It's RIGGED

[Broken 16 381]

It's getting stupid now. He blatantly pulled his hand off the stick in order to make contact with the puck. He was rewarded with a goal because he was too slow to effectively batt the puck before it got to his hand. NHL officiating is in the toilet big time.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Actually I'm fine with the logic behind it. The goal went it not because he swiped at the puck. It was just a redirection off his body like in any other situation. The fact that he directed his hand at the net after the puck left it makes no difference as to whether it was going to go in or not. Why penalize him for something that doesn't affect the play?

My only qualm is why was his hand off the stick in the first place?

[henrik40 76]

Sorry but that gets called a hand pass if the puck goes anywhere else.

edit: I think his hand was off the stick with the intention of playing the puck in some fashion with his hand. We can speculate, but really the only reason he would have to play the puck with his hand there is to deflect it.

Edited February 4, 2010 by henrik40

[ben_usmc 253]

Actually I'm fine with the logic behind it. The goal went it not because he swiped at the puck. It was just a redirection off his body like in any other situation. The fact that he directed his hand at the net after the puck left it makes no difference as to whether it was going to go in or not. Why penalize him for something that doesn't affect the play?

My only qualm is why was his hand off the stick in the first place?

I agree

[HockeyTownHouligan 57]

Everyone in the war room needs to be fired and they need to get new people in their that have perfect 20/20 vision. They need more cameras one in each post one in the net one above the net. They could put a camera in the posts. They should get people from vegas to do the camera angles of everything they can think of. Cameras everywhere. They need to have a coaches challenge or something.

[bdavis 28]

Wouldn't it be the same as a kicking motion with the foot? He moved his hand towards the puck (off of his stick, so it was intentional). It's not like his hand was there accidentally. It's a joke that the goal was allowed. I don't think "rigged" is the right word here, but the league certainly doesn't have any sympathy for the Wings in situations like this.

Edited February 4, 2010 by bd2988

[scotzman 29]

I wonder if there's a stat out there on how many video review calls work out for a team and how many go against a team... I can't remember too many that have gone the Wings way. This year especially has been downright awful.

Trying not to be a homer, but this is starting to get ridiculous.

[Legendary D In 03 50]

Everyone in the war room needs to be fired and they need to get new people in their that have perfect 20/20 vision. They need more cameras one in each post one in the net one above the net. They could put a camera in the posts. They should get people from vegas to do the camera angles of everything they can think of. Cameras everywhere. They need to have a coaches challenge or something.

20/20 isn't perfect vision. 20/20 is average vision.

[jvxp 0]

I'm convinced 100% that the NHL is rigged. There is no way that puck conclusively went across the line.

Non-calls in Dallas' favor

Howard interfered with. His stick was held.

The NHL is worse than WWF when Hulk Hogan went bad.

NHL is a f'king JOKE!

EDIT: for grammar. I'm so pissed. I'm really bummed because I thought NHL was suppose to be a real sport. Not fiction. Life is no longer reality... in the NHL

I agree!!! It's been a joke since last years playoffs when they gave Cindy the Cup.

[Inultus 12]

I agree!!! It's been a joke since last years playoffs when they gave Cindy the Cup.

Please. Even for a Wings fan that's extreme homerism. They had two chances to win it and they didn't. End of story.

[The Secret 304]

rabble rabble rabble

Oh this is hilarious... great way to start the morning with a LOL.

What are you rabbling about?

[toby91_ca 620]

Sorry but that gets called a hand pass if the puck goes anywhere else.

edit: I think his hand was off the stick with the intention of playing the puck in some fashion with his hand. We can speculate, but really the only reason he would have to play the puck with his hand there is to deflect it.

Here is the rule.

67.6 Disallowed Goal - A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player

who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot

be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is

deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the

puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be

allowed.

I was only able to catch the third period (long day at work), so I didn't see the goal with any good replays and the only video I have seen is inadequate, so I'm not sure whether the call was legit or not, but I think it is entirely possible that the bolded part is what applies here.

I see it as being like the distinct kicking motion rule. You can stick your hand out and deflect a puck and if it goes in, it's a good goal, unless you clearly direct the puck in the net with your hand. Not sure the relevance of the hand pass rule though, it's not the same thing, but that rule is somewhat grey as well.

[thedisappearer 291]

Why penalize him for something that doesn't affect the play?

But it did affect play. In a very big way.

Here is the rule.

I was only able to catch the third period (long day at work), so I didn't see the goal with any good replays and the only video I have seen is inadequate, so I'm not sure whether the call was legit or not, but I think it is entirely possible that the bolded part is what applies here.

I see it as being like the distinct kicking motion rule. You can stick your hand out and deflect a puck and if it goes in, it's a good goal, unless you clearly direct the puck in the net with your hand. Not sure the relevance of the hand pass rule though, it's not the same thing, but that rule is somewhat grey as well.

I think that refers to accidental contact. In this instance, he intentionally took his hand off the stick, swiped at the puck, and redirected into the net.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Last night only seems to re-enforce the notion that the rules change when the Red Wings are playing. For instance, in the last 2 years alone:

- A Red Wings opponent is allowed to score a goal after the puck clearly went off the protective netting

- Several Red Wings opponents have had goals scored on them called back because a Detroit player was standing a good 2 feet outside the blue paint

- A Red Wings opponent is allowed to play with six skaters on the ice for half a minute, penalty free

- Several Red Wings opponents have won games because the referee conveniantely had "intent to blow", even supposedly while a player was shooting the puck into the goal

- A Red Wings opponent is given the upper hand in a shootout despite the rule that calls for 100 percent conclusive evidence that the puck crossed the goal line, which was apparently seen by an official over fifty feet away from the play

- A Red Wings opponent is allowed to intentionally take his hand off his stick and deflect the puck into the net, despite the rule book saying differently

[Echolalia 2,961]

But it did affect play. In a very big way.

If the swatting motion took place after the puck had already hit his hand and continued through the air towards the net, then it certainly did not affect the play.

[dirtydangles 1,328]

if the refs have "intent to blow", that goal off the hand was "intent to swat," he followed through with the motion after. even if it wasnt initial.

[Pucks 66]

No goal.

[Wombat 26]

If the swatting motion took place after the puck had already hit his hand and continued through the air towards the net, then it certainly did not affect the play.

In almost all sports with a ball (or puck), you are taught to follow through on your contact with the ball (or puck). and in many instances, these occur without a big windup (which almost always necessitates a follow through to slow down the momentum). In tennis, playing up by the net, you often let the ball hit the racquet with no windup, and you then follow through upon contact. Bunting in baseball is similar.

I think this incident is also similar. The guy gets his arm in position, and tries to follow through to force the puck downward upon contact.

[chrisdetroit 189]

Last night only seems to re-enforce the notion that the rules change when the Red Wings are playing. For instance, in the last 2 years alone:

- A Red Wings opponent is allowed to score a goal after the puck clearly went off the protective netting

- Several Red Wings opponents have had goals scored on them called back because a Detroit player was standing a good 2 feet outside the blue paint

- A Red Wings opponent is allowed to play with six skaters on the ice for half a minute, penalty free

- Several Red Wings opponents have won games because the referee conveniantely had "intent to blow", even supposedly while a player was shooting the puck into the goal

- A Red Wings opponent is given the upper hand in a shootout despite the rule that calls for 100 percent conclusive evidence that the puck crossed the goal line, which was apparently seen by an official over fifty feet away from the play

- A Red Wings opponent is allowed to intentionally take his hand off his stick and deflect the puck into the net, despite the rule book saying differently

This league is SO STUPID that they actually put an ice hockey team in the desert and then when the team went backrupt they bought the assets with money from the legitament teams.

Do you really think that those same league officials are smart enough to conspire against one team and rig the games as you stated and get away with it?

Yea right.

It is not rigged. It is just incompetance.

[StormJH1 231]

if the refs have "intent to blow", that goal off the hand was "intent to swat," he followed through with the motion after. even if it wasnt initial.

There we go, I like that one.

I think part of the problem I'm having is that the "intent" is supposed to refer to the intent to make the motion, not the intent to kick it into the goal. It's a legal legal play to kick a puck, just like it's legal to glove a puck (without closing your hand around it). You can even kick towards the net or at a goalie. It only becomes ILLEGAL in the sense that if it goes in, the goal doesn't count. If it hits a foot by accident, though and deflects in, there was no intent to make any motion there, so it's allowed.

It really isn't any different with using a hand. You can put your glove on a puck, but if you direct a pass to a teammate in the offensive zone or deflect it into the net, then it's not a legal goal. What the NHL is (apparently) reasoning here is "Sure, Chipchura meant to move his hand towards the puck, but he didn't mean to "swat" down at it as it was coming at him. How is that any different than me saying "Sure, I meant to draw my foot back and kick the puck forward, but I didn't INTEND for it to go in the net, therefore, it's not a true kicking motion?" What Chipchura DID do was move his hand toward the puck, which RESULTED in the puck being deflected into the net. They're one and the same, and that goal should NOT have counted. And I also don't buy that the replay was inconclusive because there was no dispute that the puck hit either his glove or arm--it was only a question of whether or not the motion towards the puck signified an intent to make contact with the puck. I wonder if that had been at the JLA, if the call would've been the same, even though the review officials are in Toronto, and therefore, probably more immune to home crowd pressure.

I don't buy the conspiracy, but just like we've been hit by the injury bug harder than most teams, I feel like we've been hit by incompetent officiating much more than it has benefitted us this year. Everything from the Hossa goal in last year's playoffs, to 6 men on the ice for Pittsburgh, to May's "intent-to-blow" goal, to the shootout mess, and now this thing, it just makes me sick to think about it.

Edited February 4, 2010 by StormJH1

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

if the refs have "intent to blow", that goal off the hand was "intent to swat," he followed through with the motion after. even if it wasnt initial.

Never really thought of it that way.