Pens Boards, (merged)

[Z and D for the C 712]

What's even more funny is that a number of them take this image to be conclusive evidence that Crosby scored:

They're mistaking the reddish horizontal line (a stick) to be the goal line, even though there's blue paint on either side of it and completely disregarding the vertical red CROSSBAR on the right side. I'm almost speechless.

I can't even tell what that picture is. It looks like a cartoon.

[Chris L 0]

What's even more funny is that a number of them take this image to be conclusive evidence that Crosby scored:

They're mistaking the reddish horizontal line (a stick) to be the goal line, even though there's blue paint on either side of it and completely disregarding the vertical red CROSSBAR on the right side. I'm almost speechless.

I saw that thread and was puzzled for some time about it. It took me forever to see the puck, the picture is so badly pixelated its hard to tell what's going on there. But yes you can see the blue paint easily enough, and there is a puck there just under Z's wrist near the edge of his glove, at least I think so, could be a shadow too. but yeah, there is a crossbar on the far right, which the puck is not past, thus no goal.

Why they held that up as evidence that Crosby scored is a mystery. But that didn't strike me nearly as odd as this obstruction/interference issue they're trying to raise.

As far as I can tell, nobody's listening to them, except for maybe Eddie O, that's about it.

[Doggy 130]

Well then you are honestly mistaken.

Likewise, I wonder if you know your hockey history. Some years ago if you recall, guys like Gretzky and Lemieux complained about the game becoming a clutching grabbing interference fest, that would stifle the showcase skills of the game's best scorers. That's one of the reasons the league made some rules changes. Both the spirit and letter of the rules state that no player should ever obstruct another player when the puck is not in play around him.

The poster on the Pens board no doubt is referring to this. It's the top poster who is trying to work in the (wrong) idea that the Wings are only "clogging passing lanes" (which is really just code for "interference") when in fact the Pens poster never mentioned that idea.

This kind of thing is exactly what Gretzky was talking about. Again, do you not really know this?

This post tells me you don't know what interference is.

Furthermore, if you're comparing Detroit's current game to that of the Devils then you need to learn hockey history because you've clearly been watching NHL hockey since 2006.

Gretzky was talking about clutching and grabbing, not playing defense.

[hockey&beer 16]

Well then you are honestly mistaken.

Likewise, I wonder if you know your hockey history. Some years ago if you recall, guys like Gretzky and Lemieux complained about the game becoming a clutching grabbing interference fest, that would stifle the showcase skills of the game's best scorers. That's one of the reasons the league made some rules changes. Both the spirit and letter of the rules state that no player should ever obstruct another player when the puck is not in play around him.

The poster on the Pens board no doubt is referring to this. It's the top poster who is trying to work in the (wrong) idea that the Wings are only "clogging passing lanes" (which is really just code for "interference") when in fact the Pens poster never mentioned that idea.

This kind of thing is exactly what Gretzky was talking about. Again, do you not really know this?

If RW player A skates 6ft in front of Pens player B, player A did not interfere with player B. If player A skates at an angle that forces player B on a different path (ie angled towards boards or net) then that is interference. And if for one millisecond you think that every team in the league does not do this than maybe you should keep your comments to yourself.

NEWS FLASH!!!!

Every player on every team stretches the rules to the breaking point. The higher the caliber of the player the better they are at hiding the infraction.

[Firehawk 305]

I've seen it said several times now on the HF board that the Wings play BORING HOCKEY!

Are you F'n kidding me? LOL. We play the most exciting type of hockey out there. I think they're saying that because they're not used to seeing REAL DEFENSE.

What a bunch of assclowns.

[Konnan511 1,736]

[Pavel Hossyukstrom 2]

What's even more funny is that a number of them take this image to be conclusive evidence that Crosby scored:

They're mistaking the reddish horizontal line (a stick) to be the goal line, even though there's blue paint on either side of it and completely disregarding the vertical red CROSSBAR on the right side. I'm almost speechless.

post the rule over on the pens board.

85.3 Puck Out of Sight - Should a scramble take place or a player accidentally fall on the puck and the puck be out of sight of the Referee, he shall immediately blow his whistle and stop the play. The puck shall then be faced-off at the nearest face-off spot in the zone where the play was stopped unless otherwise provided for in the rules.

[ComradeWasabi 109]

Players are allowed to stand in the way of another player and make them go around. That is not obstruction. How do you think "standing up at the blueline" works? Hitting or touching another player after he has chipped it past the defenseman, however, is obstruction under the new rules.

[Datsyerberger 279]

How has this not made an appearance yet?

[hockey&beer 16]

How has this not made an appearance yet?

Good call, that's perfect.

[Firehawk 305]

Ugh...all this talk about interference. I don't think they know what interference is.

I think we could all go down the line and list calls that 'shoulda' been made. But you know, if they're letting it go on one side, they're letting it go on the other. I can live with that.

Now, if tomorrow the refs start calling a ton of penalties, especially when the same 4 refs will be involved, then it's obvious the league talked to the refs about something. Otherwise, this series shoudl be called the exact same way all 4-7 games.

[BewareThePenguin 1]

This post tells me you don't know what interference is.

Furthermore, if you're comparing Detroit's current game to that of the Devils then you need to learn hockey history because you've clearly been watching NHL hockey since 2006.

Gretzky was talking about clutching and grabbing, not playing defense.

Well Mr. Expert, perhaps you could use a little historical lesson yourself:

And finally, N.H.L. fans have been saddened by the departure of the other all-time great superstar of the current era besides Gretzky: Mario Lemieux, who retired in 1997. It does not speak well for the league that Lemieux retired not so much because of his crippling back condition or his battle with Hodgkin's disease or the anemia that resulted from its successful treatment, but mainly because he was tired of all the grabbing, tackling and interference into which the game on the ice had deteriorated.

www.nytimes.com/1999/04/18/sports/backtalk-sad-farewells-to-gretzky-and-a-past.html

By the way, what else would "clutching and grabbing" refer to if not done by an opposing player trying to stop him in his tracks -- a prom dance? That would be the very definition of defense.

Might want to check the date on that article, too, Professor... don't think it was 2006.

[BewareThePenguin 1]

Ugh...all this talk about interference. I don't think they know what interference is.

And this one's for you:

Bill Beaney, a coach at Middlebury College in Vermont and a leading advocate in the U.S. for cleaner, more wide-open hockey, is similarly pessimistic. He's spent years railing against defensive "systems" like the neutral-zone trap, which he says boil down to little more than interference and obstruction. "I think when he's judged against his contemporaries, Sidney Crosby's going to come out with flying colours," he says. "It's just a shame he won't be able to give us as many of those Guy Lafleur-type moments as he might if the game was allowed to proceed the way most fans would like."

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012766

Gosh, wherever do they play that trap btw?

I don't think this guy's a Pens fan even.

My tutorial bill will be arriving in the mail shortly... Professor Penguin, out.

Edited June 1, 2009 by BewareThePenguin

[Doggy 130]

Well Mr. Expert, perhaps you could use a little historical lesson yourself:

By the way, what else would "clutching and grabbing" refer to if not done by an opposing player trying to stop him in his tracks -- a prom dance? That would be the very definition of defense.

Might want to check the date on that article, too, Professor... don't think it was 2006.

Everything you have said in this thread is wrong. It's just your misguided reaction to the frustration of losing the first two games. The way the Wings have played games 1 and 2 is nothing... at all.. like the clutch and grab era of hockey. The very notion is ludicrous and the fact you believe it means you really didn't watch much pre-lockout hockey.

I mentioned the year 2006 because that's when most Pens fans started watching hockey again. That's all. Your stupidity suggests you're one of those too.

[Pasha13 0]

I think what the kid (I'm guessing he/she is young) was saying is that we were putting bodies between the Pens players and loose pucks (not blocking the passing lanes)...which is true, we do that.

What is NOT true however, is that it should be called for interference.

As long as the skater is standing still, or (if they are skating) skating toward the puck...THAT IS NOT A PENALTY...sheesh... If they step up and make contact on the player persuing the puck, sure call it...but for cryin out loud, do they want our defensemen to watch the dump in and say "Why excuse me, sir...let me get out of your way, so you can scoop that up and set up your team's attack!" What a tool shed...

Edited June 1, 2009 by Pasha13

[Red4wings4life 0]

What people do not understand is that it is not "interference".

The Wings have the same right to be on that spot of ice as the Pens player does. Just like the tying goal yesterday. Sammy has just as much of a right to that spot on the ice as Malkin. Sure Sammy got in his way but that is what his job is. He skated to the spot that Malkin wanted to use to get to the point, it is legal.

[thedisappearer 291]

Well then you are honestly mistaken.

Likewise, I wonder if you know your hockey history. Some years ago if you recall, guys like Gretzky and Lemieux complained about the game becoming a clutching grabbing interference fest, that would stifle the showcase skills of the game's best scorers. That's one of the reasons the league made some rules changes. Both the spirit and letter of the rules state that no player should ever obstruct another player when the puck is not in play around him.

The poster on the Pens board no doubt is referring to this. It's the top poster who is trying to work in the (wrong) idea that the Wings are only "clogging passing lanes" (which is really just code for "interference") when in fact the Pens poster never mentioned that idea.

This kind of thing is exactly what Gretzky was talking about. Again, do you not really know this?

But the OP was complaining about our positioning (where are skates are), not grabbing or clutching (what our hands are doing). Feet do NOT equal hands. You get an A for effort, but a D- for reading comp.

[thedisappearer 291]

Players are allowed to stand in the way of another player and make them go around. That is not obstruction. How do you think "standing up at the blueline" works? Hitting or touching another player after he has chipped it past the defenseman, however, is obstruction under the new rules.

Or when the puck gets dumped in and the d-man tries to force the forward wide. Though, this *can* actually turn into interference.

[MsRedWingFan 0]

So it's not enough that you win -- you also want to believe your team is always 100% squeaky clean and never commits a penalty. That's called the "good guys" syndrome.

Not only that, you're missing the point -- the poster isn't talking about passing lanes, he's talking about obstructing the path of the oncoming players.

wrong ... they can clog the lane if they have that space of ice first ... they cannot move into the way of a player that is what OBSTRUCTION is ... there is a difference. They shouldn't have to move out of the way of a player and its pretty rediculous of you to assume that they should.

[shannyfan1414 0]

Those pens boards are pretty funny. They way that they are whine about us having a different set of rules. I guess they are just use to seeing the imaginary calls that Crosby gets. Not to mention Malkin getting out of the suspension he should have got. I'm glad they are not forcing him to sit. This way we don't have to hear them complain about not having Malkin when we win.

The pic board of anti Detroit pics is a joke. At least we have creative people on our site that make some of the greatest pics i have ever seen.

Then there is the lack of knowledge on the rules of the game and the game it self.

What a bunch of idiots.

Oh well. I'm sure when they look at our site they think the same things.

Here is my favorite post on their anti Detroit pic page

Not sure how winning the award for best defensive forward we be failing. Nice try though pens fans

[b.shanafan14 733]

This is being fed by sour-puss Olcyk, who since Game X of the WCF has talked about nothing other than the way the Red Wings "interfere better than any team in the league". Games 1 and 2 vs. the Penguins, Edzo has carried over his conspiracy theory that occupying ice that the other team wants is interference, instead of the old hockey mantra thats "that ice is as much yours as it is theirs".

[Konnan511 1,736]

My favorite post on LGP.com:

First of all Hossa is their best player. If you dont see that you havent watched them enough this season.

[Vladifan 680]

This was your answer to Doggy who asked you to give him an example of what you were talking about.

Well then you are honestly mistaken.

Likewise, I wonder if you know your hockey history. Some years ago if you recall, guys like Gretzky and Lemieux complained about the game becoming a clutching grabbing interference fest, that would stifle the showcase skills of the game's best scorers. That's one of the reasons the league made some rules changes. Both the spirit and letter of the rules state that no player should ever obstruct another player when the puck is not in play around him.

The poster on the Pens board no doubt is referring to this. It's the top poster who is trying to work in the (wrong) idea that the Wings are only "clogging passing lanes" (which is really just code for "interference") when in fact the Pens poster never mentioned that idea.

This kind of thing is exactly what Gretzky was talking about. Again, do you not really know this?

Do you really not know that this is not what Doggy was asking? He wasn't asking for historical data - the kind of action that happened BEFORE the rules were changed. What the hell does that have to do with here and now?

GIVE US ALL A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU SAW IN THE LAST TWO GAMES THAT YOU THOUGHT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED ON THE WINGS FOR INTERFERENCE AND/OR OBSTRUCTION. Especially since I thought that's what this was all about. THE CURRENT SITUATION.

The only one I saw that I could question was YOUR GUY banging into Hossa when he came into your zone. Was that what you were talking about?

[Cern 0]

I'm not gonna skim through that whole Penguins Board thread, but this one absolutely takes the cake:

>It certainly was cheating. Doesn't the home team provide the sticks as well as the pucks? I mean, in football and baseball the home team is responsible for providing all the balls, and I suspect it is the exact same here. I wouldn't be surprised if the cheating redwings provided sticks that broked easily. Look how easy that stick broke! He wasn't even moving it that fast.

>I really want to know, I think it seems awfully strange how many Penguin sticks broke during those two games, it has to be cheating, nothing else explains it. I have never seen so many sticks break.

[Doggy 130]

I'm not gonna skim through that whole Penguins Board thread, but this one absolutely takes the cake:

>It certainly was cheating. Doesn't the home team provide the sticks as well as the pucks? I mean, in football and baseball the home team is responsible for providing all the balls, and I suspect it is the exact same here. I wouldn't be surprised if the cheating redwings provided sticks that broked easily. Look how easy that stick broke! He wasn't even moving it that fast.

>I really want to know, I think it seems awfully strange how many Penguin sticks broke during those two games, it has to be cheating, nothing else explains it. I have never seen so many sticks break.

My God.