henrik40 76 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 If anything, it looks like an illegal substitution. A no call was the right call, but it just adds salt to the wound. How does it add salt to the wound if it was the right call? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick Zombos Ghost 82 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 red wings dont take away the pass on 2 on 1s its been something they HAVNT done all year. its strange. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake! Report post Posted May 5, 2010 In the overtime last night, SJ had 7 men on the ice with possession of the puck. Here is the proof. 16-6 calls against Detroit last 2 games and they can't call this 1 on SJ either. I swear Bettman and the nhl is against the wings. f*** sakes. The Wings used to be able to beat their opponent and the refs. I recall this being the case whenever we face the Avs and Forsberg diving all over the place. Now we cannot overcome the bad refereeing. Ah heck I'm sick of all the excuses. We lost. We deserved to lose. Now we have to think about winning 1 game and go from there. Ah crap now I'm using cliches. I sound like one of those idiot radio guys. Only 7 on the ice? They should have gone for 10. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MotorCityMadness 388 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 it would have not made any difference...the Wings coughed that one up and eventually would have had it not been on the OT goal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoWings1905 2,694 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 If anything, I thought it appeared San Jose was offside on the third goal. That doesn't excuse Howard from letting in a horrible goal to Couture, but it just adds another break that went the Sharks way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 The four guys you circled are not and were not at any time involved in the play. If anything it was such a bad line change that the Sharks had "too few men on the ice" Clearly not the kind of call you make with the puck 75ft away from the players in question. I doubt you'll find a single hockey expert of personality (TV or radio) outside of Detroit who would think that was a penalty. BTW, I think you guys are being a little hard on Howard. Yes, the last goal was due to him "cheating" off the expected pass, but it was a nice, very accurate shot by Couture, give the kid some credit. On the Thornton goal, actually the puck was headed straight for Howard's logo, but ticked off the shaft of Datysuk's stick which made it change directions. At least that is what it looked like on the Bay Area feed replay. Definitely not Howard's fault. The Couture goal went fivehole on Howard and went off his right knee and just inside the post when it would have otherwise missed the net completely. Unless you're saying he intended to bank it off his knee, that was a damn lucky shot and deflection. Had Howard dropped his left leg instead, that's not a goal. You don't get credit for a "very accurate shot" if it's just a dump on net from the corner that happens to go in, which is all it was. The too many men thing? That wasn't a penalty. The play was down by the Wings' net and by the time the refs would have even noticed the penalty, the puck would already have been in the net. It's not reviewable IIRC, so it didn't matter if the whole team was jumping over the bench at that point. Game over in less than a tenth of a second, the two extra players were 75 feet away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 Way to take away the pass, Rafalski. Yeah, all that screen cap did was make me face-palm at Rafalski's play during that sequence. Man I wish it would've been Lidstrom back on that play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoWings1905 2,694 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 The four guys you circled are not and were not at any time involved in the play. If anything it was such a bad line change that the Sharks had "too few men on the ice" Clearly not the kind of call you make with the puck 75ft away from the players in question. I doubt you'll find a single hockey expert of personality (TV or radio) outside of Detroit who would think that was a penalty. BTW, I think you guys are being a little hard on Howard. Yes, the last goal was due to him "cheating" off the expected pass, but it was a nice, very accurate shot by Couture, give the kid some credit. On the Thornton goal, actually the puck was headed straight for Howard's logo, but ticked off the shaft of Datysuk's stick which made it change directions. At least that is what it looked like on the Bay Area feed replay. Definitely not Howard's fault. Come on, that was a weak goal by Howard. The shot wasn't accurate - Couture just threw it on net from a horrible angle and Jimmy somehow let it through him. Two bad goals at the worst time last night from Jimmy. If anyone should take the heat for why this series isn't 2-1 today, it has to be Jimmy Howard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 Yeah that looks like too many me-- oh wait *puts hand up to earpiece* .. breaking news, San Jose Sharks and Gary Bettman responsible for 9/11. ******* terrorists. Huh? Everyone knows it was Crosby and Bettman who did 9/11. The Sharks are the ones reading our thoughts at night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Octopus's Garden 147 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 There is no way this is a penalty in that situation. Had this happened off the Williams "shot" and the puck ricocheted out to the two guys coming out, then it's probably a call. Here ... No. Williams sucks. I hope he gets benched even if Eaves is out. Play Meech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sprsquirt7 45 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 That's a borderline assessment, according to the precedent set by the league this playoffs it should have been called. But when has the league been consistent this postseason. If say marleau missed or howard saved that 2 on 1 and the puck continued does it change the outlook that this was an irrelevant play. When theres a technicality rule you can't really talk about circumstances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
McCartyFanForLife 17 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 Certainly not penalty worthy. If anything could be called it would have been an illegal change and the faceoff would have been outside. This is all hindsight because the refs didn't miss the frickin net with every shot he took including the last one (Williams). The refs didn't let in the weak 4th goal (Howard). The refs didn't blow defensive coverage (Ericson and Rafalski). There's plenty of blame to go around; frankly I don't think anyone escapes blame for this series... even the coaches. The Wings have looked ill-prepared and slow. There's no fire, there's no heart, and there's no excuses. Win as a team, lose as a team... and they will certainly lose as a team Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyGangsta 79 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 I don't know, speechless it doesn't really matter what the rules say it's more like what the refs are feel like calling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
clutchngrab 12 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 Terrorists win! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lidstromboli Report post Posted May 5, 2010 1 Wings_Fan_In_Exile reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UP Wings Fan 0 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 The four guys you circled are not and were not at any time involved in the play. If anything it was such a bad line change that the Sharks had "too few men on the ice" Clearly not the kind of call you make with the puck 75ft away from the players in question. I doubt you'll find a single hockey expert of personality (TV or radio) outside of Detroit who would think that was a penalty. The definitiion of being "involved" in the play or not is not part of the NHL Too Many Men on the Ice Rule. And yes, in this playoff year I have seen this whistled under similar conditions. Here's the rule: Rule 74 - Too Many Men on the Ice 74.1 Too Many Men on the Ice - Players and goalkeepers may be changed at any time during the play from the players’ bench provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall be within five feet (5') of his players’ bench and out of the play before the change is made. Within 5 feet of the bench is the requirement in the NHL, not involvement in the play. Youth hockey requires involvement in the play. Typically this is not called this way in the NHL. The play by Ericcson caused the odd man rush, stupid! The play by Rafalski allowed the pass acrossed, stupid! Rafalski should of had his stick in the passing lane! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hooon 1,089 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 I count ten... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yak19 303 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 (edited) SJ players changing aren't involved in the play in any way, shape or form, this thread is pathetic, stop with the pitiful excuses. please close this thread Edited May 5, 2010 by Yak19 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UKWING 8 Report post Posted May 5, 2010 (edited) no way was that too many men. awful play by williams and rafalski. i did think that the 3rd goal looked offside at first viewing though. but howard should still have never let it in anyway. Edited May 5, 2010 by UKWING Share this post Link to post Share on other sites