Zetterberg covering the puck on Ozzie's back...

[Shaman 713]

I could see it going the other way, but, it never appeared to me, a wings fan, granted, that Z closed his hand on the puck or tried to freeze it, it looked like he was trying to push it out of the crease with his hand, I dont believe by the letter of the rule that he was trying to gather the puck up with his hands, he was more or less making a play with his hands, which seems to me to be a gray area in this.

[eva unit zero 271]

I never want to see that called.

You never want to see a defensive player who is clearly beaten and has NO chance to stop a breakaway legally called for a slashing penalty when he slashes the hand of the player who would otherwise have an amazing scoring chance? Slashing is slashing is slashing. Sorry, call it by the god damn rulebook. Whether it's slashing, hooking, interference, whatever. Whether it's the first game of the year or overtime in game 7 of the finals, call it the same ******* way. The rulebook is written one way; call the same penalties the same way because they are still the same ******* penalties. And that was a slash.

As far as the crease thing, It's not a penalty because when Osgood rolled over, he was on the line and therefore the back half of his body, including the puck, was outside the crease before Zetterberg even jumped on him. If Zetts had covered the puck after that, even though Z is inside the crease, the puck is outside and it's not a penalty.

[Konnan511 1,736]

The rule specifically says the puck has to be on the ICE.It wasn't laying on the ice therefore it shouldn't have been a penalty shot.

Technically, in a play like that, your body is an extension of the ice.

[Konnan511 1,736]

I never want to see that called.

I see that "slash" every time on a breakaway, I never want to see that either, I thought it was a good defensive last ditch effort.

[Theophany 110]

I never want to see that called.

As a defenseman, I always want to see that called. If you can't play positional defense, don't rely on a garbage play to save your ass.

It's ridiculous.

[Snazzy 0]

NO fan on EITHER team has the right to complain about ANY non-call. After all the s*** they let go, why should this 'questionable' play even be discussed. Pens fans just have sour grapes. They have proven over and over again that they are the whiniest fans in the league.

[chrisdetroit 189]

As a defenseman, I always want to see that called. If you can't play positional defense, don't rely on a garbage play to save your ass.

It's ridiculous.

9 times out of 10 that's called. He clearly slashed Helm on the hands. If it's not on the hands, maybe not.

[chrisdetroit 189]

NO fan on EITHER team has the right to complain about ANY non-call. After all the s*** they let go, why should this 'questionable' play even be discussed. Pens fans just have sour grapes. They have proven over and over again that they are the whiniest fans in the league.

Good point. They let ALOT of stuff go that should have been called. I'm all for letting them play but what they SHOULD call (IMO) is stuff that leads to or prevents scoring chances.

The puck on the back is not clear one way or another and I don't want to see stuff called that aren't clearly penalties.

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

Technically, in a play like that, your body is an extension of the ice.

I hope you don't pull a muscle with that far of a stretch!

[LIDDYGIBBY5 1]

yes because on the replay i saw he pushed it off ozzies back then grabbed the puck and tried to shove it underneath ozzie

i was watching cbc btw

as much as i don't like the cry baby he had a good argument

A skater can push the puck under the goalie or into his glove, just not under himself or in his own glove.

[Dynheart 42]

Weather or not it was a missed call, it was the right thing to do. You can't say that Crosby wouldn't have done the same thing, because he would. It's part of hockey...shiz happens. Good teams always find a win.../shrug

With that said, good luck, but not toooooo much luck.

GO WINGS

[PenaltyShot 96 521]

How is there always some crazy gray area play in every Wings Game? What are the odds of the puck landing on a goalie's back?? This reminds me of that time when the puck was caught up in Hasek's gear, he was pushed into the net, and the goal counted. Keeps the debates interesting I suppose. Like others have said, I think other non-calls in the game cancelled this one out. We've been due for a few calls in our favor anyway.

I liked Ozzie's quote in his postgame interview, to paraphrase: "I felt it land on my back...but I'm not that flexible."

[Snazzy 0]

Speaking of goaltenders... anyone know what happen to the marc andre fleury appreciation thread?

[Xitium 272]

I didn't see that cuz NBC would rather show stupid sidenote clips like "Team Leaders" than show the replay of what actually happened. If that is the case then you're right. I'll defer to you if you've seen clear video evidence of this.

Are you high? NBC showed the replay like 12 times.

[Ms_Hockey 0]

Crosby said in the post-game interview that he wasn't sure what the exact rule was for the puck being on the ice as opposed to the goalie's back so he brought it up just in case. I don't think he did anything our players wouldn't have done.

Z got away with a big one last night. In fairness to the ref, he had a heck of a lot of action to be watching and I can see how Lidstrom pushing his stick down on the other side could distract him from what Z was doing with his hand. If he would've seen Z, my guess is that Pittsburgh would've gotten the penalty shot.

[StevieBoy 2]

The rules DON'T allow it. A player other than the goalie cannot cover the puck in the crease.

Rule 55 C - covering the puck

No defending player, except the goalkeeper, will be permitted to fall on the puck, hold the puck or gather the puck into the body or hands when the puck is within the goal crease.

For infringement of this Rule, play shall immediately be stopped and a penalty shot shall be ordered against the offending Team, but no other penalty shall be given.

The real question is if it counts as in the crease since it was laying on Ozzy's back not on the ice. Also, it looked like he covered the puck or at least grabbed/shoved it in front of Ozzy.

Just for clarification since this reference seemed to contradict the other reference (since this one doesn't specifically mention anything about the ice) I went to loook it up...and there apparently IS NOT Rule 55C. Rule 55 relates to hooking penalties. However there is verbiage under the Delay Of Game section (63.2) that states 'A minor penalty shall be imposed on a player other than the goalkeeper who deliberately falls on or gathers the puck into his body'. So, one relevant rule (67.4) states that the puck must be on the ice in order to have a penalty shot granted. Since the puck was not on the icde this doesn't apply. The second rule (63.2) does seem to apply but would only warrant a delay of game penalty and a power play.

So the end result is that IT WAS a missed penalty call. Unfortunate but there were several of those last night. Considering the obscurity of this situation it's not surprising they didn't call it...but the Penguins did deserve a power play from this.

[Snazzy 0]

Crosby said in the post-game interview that he wasn't sure what the exact rule was for the puck being on the ice as opposed to the goalie's back so he brought it up just in case. I don't think he did anything our players wouldn't have done.

Z got away with a big one last night. In fairness to the ref, he had a heck of a lot of action to be watching and I can see how Lidstrom pushing his stick down on the other side could distract him from what Z was doing with his hand. If he would've seen Z, my guess is that Pittsburgh would've gotten the penalty shot.

In retrospect... and in all fairness, both teams got away with "big ones". From the trip on Kronwall, 2 seconds after the whistle they took a run and Holmstrom, to the interference (late hit) at center ice on Hossa.

***-for-tat, I think the game was fair, and if they did get the call PS on that... I'd honestly feel that Pens are allowed to take cheap shots and interfere, but Wings are not allowed to protect their goalie.

I have a feeling tonight that Pens are going to get a lot of cheap powerplays while they get away with everything. I hope that I'm wrong.

[Electrophile 3,554]

How did we get away with something when there was no call to NOT make? The puck wasn't on the ice, it was on Ozzie's back. The rule states that it's a penalty shot if you put your hand over the puck while it's on the ice in the crease.

Hank made a very smart, very heads-up play, but he didn't get away with anything and neither did we. If Crosby had scored on that, we'd be screaming bloody murder that no one tried to get the puck off of Ozzie.

[pavyaz19 1]

Technically, in a play like that, your body is an extension of the ice.

hahahahaha, i don't think so. i get what you're saying (just like the referee is an extension of the playing surface, but i really don't think it applies here.

to who said that this is now a make up for hossa's goal against the ducks that didn't count... how do they even compare? One was a GOAL in the last minute of a one-goal game... the other could have lead to a scoring chance (Penalty shot). Two completely different scenarios. Apples and Oranges.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Even if it was a penalty, the Pens pretty much already got their penalty shot on the Malkin breakaway. Malkin clearly tripped up Kronwall, so that should have been a penalty. It's a wash.

I agree with this completely, which is why I don't care that the penalty shot wasn't called.

You guys are using the wording of the rule pretty strictly here, but the it's almost certainly there to distinguish plays made on airborne pucks with those at ice-level. If the puck was covered by Hank inside the crease area (which Eva seems to think is not the case, so score one for the good guys), even if it's on Ozzie's back, that's a penalty shot. That it wasn't called is either that the ref determined that the puck was not inside the crease or he just didn't see it through the chaos.

[Snazzy 0]

I say let it go and move on. Both team got away with bunches of non-calls. That's what we all wanted, right? Hell, even the Pens fans said they prefer the calls let go... until they lost the game. lmao! Then they cried foul.

[Ms_Hockey 0]

In retrospect... and in all fairness, both teams got away with "big ones". From the trip on Kronwall, 2 seconds after the whistle they took a run and Holmstrom, to the interference (late hit) at center ice on Hossa.

***-for-tat, I think the game was fair, and if they did get the call PS on that... I'd honestly feel that Pens are allowed to take cheap shots and interfere, but Wings are not allowed to protect their goalie.

I have a feeling tonight that Pens are going to get a lot of cheap powerplays while they get away with everything. I hope that I'm wrong.

I agree with you - both teams got away with stuff last night.

I hope they don't get cheap powerplays as a "make up" for the missed PS call. I mean, their PP isn't that great, but neither is our PK. (Last night, it was all Ozzie.)

[MrB0629 0]

I don't mind letting them play and calling infractions on things that effect a scoring chance. What the refs do need to crack down on is the sh!t that goes on after the play is stopped. I didn't notice half the stuff in front of Ozzie as in front of Fleury.

BTW - with the way Malts likes to face wash do you think he uses a few drops of "buck scent" in the palm of his gloves?

[TCbrizz 2]

well dovorsky has spoken and said he ruled that Z only "pushed" the puck off of osgood's back so it wasn't a penalty. FWIW.

[Konnan511 1,736]

I hope you don't pull a muscle with that far of a stretch!

Alright, how about the goal crease extends upward. How is it a stretch when it is the truth? Nice contribution though