Detroit's two power play goals probably shouldn't have happened...I'll explain.
1) I don't think Stewart should have gotten an instigator penalty. Yes, he approached Stuart and wanted to fight...that's obvious...but Stuart dropped his gloves first. Stuart was a willing participant. Stewart didn't drop his gloves and jump on Stuart. I disagreed with that call. You see fights start all of the time where one guy goes over to another guy and gives him a shot and says let's go, and the other guy agrees and the gloves come off. That's the way I saw this...Stewart just went a long way to fight Stuart.
2) Helm's hit on Pietrangelo late in the 3rd was textbook interference. Petro was skating for the puck and he seemed to be a good 5 or 6 feet from the puck, hadn't touched it yet, and Helm destroys him. If Petro would have had the puck, it would have been a great hit...but the only problem was he didn't have the puck. Assuming Carlo still retaliates, it should have been 2 minutes on Helm and 2 minutes on Carlo. It should have been 4 on 4 with 3 1/2 minutes left instead of a Detroit PP.
My first point is debatable. I'm sure you can make a case that Stewart should have gotten the instigator and argue that...we could debate that all day since it comes down to rule interpretation. But I don't see the 2nd point being debatable at all. It's clearly interference on Helm, and just not called.
You are experiencing what is known as confirmation bias syndrome. Don't worry this happens to the best of us, and is a common occurrence when your favorite team loses a game.
The puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete
Pretty much as long as the puck is under control of the player he can have the puck stop it's momentum, it's why the spin-o-rama goal and lacrosse style goals are fine.
I'm not the biggest fan of shoot outs but I'm fine with the NHL's rules, more room for creativity is good for entertainment purposes.
OK so they have 2 exceptions to the rule in the lacross move and the spin-o-rama, I can deal with that. But I don't think that those exceptions translate the wording of "the puck must be kept in motion towards the opponent’s goal line" to "as long as the puck is under control of the player he can have the puck stop it's momentum". Infact I think what the rulebook describes is the complete opposite of your interpretation. I also think the rulebook description is worded the way it is for this very scenario I'm referring to on the kane goal - so that players can't just park infront of the goalie and deke them out like an *******.
I dunno the goal just bugs me, maybe its the fact that it was patrick kane. I just don't see any player of high moral character pulling that kind of lame shootout strategy.
I was just on NHL.com checking up on stats when I noticed they have a reel of great shootout dekes from this season. After watching Z and Huds pull the forsberg, I see a lame ass video of patrick kane coming nearly to a complete stop on a shootout and proceeding to dangle the f*** out of backstrom while gliding mere inches forward.
This is the video:
My question is should this goal count?
I thought the rule was that the puck has to be in constant forward motion the entire time. The way I see it kane makes several lateral and backward dekes with the puck, and while that would be fine if he was still carrying forward momentum, kane has barely any momentum. By definition of the rule I believe that the puck ceases to move forward during the entire dangle infront of backstrom.
There is a few other lame shootout moves including the 'spin-o-rama' that I also believe should not count by definition of the rule.
Well, considering the teams you named that are willing to give up a 1st rounder, it would seem if Holland was willing to give up a 1st rounder that he would get the better in return since it will more than likely be a higher pick than Boston or Chicago or Vancouver or maybe even St. Louis. I would hope that the Wings finish higher, but it really doesn't matter, because if you are gonna win the Cup, you are gonna have to learn to win on the road anyhow.
Regarding making a move, I really hope Holland takes that huge jump and gets a top line player. Who that may be, I am not sure, but the names that have been surfacing would all help more than us losing a Hudler or Franzen would hurt. Perry, Ryan, Iginla, Doan, Parise, etc... I would love to see a huge move at the deadline, but would also be OK with a Hemsky or Moen and maybe an actual NHL defender coming here. I like Commodore, and I can stand Kindl a little, but they are both 7th d-men. IF Holland could score a veteran defender rental for a solid Cup run (Hal Gill type) I think we would be sitting pretty! Oh and all respect to Conklin, but if Holland can land Nabokov for the Cup run then I am all for it!
If this team acquired Hemsky for a top 6 forward, Moen & Gill to shore up the bottom 6 and defense and of course Nabby to solidify the goaltender position. Then if it doesn't work, go for a revamp come July 1st which is on my wish list, a #1 defender to replace Lidstrom (eventually) and TWO legit top snipers...who or from where? Don't know.
EDIT: DOn't get what part of this deserves a neg...as usually people won't explain or debate why they disagree.
Congrats on your logic, in completely misunderstanding my point - which is that Iginla, having played the best years of his career in the dead puck era, to have scored 500 goals is a fine achievement. A finer achievement than some of the other 500-club members who racked up easy goals in the 80s.
Iginla was top goalscorer one year with just 41 goals, compared to 20 years ago when 70, 80, even 90 goals were being scored.