2/10 GDT: Ducks 3, Red Wings 2

[Superman54 91]

at least this stuff just keeps adding fuel to the rivalry with the ducks

starting to remind me of the wings/avs time

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

I was going to say, yeah they did get rid of that rule...but some live in the past, and since Homer's name isn't Hull the rules don't get bent for him.

[shadow47 1]

Nice floppy fish move on the winning goal Osgood.

[jim3033 1]

Yeah, I watched all the games with Colorado. While the ref calls were never as controversial as today the networks always bragged more about Colorado. I don't know why they don't like Detroit. It is ridiculous.

[Green Wing 26]

...face it, Anaheim is the "Network's" team. Even though Detroit has the the BEST team in the NHL since 1993, the "network" refuses to acknowledge and support Detroit. They always have 'their" team which always gets the iffy calls, always gets the free pass on obvious penalties. And can do no wrong in the eyes of the NHL and the Network. Anaheim is that team right now, just like Colorado was their team in the 90's and early 2000's. I don't want to hear anything about conspiracy's and junk. It's fact. Anaheim needs to win games and championships because Gary Bettman needs to prove that the NHL can exist in Non-NHL markets. Hence the Stanley Cup's watered down victory's in Anaheim, Carolina and Tampa. The Cup used to be the hardest trophy to win in pro sports. Now Gary Bettman has made it pretty easy. Where-ever he needs to promote his sport, the Cup and the big games go. Everyone in the world knows that the Wings are the best team, how exciting would it be for them just to roll over everyone? For us, very, but for the rest of the country, they'd rather see a team beat the best in the world. Hence, the networks and money rule the outcome. That was so not a penalty, let alone enough to call the goal off. Maybe, Homer's back half of his skate was in the crease, Giggy came out and bumped into him. I guess if you followed the rule by ecery word and every period, then he was in the crease and was in contact with the goalie. But he hardly interfered with the goalie, as the rule states, if he did interfere wth the goaltender a penalty will be assessed. No penalty was called. So he did not interfere with the goalie. If you ask me, the way the Wings played most of the game, Anaheim deserved to win, but, that is why we play the game for 60 minutes. With the network, I mean the NHL, whoops I mean the refs calling the goal off, the NHL missed a golden opportunity to showcase an Overtime/Shootout game for the world involving two of the best teams in the league. But they couldn't risk Anaheim losing and being just another team that the Juggernaut known as the Red Wings steamrolled over. No one wants to see that...

I have to say I agree with most of the above. It's all about marketing, and selling the product more...

My only question is, - why Anaheim? (after they've won it... why not some other 'backwater')... Do Anaheim need to win numerous cups for the sport to take there?

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

Nice floppy fish move on the winning goal Osgood.

Yeah, reminded me of the OT winner Antropov had Saturday.

Hi kettle, you're black.

[dallas27 7]

I love how the Hasek lovers are trying to hijack this thread.

I got home just in time to hear the bulls*** chant from the living room, though I didn't get to see the [non]goal, wish I would have.

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

Yeah, I watched all the games with Colorado. While the ref calls were never as controversial as today the networks always bragged more about Colorado. I don't know why they don't like Detroit. It is ridiculous.

We are an O6 team, and have a great fanbase...

[kylee 727]

here's the "no goal" call for anyone who missed it.

[EuroTwinLove40 0]

Yeah, reminded me of the OT winner Antropov had Saturday.

Hi kettle, you're black.

NICE!

[dallas27 7]

here's the "no goal" call for anyone who missed it.

WOW

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

The ref made a judgement call. And he has the rulebook to back him up.

The only problem was, there was no impairing of Giguere's ability to make the save. If anything, it was Giguere who ran into Holmstrom and whiffed on Lidstrom's shot. No contact initiated by Holmstrom. Goal should have counted.

[Jocu 0]

Maybe, Homer's back half of his skate was in the crease, Giggy came out and bumped into him. I guess if you followed the rule by ecery word and every period, then he was in the crease and was in contact with the goalie.

Also remember, Homer's ass was in the crease quite a bit.

I don't know if thats covered in the rule book.

[Dominator2005 558]

I love how the Hasek lovers are trying to hijack this thread.

I got home just in time to hear the bulls*** chant from the living room, though I didn't get to see the [non]goal, wish I would have.

I loved how the Osgood lovers hijacked last game topic... Be sure of one thing - Hasek "lovers" are not afraid of Osgood as much as Osgood "LOVERS" are afraid of Hasek... Keep this in mind!!! Firts half of the season - Osgood's play is the best thing that could happen to Hasek...

[adtthosa 5]

How many times is that now where we have a goal taken away on a phantom goalie interference call on Homer? Pretty frustrating, I just pray nothing like this happens in the playoffs. Anyways, only caught the 3rd period, but it was a good one for the Wings. Solid effort coming back. Nothing you can do about a brutal call like that. If the puck enters the net and the referee waves it off, it should be mandatory for him to take a second look at the replay. It's just dumb that a referee can't reverse his call once it's been made. Imagine if the Stanley Cup was decided like this...there would be chaos.

I can't wait for these teams to meet in the playoffs though. I like how we showed tonight that we can still match them physically.

[Guest Jeremy88]

so anaheim can steal the puck from ozzie and score when the play should have been stopped, but if giguere moves up and GIGUERE makes contact with homer, it's no goal.

[Lou_Siffer 1]

...face it, Anaheim is the "Network's" team. Even though Detroit has the the BEST team in the NHL since 1993, the "network" refuses to acknowledge and support Detroit. They always have 'their" team which always gets the iffy calls, always gets the free pass on obvious penalties. And can do no wrong in the eyes of the NHL and the Network. Anaheim is that team right now, just like Colorado was their team in the 90's and early 2000's. I don't want to hear anything about conspiracy's and junk. It's fact. Anaheim needs to win games and championships because Gary Bettman needs to prove that the NHL can exist in Non-NHL markets. Hence the Stanley Cup's watered down victory's in Anaheim, Carolina and Tampa. The Cup used to be the hardest trophy to win in pro sports. Now Gary Bettman has made it pretty easy. Where-ever he needs to promote his sport, the Cup and the big games go. Everyone in the world knows that the Wings are the best team, how exciting would it be for them just to roll over everyone? For us, very, but for the rest of the country, they'd rather see a team beat the best in the world. Hence, the networks and money rule the outcome. That was so not a penalty, let alone enough to call the goal off. Maybe, Homer's back half of his skate was in the crease, Giggy came out and bumped into him. I guess if you followed the rule by ecery word and every period, then he was in the crease and was in contact with the goalie. But he hardly interfered with the goalie, as the rule states, if he did interfere wth the goaltender a penalty will be assessed. No penalty was called. So he did not interfere with the goalie. If you ask me, the way the Wings played most of the game, Anaheim deserved to win, but, that is why we play the game for 60 minutes. With the network, I mean the NHL, whoops I mean the refs calling the goal off, the NHL missed a golden opportunity to showcase an Overtime/Shootout game for the world involving two of the best teams in the league. But they couldn't risk Anaheim losing and being just another team that the Juggernaut known as the Red Wings steamrolled over. No one wants to see that...

I seriously have a hard time believing that Bettman and the league wants Anaheim to win...given that they are the polar opposite of the types of teams he wants in the league. The guy who doesnt like fighting wanting the bully team of the league to win again? What sense does that make?

[auxlepli 17]

OK! I'm too f***in' wired and drunk too read through all 16 pages, so please forgive me in advance.

1 - Wings played tentative until their first goal.

2 - The second Ducks goal was classic Osgood ineffectiveness - goal from about the blue line.

3 - The third Ducks goals was the Wings defensive inability to take an opposing player off the puck! WTF!?!?! That is inexcusable!!! ******* check the f*****!!!!

4 - Osgood vs. Giguere. OMFG!!!! There's not that ******* much difference between the two in height and weight, yet, YET, JS looks like a f***in' monster!!! f*** the NHL for allowing that bulls***!!!! Twenty pounds and three inches. There's not that ******* much difference!!!!!!

5 - Wings scored a goal! Should have been OT. That was the most bulls*** call I've seen in ANY sport in a long time! Dan O'Halloran is a ******* tool!!!!!

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

So I guess there will be fines for the 2 players that tackled Franz at the end of the game? #23 and #22.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Wings_Dynasty

[LeftWinger 4,962]

...here's the entire rule. It's a lot to read, I will highlight what pertain to todays game...

Rule 78 Protection of Goalkeeper

The revised crease rule is intended to implement a "no harm, no foul, no video review" standard. The rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed - i.e., goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates more than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). See also Rule 47© -- Charging).

(NOTE 1) In exercising his judgment under subsections (a) and (b) above, the Referee should give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.

(NOTE 2) If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player so as to cause him to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed to be contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

(NOTE 3) A goalkeeper is not "fair game" just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.

If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

(NOTE 1) The overriding rationale of subsections (d) and (e) above is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player.

(NOTE 2) If, while attempting to establish position within his goal crease, a goalkeeper commits an act that is worthy of a penalty (i.e. cross-checking, slashing, etc.), then the appropriate penalty shall be assessed by the Referee.

When a goalkeeper has played the puck outside of his crease and is then prevented from returning to his crease area due to the deliberate actions of an attacking player, such player may be penalized for goalkeeper interference. Similarly, the goalkeeper may be penalized, if by his actions outside of his crease he deliberately interferes with an attacking player who is attempting to play the puck or an opponent.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

(NOTE) For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Subject to (i) below, if an attacking player enters the goal crease and, by his actions, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

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.

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.

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 55© -- Falling on Puck).

A goalkeeper who deliberately initiates contact with an attacking player other than to establish position in the crease, or who otherwise acts to create the appearance of other than incidental contact with an attacking player, is subject to the assessment of a minor penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.

An attacking player who, in the judgment of the Referee, initiates contact with the goalkeeper, whether inside or outside the crease, in a fashion that would otherwise warrant a penalty, will be assessed an appropriate penalty (minor or major and/or game misconduct) and will be subject to additional sanctions as appropriate pursuant to Rule 33A -- Supplementary Discipline.

(NOTE 1) For purposes of this rule, "contact", whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body.

(NOTE 2) The above-stated standards relating to when a goal will be disallowed will be applied in all situations in which the puck enters the net regardless of whether it was directed into the net by the attacking or defensive team.

Whenever the Referee stops play to disallow a goal as a result of contact with the goalkeeper (incidental or otherwise), the resulting face-off shall take place at the nearest neutral zone face-off spot outside the attacking zone of the offending Team

...yeah, the refs made the right call according to the rule, but they are not consistant, and it was the wrong time for Detroit for them to get needle sharp to to the rule. The right time if your Anaheim (or the Network/NHL)

[jim3033 1]

Dude, Osgood played good. The whole team did. There are areas for improvement. The story of this game was the call on Samuelsson in the second and the goal at the end of the game. Detroit had all the momentum and drew the penalty and then somehow they threw a penalty at Samuelsson even though Kunitz gave him the facewash.

The refs ruined an awesome game. Those teams play the whole season with decent reffing to play each other.

[Jocu 0]

Right when contact is made. Also note Homer's ass making contact with Giguere.

Light on contact, heavy on game deciding.

[Chairman Maouth 97]

The only problem was, there was no impairing of Giguere's ability to make the save. If anything, it was Giguere who ran into Holmstrom and whiffed on Lidstrom's shot. No contact initiated by Holmstrom. Goal should have counted.

Giguere has the right to the crease. Holmstrom entered it, the 2 of them made contact and the goal was scored. You cannot park yourself in the crease and deny the goalie his ability to move within it.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

This is why so many people I know refuse to waste time watching hockey anymore...they're sick of seeing the better team lose due to a stupid call from the referees. The game should be decided by the players, not officials.

[EuroTwinLove40 0]

I loved how the Osgood lovers hijacked last game topic... Be sure of one thing - Hasek "lovers" are not afraid of Osgood as much as Osgood "LOVERS" are afraid of Hasek... Keep this in mind!!! Firts half of the season - Osgood's play is the best thing that could happen to Hasek...

Ohh..my God. WHAT!? Are you seriously 12 years old?? Like...I can't even fathom how you think this makes any sense.