made by the guys upstairs. If the goalie is pushed into the net, apparently it has to be called on the ice by the ref as it happens. WHY? What kind of rule is this? If video review was made to get the correct call, how does this make sense? Secondly, the fact that there wasn't an angle (that I saw anyways) that could clearly show the puck was completely over the line. Sure, it might have seemed like it was past the line, but did we really know for sure? Let's go back to that Buffalo/NYR game last series with the play at the end that they waved off. With a bit of common sense, you could conclude that the puck went past the line just before Lundqvist got it with his pad. However, they called this no goal because apparently common sense isn't good enough. Until I see a clear shot of the puck well behind the two goal posts (we couldn't see the line because it was on Dom's leg), I'm not going to believe that this was a good goal. A lot of this is probably just out of frustration, but I honestly cannot believe they called it a goal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lazerbeam 13 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 Not excuses just FACTS--if Hasek slid into the net on his own momentum then that was a goal, BUT, you can clearly see he was laying flat on the ice and not moving backwards until the Ducks player pushed into his feet causing Hasek to go into the net with the puck on top of him. That should be NO GOAL--You CANNOT push a goalie into the net with the puck and get credit for a goal--thats an NHL Rule!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vincanni 1 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 It wasn't a goal that's for sure but the Ducks played a great game against us and for the most part were the better team 5-on-5 though not by a long shot. However, Wings dominated special teams of course. Really this game was like the last, a coin-flip in either direction to declare a winner. It's going to be a great series and I feel what is going to make or break this series as a whole is whether the Wings figure out the Ducks or not, much like the San Jose series. Plays like this are one in a million, I wouldn't be so discouraged as to say it'll mean anything in the long haul Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sixer 37 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 Even the stupid idiot analysts at CBC who we all now are completely biased against Detroit said he got pushed. Should not have been a Goal. Detroit should go on strike, haha!!! Show the NHL they need to get there act together, forfeit the series, I don't care. I honestly want a fair series, not this crap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yemack 1 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 well looked like a goal to everyone except red wing fans...and the game would have ended 3-2? dude there was tons of time left on the clock... well i'm still waiting to hear from 'everyone' and thanks for respecting our discussion so much being a guest and all Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wingsor 2 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 (edited) wait yes I must cry fowl, you guys are ducks right? ugh nevermind smug @#)(* thats ok i hope we get a goal in anaheim that is fake too and beat you, see what you say then. quack quack donald Edited May 14, 2007 by Wingsor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vincanni 1 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 well looked like a goal to everyone except red wing fans...and the game would have ended 3-2? dude there was tons of time left on the clock... Too be fair the VS crew acknowledged a push in as did CBC, but I'm over it. Had that goal not counted who knows what could have transpired. Anaheim probably would have gotten some powerplay chances to even it up, maybe we could have scored again. Really in the effects of the chaos theory for all we know Hasek could have ripped his groin trying to make a save with Anaheim pushing their hardest to tie it up. The series is tied up and nothing is going to change that except game 3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roberto Who? 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 wait yes I must cry fowl, you guys are ducks right? ugh nevermind smug @#)(* thats ok i hope we get a goal in anaheim that is fake too and beat you, see what you say then. quack quack donald id say the same thing i just did if that happened...good game to both teams we'll get em next game... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
puckloo39 5,686 Report post Posted May 14, 2007 its only game 1 ... dont worry guys hasek will get his revenge next game dont worry ... he didnt have a great game ... but he was still good but dont worry were a good away team too I thought Dom was fine... he can't stop illegal goals, hard as he tries. He played great in the first, in case you didn't see the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
