Jump to content


Nightfall's Photo

Nightfall

Member Since 10 Dec 2003
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 09:44 PM
**---

#2514174 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by SimonSin on 22 April 2014 - 10:15 PM

Man, people blaming Howard is unbelievable. It makes me wonder if you guys are real hockey fans. When you score ZERO goals do you expect to win? So Howard is supposed to make EVERY stop until the Red Wings score? LoL. I thought Howard finished strong. Wings didn't have ANY puck luck today and NOTHING went their way. The post by Helm was huge, if that goes in, it's a different game. Wings looked like s*** yes, but it's still only 2-1. Do I think the Wings will win? No, but it's far from over. They have to find a way to score.




#2513634 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by Dabura on 22 April 2014 - 07:30 PM

At this point, I would put more blame on the lack of goal scoring.  Kinda hard to win games when you only score 1 goal per game.  Heck, today we have nothing and only 3 shots on goal.

 

Lets put it this way, if Howard was allowing 5 goals and losing 5-4, I would agree with you.  *cough cough* Lindback

 

Fair or not, Howard has to stand on his head just to give us a chance in this series. We knew that going in, and nothing's changed. He can't let in softies. Can't happen. That we're not generating offense just hammers the point home. Time for him to earn his big fat contract.




#2513578 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by Tr!PoD#19 on 22 April 2014 - 07:20 PM

Could be worse, we could be Tampa.


#2513535 ADQF | Game 3 | Boston 3 @ Detroit 0, BOS leads series 2-1

Posted by Firehawk on 22 April 2014 - 07:16 PM

I wouldnt be so mad if we were playong hard but had 2bsd luck goals. We arent even skating. They should be ashamed


#2513016 mickey redmond talking about wings on a radio station

Posted by RyanBarnes! on 22 April 2014 - 03:13 AM

Marchand is an elite pest and crease crasher, I wish Detroit had a guy like him.


#2512730 ECQF Game 2 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Bruins 4 - Series tied 1-1

Posted by IndianaRedWing on 20 April 2014 - 05:23 PM

Two postgame thoughts:

 

The other team is allowed to improve. There's no point sighing about how game 2 was different from game 1. Assuming Boston wouldn't be able to come up with a better effort in game 2 just isn't realistic.

 

Howard didn't have a very good game, but the loss wasn't all on him -- or even mostly on him. If he had allowed 2 goals in each of the first two games, on the road against the #1 seed, he'd have a better GAA, and would have demonstrated consistency on the road, and the wings would be down 2-zip. 

 

If you score 2 goals in 2 games on the road against the 1-seed, and you go back home with a split, that's kind of incredible. Credit to Howard for stealing one. 

 

Now, it's up to the rest of the team to figure out how to win a game *without* needing Howard to steal it.




#2512605 ECQF Game 2 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Bruins 4 - Series tied 1-1

Posted by GMRwings1983 on 20 April 2014 - 04:22 PM

 

Isn't that their first powerplay goal of the series?

 

No, the second goal in this game was a powerplay.  




#2512467 ECQF Game 2 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Bruins 4 - Series tied 1-1

Posted by GMRwings1983 on 20 April 2014 - 03:53 PM

Alfie has to be hurt. All he does is cough up the puck.

 

Or he could be 41 years old  




#2512272 ECQF Game 2 GDT : Red Wings 1 at Bruins 4 - Series tied 1-1

Posted by HadThomasVokounOnFortSt on 20 April 2014 - 03:17 PM

4 periods of hockey. 1 goal. No good enough. 


Teddy bears have 4 period of hockey. 2 goals.


#2511222 4/18 ECQF Game 1 GDT: Red Wings 1 @ Bruins 0. DET leads series 1-0

Posted by haroldsnepsts on 18 April 2014 - 09:03 PM

Wings doing a good job not engaging with the dirtbags Marchand and Lucic.  

 

Smith looked like he was getting into it a little, but mostly kept his cool. 




#2511080 4/18 ECQF Game 1 GDT: Red Wings 1 @ Bruins 0. DET leads series 1-0

Posted by KATIEBARTHEDOOR24 on 18 April 2014 - 08:36 PM

If all the games are like this... It could be a great round.


#2501696 Net off the moorings question

Posted by Shaman on 26 March 2014 - 11:43 PM

Cracking me up, all the articles out there, explaining and explaining how it was a good goal.  Um.  No.  But perhaps if you explain it some more, and justify and use more words, the majority of hockey fans will believe it. 

 

OK, then.

It comes down to something as simple as this:

 

Within the bounds of the rules it was a goal. Therefore, it was a goal. We hate it now, but, if the situation was reversed we would be lauding the ref for making a fine call. This isn't 2002 when the refs were making phantom calls about the exact position of Homer's ass in time and space, this is the right call technically speaking. Now, I hate it, I wish the ref was blind and called it a no goal.




#2492530 Weiss - who would take him next season and does he have a full NTC

Posted by MabusIncarnate on 07 March 2014 - 07:07 PM

Why is everyone so low on Weiss? He was hurt since training camp and wasn't 100% when he did play this season. At least give the guy a chance to show us what he can do. People act like he is a piece of trash off the streets.

I agree, don't judge a player and write him off after 26 games and struggling with a hernia. 4 points in 26 games is not Stephen Weiss. I promise. 

 

Trying to move him right now would make no sense whatsoever, we get a 5th pick for him and suddenly he's healthy and puts up a 60 point season elsewhere, we gave up and asset for next to nothing. 

 

I'm not prepared to write off Weiss already, that's being reasonably unfair considering what he is capable of. Anyone who watched him play a lot before this season knows he is a capable scoring forward and can provide offense for this team over whoever we would start in his place like Andersson or Glendening. 

 

Weiss is an above average, skilled player and the Wings management didn't toss that kind of money at him because he's worthless. Give him a chance. 




#2492517 Weiss - who would take him next season and does he have a full NTC

Posted by Datsyukian-Deke on 07 March 2014 - 06:31 PM

Why is everyone so low on Weiss? He was hurt since training camp and wasn't 100% when he did play this season. At least give the guy a chance to show us what he can do. People act like he is a piece of trash off the streets.


#2501655 Net off the moorings question

Posted by Son of a Wing on 26 March 2014 - 02:25 PM

Kerry Fraser explains why it's a good goal....and he's right...

 

 

 

Hey Kerry,
Absolutely love your column and love your answers. My question is in the Tuesday night game of Red Wings v. Blue Jackets, Cam Atkinson clearly scored Columbus' third goal after the net was dislodged. I'm confused how the referees were able to decide that the goal was scored before the net came off when it seemed to clearly come off before the goal crossed the line. I'm just wondering how the refs came to their conclusion and if it was correct.
Thanks Kerry,
Jacob Messing

Hi Ref,
How can a player score when the net is clearly off the mooring> When the net is off the moorings you can't allow a goal. Maybe get a penalty for moving the net, but no goal. Obviously that was the wrong call, and could mean a missed playoff. Are Referees demoted from the playoffs for these terrible calls?

Thanks for your answer.
Jim Carmody

Jacob and Jim:
Thank you for your questions on this unique situation that caused many fans to scratch their heads in amazement as to how a goal can be scored with the net clearly off the moorings. I have two personal experiences to share with you that resulted in the formulation and eventual amendment of rule 63.6 which I hope will clear up any confusion. It was under this specific rule that Referee Chris Rooney correctly awarded a goal to Cam Atkinson of the Columbus Blue Jackets after Atkinson's body contacted the post and knocked off its moorings. I provide you with the history of the rule and the correct application.

Rule 63.6—In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.

In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

Now for your first history lesson as to how this rule came about. In the mid 1980's I was assigned to work a game in the St. Louis Arena between the Blues and the Edmonton Oilers. On a particular shift the Oiler stars were sustaining incredible pressure in the Blues end zone. It looked like a shooting gallery against Blues goalkeeper Mike Liut as he slid from side to side making one incredible save after another. That is until one stacked-pad-slide by Liut took the tender well outside of his goal crease. The rebound came right onto the stick of Glenn Anderson standing all alone in the middle slot. As Anderson was about to trigger a shot into the unguarded cage for a sure goal, Blues defenceman Tim Bothwell lifted the net completely off its moorings and began to skate it toward the corner of the rink! Anderson looked puzzled and continued to reposition his feet toward the moving target. I blew the whistle and assessed a delay of game penalty to Bothwell. The Blues killed the penalty and a "sure goal" by Anderson had been averted.

I made a rule proposal that was adopted to allow the ref to award a goal if the net was deliberately displaced by a defending player and the attacker shot the puck (or in the act of shooting) and the puck passed through the normal position of the net. The initial rule only applied when the net was "deliberately" displaced.

Fast-forward to the modern day NHL and a game I worked in Vancouver between the Canucks and the Sabres. Buffalo created a two-on-one attack with the second Canuck defenceman giving chase. As the attackers approached the net the trailing D made a desperation diving poke-check attempt. The defending player's out of control slide knocked the net off its moorings just prior to the shot entering the net. The sure goal had to be disallowed and no penalty could be assessed since the action of the defending player that knocked the net off the mooring was accidental.

Due to the fact that a sure goal had been denied through the "actions" of a defending player in both situations (deliberate in St. Louis ('80's) and accidental in Vancouver (2000's) the language of the rule was amended to include "accidentally" whenever the specific criteria of rule 63.6 was satisfied.

In Tuesday's game Matt Calvert and Cam Atkinson took flight on a two-on-one break with Niklas Kronwall defending and his defence partner, Brendan Smith giving chase from behind. Jimmy Howard made a left pad save on Calvert's shot but could not control or freeze the rebound. Atkinson attacked the net from the opposite side and initiated a hard stop at the top-inside of the crease with an opportunity to put the loose puck into the net for a sure goal. As Atkinson was positioning his stick to play the puck (act of shooting) Smith made physical contact with his stick and hip on Atkinson that moved the Blue Jackets player into the goal post and knocked the net off of the moorings.

Some will say that the contact exerted by Smith was minimal and insufficient to knock the net off the moorings without some responsibility placed on Atkinson. The replay shows that Atkinson's momentum and forward progress was altered significantly and he accelerated from his initial stop inside the top of the crease after the contact by Smith was initiated and completed. It is also evident that Atkinson attempted to push back and stop following the contact by Smith with a second, separate spray of snow from his skate blade.

Referee Chris Rooney made an excellent, quick decision when he correctly applied rule 63.6 to award the goal to Atkinson following the actions of Smith that "accidentally" caused the goal post to be displaced prior to the puck crossing the goal line.

Watching this play I saw history repeated.