Homer's slashing penalty and Z's disallowed goal

[travis08 3]

If you watch the replay of the lebda penalty it seems clear he is faking. I know it is in slow motion, but there is a large delay between the supposed contact and his head flying back. That's not to say that the stick didn't graze him, but it seems obvious he is embellishing.

He also seems to be checking for blood at random places, start out kinda checking his nose, then later he is checking his forehead.

Edited May 5, 2010 by travis08

[hockeynut 55]

Ok, let's ASSUME the goal that Zetterberg kicked in was good and that was a bad call. The play where the Wings were awarded a penalty shot was an AWFUL call. Couture just pushed the puck under Nabokov's pads, never once did he cover the puck with his glove. The ref was out of position and missed it. The refs "tried" to give the Wings a make up goal, but Nabokov "foiled" their plot. Also, look CLOSELY at the replay of the Holmstrom slash. Clearly he does take a whack at the back of Vlasic's leg and he did it right in front of the ref, almost daring him to call it, so call it he did.

[Guest micah]

Micah, your precious interpretation of capitals intended for emphasis is delightful!

Maybe,(and I know this is probably radical for you) go back to the YouTube links at the beginning of this thread (sorry my dear Micah, there go those silly capitals again!) and watch WHY (tee hee to you!) Hank "readjusted" his skate. A Fish had his stick horizontal and was shoving Hank with said stick. Hank was "readjusting" to maintain balance during this cross-check, as shown in every view visible to us (and presumably, the Toronto "war room".) Moving his feet to maintain balance and not crash into the net/boards probably doesn't count as "distinctly kicking", and undoubtedly the Fishies would simply have collapsed and flopped, pleading for the merciful gods above to call a cross-check/interference/roughing, etc., etc., penalty.

So no MICAH, that "not kick" (sic)

...and the "Fails" continue!

You believe that the officials in Toronto wanted the wings to lose the game? so much so that not only do you think they made a mistake or that you know the rules better than they do, but that you believe that the purposefully lied about what they saw to take away a Wings' goal?

I suspect they just didn't see it how you see it. I don't either. Sorry.

[Tommy_Like_Wingy 25]

The Sharks got screwed over plenty in this series too. The fact of the matter is they capitalized on their breaks and we didn't.

[Guest scottj]

Also, look CLOSELY at the replay of the Holmstrom slash. Clearly he does take a whack at the back of Vlasic's leg and he did it right in front of the ref, almost daring him to call it, so call it he did.

CLEARLY

oh my god...

[Dr. Detroit 9]

Also, look CLOSELY at the replay of the Holmstrom slash. Clearly he does take a whack at the back of Vlasic's leg...

Are we watching the same video... because nothing happened.

[T.OWingsFan 7]

I wish I could say that the refs cost us this series, but really, I only thought that game 2 was terrible that way.

SJ has had more power plays in 3 games than most teams do in 7 games. Almost 30 by my count. And the vast majority have been like Homer's above phantom slash. Including a 4 minute highsticking penalty against Setogouchi which somehow transformed into a Franzen penalty and then a 5 on 3. Also throw in 3 goalie interference penalties where in all 3 cases no one was in the blue paint.

No, the refs haven't done a thing. Only snuffing out Detroit everytime momentum seems to shift. Only making the Red Wings play a man down for half a game. Not at all.

Edited May 5, 2010 by T.OWingsFan

[Guest mjtm77]

Berts penalty in game two made draper

Edited May 5, 2010 by mjtm77

[SiLkK19 67]

who cares, penalty shot was the fail, he could have made up that goal right there

bad calls happen, that call on homer is not why the Wings lost, SJ just wanted it more 3rd period and on

Yeah along with any other shot that didn't go in.... Lets not be that " "

Edited May 6, 2010 by SiLkK19

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

I just don't understand. Can you explain? I mean, I'll ignore the fact that I have many years of playing soccer, and it is impossible to "kick" an object with your foot moving forward and have the object hit the side of your foot, and change directions 90 degrees. That is called a re-direction of the object. Now if in fact the object hits the tip/front of the shoe/skate, then yes it's a kick in.

I get that if someone has never played the sport of soccer before may be confused with this, but come on, haven't we all studied physics in highschool/college?

Edit:

In fact, in soccer if this exact situation happened, it would be considered as if the player fanned on kicking the ball, and it just luckily deflected in anyways. Its amazing how simple physics change from sport to sport.

Have you ever passed the soccer ball before?

You can kick something with the side of your foot.