Did anyone just hear the comment on VS about the Wings win?

[Ms_Hockey 0]

I don't think you can even put a too many men call on the same level as a hooking/tripping/etc. call. It's not remotely in the same field. Everybody hooks. Everybody trips. Everybody roughs. But having too many men on the ice is one of the most amateur mistakes you can make as both an NHL coach and a team. There's no way they could've let that one fly. It was too AHL of a mistake to say "Okay, we're going to pretend that didn't just happen."

It's one of the most embarrassing infractions for a team to make, and it will almost ALWAYS get called. By the time you're in the NHL, you shouldn't be doing that - and the refs aren't going to just turn their cheek to it.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Ms_Hockey

[Z and D for the C 712]

In Hitchcock's post agme, he says to let the teams play unless it's obvious.

....

How is too many men NOT obvious?

[Grim 5]

I am sick and tired of the Refs making all these "sympathy calls" against the Wings. look at all the physicality allowed in the other playoff series. Its almost a cruel joke.

The refs painted themselves into a corner with all the calls... making the cut & dry "too many men" call almost unbearable to stomach (for the Jackets).

[Nero 20]

I listened to the BJ's Fox Sports feed to tonights game.

I agreed largely with what the announcers said (though they were a bit too homer about it). The call was a rather minor one, and put the BJ's in a very bad position in return. They played a good series and to have it ended with such a petty call is rather weak on the part of the officials.

Two goals in three games is a good series?

[tweekvp 0]

As soon as I noticed the refs had put their whistles away I said to my finance that there would be some call people would hate to see but for a ref it is automatic.

This is one reason i hate when refs put their whistles away. They are afraid of effecting the game but that is their job. They inevitably end up in a situation where they have to make a call so they can't win either way.

[Hockeymom1960 5,107]

Sure, it's a "weak" call to make with what was on the line, but I look at it this way: Columbus took the puck near center ice with Holmstrom already lying out of position. If they don't call that obvious cheat, then Columbus enters the zone with a full head of steam and a slight advantage. What if they had scored on a non-call? That would have been MUCH worse.

Hitchcock says it was the right call to be made, but he didn't like it given the circumstance. What would he be saying had they not called it and Columbus scored on that possession?

Anyone who thinks that was the wrong call just doesn't know hockey. The refs usually won't call hooks, cross checks, etc. in tight situations where the guilty party doesn't gain a distinct advantage after committing the penalty. But they won't let one go where someone gets a clear advantage. That's that.

What he said

[betterREDthandead 58]

I listened to the BJ's Fox Sports feed to tonights game.

I agreed largely with what the announcers said (though they were a bit too homer about it). The call was a rather minor one, and put the BJ's in a very bad position in return. They played a good series and to have it ended with such a petty call is rather weak on the part of the officials.

How is it petty? How on earth do you not make the call? It's clear as day. It's not even a judgment call. It's one thing to make judgment calls about what's a hook and what isn't. It's another to just blow off one of the very basic rules in ANY sport. The rule book couldn't be clearer: THOU SHALT NOT have more than six players on the ice and play the puck. Anyone bitching and moaning about it is totally out of line, including Hitchcock. There isn't a separate rule book for close playoff games.

[19Hockeytown5 0]

The "experts" on Vs make me laugh.

Before the first round some analysis on there predicted the Sharks to cruise over the Ducks and win in 5. He went on to guarantee that Detroit would get upset in the first round by the BlueJackets.

Whoops

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

What does it matter? Sports commentators are paid to keep people interested in their product. That means creating controversy every now and then. Doesn't change the results. Not everybody has to stroke the Red Wings egos all the time.

Edited April 24, 2009 by SouthernWingsFan

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

How is it petty? How on earth do you not make the call? It's clear as day. It's not even a judgment call. It's one thing to make judgment calls about what's a hook and what isn't. It's another to just blow off one of the very basic rules in ANY sport. The rule book couldn't be clearer: THOU SHALT NOT have more than six players on the ice and play the puck. Anyone bitching and moaning about it is totally out of line, including Hitchcock. There isn't a separate rule book for close playoff games.

There's the key. If he would've skated past the puck, not touching it, till his man got off the ice = no call. No conspiracy between the refs ans Wings. Just inexperience on the Jackets part. I did notice, though, that Nash started spending a lot of time pleading his case with the refs in the 4rd. Lost a little respect for him....too much like Cindy if you ask me.

[Opie 308]

How is it petty? How on earth do you not make the call? It's clear as day. It's not even a judgment call. It's one thing to make judgment calls about what's a hook and what isn't. It's another to just blow off one of the very basic rules in ANY sport. The rule book couldn't be clearer: THOU SHALT NOT have more than six players on the ice and play the puck. Anyone bitching and moaning about it is totally out of line, including Hitchcock. There isn't a separate rule book for close playoff games.

And the Hockey God spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Hockey Stick. Then shalt thou count Five Players, no more, no less, unless thy sin bin be full. Five shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be Five. Six shalt thou not count unless thy net be empty, neither count thou Four, excepting that thou then proceed to Five. Seven is right out. Once the number Five, being the Fifth number, be reached, then playest thou thy Holy Hockey Game of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

Hope everyone gets it!!

Edited April 24, 2009 by Opie

[vladdy16 2,154]

And the Hockey God spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Hockey Stick. Then shalt thou count Five Players, no more, no less, unless thy sin bin be full. Five shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be Five. Six shalt thou not count unless thy net be empty, neither count thou Four, excepting that thou then proceed to Five. Seven is right out. Once the number Five, being the Fifth number, be reached, then playest thou thy Holy Hockey Game of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

Hope everyone gets it!!

Thank you, Brother Maynard.

Lord knows I understand their disappointment, but good grief, like BRTD said, there is no getting around making that call.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

It was controversial because there was controversy over the call. A lot of people thought it was a bad call while a lot of other didn't. That's what makes something controversial. It doesn't mean it was the wrong call, but the VS. announcers didn't say anything that wasn't true.

It was not a controversial call...it was black & white. It was unfortunate for the Blue Jackets, but controversial it certainly was not.

[stormboy 47]

There's the key. If he would've skated past the puck, not touching it, till his man got off the ice = no call. No conspiracy between the refs ans Wings. Just inexperience on the Jackets part. I did notice, though, that Nash started spending a lot of time pleading his case with the refs in the 4rd. Lost a little respect for him....too much like Cindy if you ask me.

/"controversy." i honestly could not believe how hard the BJ's were protesting the call (some of their players, at least). it's just...i don't. of course that's a backbreaker to get a call at that stage in the game, especially when they'd climbed back from two separate two-goal deficits. but jesus. that is textbook, no-question, black-and-white too many men. for me, that's 99% as clear as a clearing-the-puck-over-the-glass call (the 1% being that the refs theoretically could let it go because there's not a stoppage in play to force their hand).

all the time, you see players, from all teams, realizing that if they touch the puck they'll get too many men and avoid touching it until their guy is off. the BJ's were understandably eager to get an odd-man rush and the dude just wasn't thinking or paying attention.

and as far as i'm concerned, any perceived "controversy" in no way taints this series for the wings. first, we outscored them 12-2 in the first three games--even if they'd have won this one, there's no possible way they would have won three straight against us. second, a non-call in no way assured their victory. without the call, it would have likely gone into OT, though there's no way of saying. and, if the game had continued at even strength, there's a better than 50% chance that we would have scored next considering that we have obviously been the superior team throughout the series and, one bad period from ozzie notwithstanding, were completely and utterly dominant, having scored, to that point, 70% of the goals in the series. obviously, if you're a BJ fan, you should be super pissed about the call. but be pissed at the ****** on your team who broke the rules, not the officials or the red wings.

anyway, that's my four or five cents. it just makes me a little mad that now people can conceivably take something away from the wings and this sweep, even unjustifiably.

And the Hockey God spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Hockey Stick. Then shalt thou count Five Players, no more, no less, unless thy sin bin be full. Five shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be Five. Six shalt thou not count unless thy net be empty, neither count thou Four, excepting that thou then proceed to Five. Seven is right out. Once the number Five, being the Fifth number, be reached, then playest thou thy Holy Hockey Game of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

Hope everyone gets it!!

hilarious! thank you, sir.

[Guest Crymson]

The call may have been 'controversial' in some regard---but the Wings did not 'win the series' on a controversial call. A game seven victory on a 'controversial call' constitutes 'winning the series' in that fashion. As it was, the Wings had already, for all intents and and purposes, won the series when they'd beaten the snot out of Columbus in the first three games.

[RockyMountainWingGal 108]

No it's just the point. As a wings fan we get NOTHING in the way of national support. I just dont get it. Last year all they did was ***** because little baby cindy didnt get his cup, instead of congratulating the wings.. its just BS is all..

I wouldn't say that's true. Several columnists including Terri Frei on ESPN picked the Wings to win it all AND thought the Sharks cannot beat us (not that they'll get the chance). Everyone expected us to take care of business in the first round - I think that's why there hasn't been a lot of coverage of our winning this series.

[RyanK 1]

This goes back years my friend. I think it boils down to this: The league put in place a salary cap in order to "even out the playing field" which I understood to mean, "the wings buy talent and we have to stop them". Well then the amazing management of this team still figures out a way to keep us on top and we blow the asses out of their "model franchise" last year and it made them sick. Bettmen hates our team, the national commentary hates our team, and the only reason I can figure is because their stupid salary cap plan didnt have its intended consequences on the Wings. In return I hate Cindy Crosby out of spite, and I wish we would repeat again this year out of spite for the league.. F them.

Edited April 24, 2009 by RyanK

[OsGOD 3]

Maybe the BJ's should work on the PK in the offseason and none of this would even be up for debate

[Mckinley25 679]

It was not a controversial call...it was black & white. It was unfortunate for the Blue Jackets, but controversial it certainly was not.

It was a controversial call in that there was controversy over the call. The call was right, i agree with you that it was black and white, but a lot of people didn't see it that way, so it was controversial.

con⋅tro⋅ver⋅sy   [kon-truh-vur-see; Brit. also kuhn-trov-er-see]

1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion

(from dictionary.com)

I think that fits. Again, right call, but disputed by people's opinions.

[Vladifan 680]

I'm watching the Sharks/Ducks game on VS right now and they were showing the playoff tree. The announcer said, and I quote "The Wings won their series tonight in controversial style"... ummm.. What?

Why do the national personalities hate us SO much? I bet this guy has a Cindy Crosby poster hanging on the ceiling above his bed.

Unbelievable.. Controversial?

I heard that and just blinked at the tv screen. I mentioned this on another thread but I had the wording wrong. But do you believe??!! And these hotshots are supposed to be hockey experts, most of them actually having played the game?

Wonder if they'll try to cover their butts later for that stupid commentary.

....Naww......like always, as reporters they'll just pretend it didn't happen.

[Chunkylover 26]

As goofy as those guys can be I think they treat the playoffs with a lot of respect and energy. I know they aren't the originators of those "Great Moments in Hockey" videos, but the fact that they are not just showing Crosby highlights should earn them some respect.

[Vladifan 680]

I think what makes it controversial is that they don't call it at least 50% of the time when they should. So when they actually use some simple math skills it becomes controversial.

However, another reason they couldn't ignore it was because a ref (the one who called it?), was like 5 feet from the guy who touched the puck. Video does not lie. It can't even twist the facts, let alone take sides.

[SuperNovaXll 124]

Its better to be hated, then not thought of at all.

[kevotron 3]

Let them hate so long as they fear.

or as it is known in it's original Latin form:

"Oderint Dum Metuant"

I love it, a quote by the Roman Emperor Caligula regarding the Red Wings!

You know, if this had been ancient Rome, the Wings--after massacring the Bluejackets--would have looted Columbus, enslaved all the women and burnt it to the ground. Ahh, too bad.

[betterREDthandead 58]

It was a controversial call in that there was controversy over the call. The call was right, i agree with you that it was black and white, but a lot of people didn't see it that way, so it was controversial.

con⋅tro⋅ver⋅sy   [kon-truh-vur-see; Brit. also kuhn-trov-er-see]

1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion

(from dictionary.com)

I think that fits. Again, right call, but disputed by people's opinions.

Not to be the sematics police, but the disputation does not concern a matter of opinion. It's pure fact that Columbus had six skaters on the ice and pure fact that that's against the rules. If it's my opinion, as well as the opinion of several others, that the sky is green, that doesn't turn the color of the sky controversial. There's no dispute about opinion here - they just have an opinion blind to the facts.