Jesus H Christ, that is all.
things go poorly
Wings miss Rafalski and Draper badly.
and God Bless Chris Chelios, but that man is a liability if he is on the ice more than ten minutes a game man.
that the Wings will dominate one year and take the cup, and then the following year the team will show its age and bow out too early to a younger team.
Kenny Holland still runs one of the most well-oiled machines in all of professional sports. Go Wings.
that was a tough loss last night, i hardly see how they are bowing out. Also, average Red Wings age = 28. Average Dicks age = 31.88.
even if he did draw a penalty for it.
...particularly frustrating, but really, we can't complain as Red Wings fans. Based on our 4 titles in 11 years, we cannot complain until 2017. And, I'm okay with it seeing as Detroit is the current preeminent dynasty in American sports.
I'm sorry, but the preeminent dynasty in American sports? They have won 4 out of 11. That isn't a dynasty, especially when two of those came at the very start of that period. They are a good team, but not a dynasty at all.
If you want a dynasty look at the Patriots. What they have done is far more impressive than what the Wings have done.
If it wasn't for Patrick Roy who knows how many Stanley Cups the wings would have. 17 straight playoff appearances. 4-1 in Stanley Cup Finals. Numerous President Cup winners. They have been consistent winners, year in and year out. There's no doubt what Tom Brady has is a great thing but i would take consistency year in and year out by the wings then what the Patriots have. The wings have been the standard for greatness since 94, patriots since 01.
Check out the preeminent dynasty in American sports in round one of the playoffs on VS. (formerly the Outdoor Life Network)!
i think Babcock needs to make a line change and switch things up a bit. Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Holmstrom in the first line. Hossa, Franzen, and Hudler in the other. Hossa seems to play better with Hudler and Zetterber with Datsyuk is a deadly combination.
no centerman on your second line Hossa, Franzen, Huddler are all wings (not the red kind, the offensive kind). You need to replace one of them with Drapes, Helm, or Flipper
power play...lets see what they can do.
WOW just wow, way to go ref, you sir suck at your job
display of officiating tonight. Absolutely PATHETIC. I don't know how players keep their composure. I would be ready to rail that official over the fucking face with my stick.
I am so fucking pissed...
Remember when M lost to Notre Dame because of a premature whistle? Yeah, it's like that, except magnified times a hundred. I wish I was there so I could have thrown something at that fucking ref.
time to vomit.
The winning goal for Anaheim was on a power play where the ref from center ice called Stuart for interference behind the net...when Stuart hit a guy that had the puck, and the ref right there didn't call it.
Oh, and the goal they scored on the ensuing power play fluttered into the net because Getzlaf hit Osgood.
As for the ending...I honestly cannot believe what I just witnessed. I'm sitting here, somewhat slackjawed, in shock. We all like to complain about refs...but this is the first time I've ever known what it feels like to have the refs literally take the game away from you.
Un. Be. Lievable.
Everybody in the arena knew that the Wings just got screwed. When they played the replay in the arena, the Ducks fans were silent and the Wings fans, including myself, were filling the arena with boos. I left he arena feeling completely empty and personally cheated.
The first time? Really?
What about Manny Harris @ Purdue? That was brutal, and we were winning at the time of ejection.
I'm not sure if this gets to gary bettman at all, but I've sent an email to his at email@example.com. That was just as bad as a typical ccha game.
Behold the madness in video form:
Unfortunately, it's part of life. Though this was so bad it is hard for me to chalk it up as honest mistakes... the Ducks were getting away with all kinds of rough hits, and Stuart laid a perfectly clean and nasty hit, but got called for it? That sends a very specific message: "You can't get away with what they can"
As for blowing the play dead, it sends this message: "When the puck is in front of the Duck's net, unprotected, the play will be blown dead"
The refs can explain it away all they want... I will not be convinced
I don't think they are missing Draper as much as some seem to think. Rafalski? Obviously, you'd love to have him in there, but, the problem isn't the defensive core, imho. Our forwards must stop turning the puck over in the neutral zone. Sloppy, sloppy play from our forwards this entire series thus far. As for the interference, obstruction and roughing, the refs are consistent in that they are letting both teams get away with it. They aren't favoring one team over the other.
The goal that was disallowed at the end of the game because the official blew the whistle was ridiculous. The NHL should allow that to be reviewed and the rule should change TODAY so that this doesn't happen again. I'm not shocked with where the series stands right now after three games. The Ducks were the one team that I didn't want the Wings to play. They have disposed of the Red Wings the last two playoffs series that these teams have faced. For whatever reason, the Ducks have the their number.
Tough call for the Wings, but I almost feel bad for the ref. You could see on his face he knew he'd screwed up big-time and felt terrible about it. He was probably praying that the Wings would knock one in and get him off the hook. But yeah, terrible call. He should've been better positioned to see the play more clearly.
As for the rule, it can lead to some really unfortunate situations like last night but you can't really change it. Otherwise you'd have the goalies getting whacked 10 times every time the puck goes into the crease.
If he was praying they'd put one in, why does he ignore the EIGHT (!) instances of interference and holding he could have called on the Ducks in the last minute. The whole time we were 5-on-6, at least one of our guys was buried along the boards, usually with a cross-check.
Of course you lost sight of the puck!!!!!!!!!
IT WAS IN THE NET!!!!!!!!!!
To me they should be able to see if the whistle was blown before or after the puck was in the net.Hell Toronto suits review EVERYTHING else. The whistle was blown AFTER the puck crossed the line as the replay with sound clearly showed.
P.S.- Get your Ass in the right position before you blow the damn whistle!!!!
Man, as you can tell, I'm Still pissed off!!!!!!
But, I do give a whole lot of credit to Hiller, the kid is good.Which is why goals that go in on him should COUNT!
i always think the guy in your picture looks like chris summers
What I witnessed last night while watching the Wing's game made me recall a couple of absolutely horrifying refereeing decisions that Bo was subjected to back in the 70's. Different sports, different rules, and certainly different particulars - but there is a common thread: the f***ing refs claim to have lost sight of the ball/puck. Even on the old, non-HD TV that my TN wife make me watch hockey games on I could plainly see that Stuart's hit was clean - the Duck he allegedly interfered with had already touched the puck. Anaheim should never have gotten that power play on which they scored the game-winner (on a blatant goalie-interference play that if the Redwings had done you KNOW would have been disallowed and penalized.) Then that ****-er Brad Watson (the referee/NHL/Bettman lackey who probably had a bet down on the game...) TRIED to blow the whistle during a scramble in front of the Duck goal because he had lost sight of the clearly visible loose puck that Hossa dove at and tipped in, and thus called the play dead. The puck was definitely in the net before the whistle blew - even the Anaheim crowd could see and hear that when it was replayed on the scoreboard screen.
It made me think about the '79 Rose Bowl game when Charles White scored a TD against us WITHOUT THE BALL! He had fumbled on the 2, but none of the GD refs saw it. ****Actually, afterwards some of them explained that they did indeed see the ball loose, but they didn't want to "show-up" their fellow refs!!**** And THAT prompted the painful recollection of the '72 OSU game where the referees were so intimidated by Woody that they wouldn't call a TD for us even though a RB (I have forgotten the name) on 3rd down and then our QB (Dennis Franklin??) on 4th had clearly "broken the plane" (even the 80,000 truckdrivers in Columbus could see that.)
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! - am I wacko for still seething over refereeing calls from 30+ years ago??
Sorry for the long and somewhat rambling post. I just had to get the frustration out. Maybe I can get some work done now...
- Brian: does the NHL still have a franchise in Edmonton? (hehehe) -
That play should at least be reviewable so that the goal can be allowed if the puck crosses the line before the whistle is heard.
The NHL is publicly defending the ref, as they have to do, but behind closed doors they are probably scoring the guy down so that he will not do another round this year. I don't know how it works, but the league supposedly grades the officials and lets the highest graded refs do the later rounds.
I really really hate this "intent to blow the whistle" crap. The idea of telling the refs to blow the whistle if they lose sight of the puck is to prevent goalies from getting dogpiled and whacked at when the puck is underneath them. Fine, I get that, it's important. But the players are gonna play til the whistle blows. Not until the ref decides in his own mind when to blow it. It absolutely needs to be reviewable if there's a whistle at the same time the puck went over.
I agree. I don't see what the "intent to blow the whistle" idea is all about either.
The problem is that they don't also allow for the intent to score a goal. I'm pretty sure Hossa intended to score the goal before the ref intended to blow the whistle.
In other words, yes, the intent thing is stupid.
Intent to blow the whistle makes sense to me, if the goalie puts his glove over a loose puck then he's made the save and play stops...if someone then digs under in the meantime and gets it out that shouldn't be a goal.
The "intent" factor doesn't bother me, the problem is that the referee was not in proper position behind the net. That's where he made his mistake.
I'd like to know if Watson also made the call on Brad Stuart that led to the first goal. Back ref calling that penalty because they couldn't see him play the puck behind the net is outrageous. The guy deep in the zone is the one that is supposed to be responsible for that call.
Honestly, if the goalie wasn't able to cover the puck for the split second of time it takes for the ref to blow the whistle, then he probably didn't have enough control of it. And if he's being whacked at too strongly and the ref chokes on his whistle or something then they can call goalie interference on "an attacking player [that] initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease."
I totally agree Watson was out of position, as there's no excuse for 11 skaters and three other stripes to know where the puck is and one asshole to not know.
I agree completely -- the "intent" rule is unnecessary because there are other rules on the books to protect the goalie. The only thing the "intent" rule does is make an otherwise reviewable play unreviewable -- as evidenced by the play last night, where it's easy to see that the puck went in before the whistle blew.
The NHL does not wish to admit the referee made a mistake.
This official spin is almost as irritating as the initial blown call. Yes, let's take a position that assumes the reader has never seen an NHL game in his life, including the game in which the call was made. The refs almost ALWAYS hesitate for a second or two between losing sight of the puck and blowing the whistle, just to be on the safe side while still protecting the goalie against too much abuse. This happened, oh, maybe ten or so times in last night's game alone. But this time, the ref just HAD to "intend" to blow his whistle the split second he couldn't see the puck. And, mind you, that's about how long the puck would have been out of his sight -- it never was frozen or stationary, but was moving along the goal line the entire time, and there wasn't a big pile-up that could have shielded the puck from view. Please, PLEASE, just take the blame for a split-second decision that turned out to be wrong, rather than explaining to us poor simpletons that this was a shining example of ref-ing at its finest.
I never blame stuff on the refs but come on... that was just a terrible job. I don't know what else to say.
The one blatant call at the end was just a cap on a horribly officiated game. The whole reason we accepted ticky-tack interference calls was so we could give the refs room to call the interference that teams like the Ducks used to make the Trap invincible. They were doing this throughout the whole game, using a cross-check to keep Wings forwards from getting to dumped-in pucks before the Ducks' defenders could move them out of there.
But they won't ever admit it. Unlike other sports, where a confab of officials can help each other get the calls right, the NHL doesn't allow its referees to reverse themselves on judgment calls. That means, if Brad Watson wanted to change his call after he realized he made a game-deciding boner, he couldn't. He couldn't defer to the other referee, or the two linesmen, nor the tens of thousands in the building, the millions who saw it on TV, or even the guys sitting in a Toronto office being paid to do nothing else but watch NHL goals and see if they should be allowed.
It all comes down to this: the NHL is more concerned with being right than getting the call right.
Among North America's big four pro sports, a hockey goal is the most difficult point to come by. A playoff hockey goal even more so. A playoff hockey goal by a team that, despite outperforming its opponent by a wide margin, is scored in the closing minutes to tie the game, is one of those super-uber-duper rare moments that fans remember for a lifetime.
Getting it wrong is akin to football refs erroneously blowing dead a successful Hail Mary. Doing it for something as utterly cheap, as utterly arbitrary, as utterly capricious as the referee's "intent" is straight-up inexcusable.
It is a black mark on the whole game. Played fairly, Marion Hossa scores a magic goal that endears him forever to the fans of one city. Allowed to stand as screwed, it becomes a legendary failure, with all involved getting a piece of stigma for association.
Don't believe me? See how many people -- and hardly just those in Buffalo -- still think about a foot in the crease when they talk about Brett Hull or Dominick Hasek?
THIS, Mr. Bettman, is why your name is spit with a gallon of bile every time it is mentioned in Detroit. THIS is why we think there's a conspiracy against the only franchise in the NHL that will tune in at 1:30 a.m. to watch a game of grab-ass be called "hockey."
This is the third straight playoff series in a row that the Red Wings have had an erroneously disallowed goal, and each time, it has come down to a referee's arbitrary call trumping the video people who confirmed the goal.
And it all comes back to the league officials thinking they, not the players, are the ultimate arbiters of the game.
Basketball has gone like this. It surprises me that for all the complaining of star stats exploded by steroids in baseball, nobody every suggests putting an asterisk next to the gaudy numbers of NBA superstars.
The NHL put in video review, because fans wanted video review. But they don't believe in it. Of those goals I've seen go up for review, I've seen the call on the ice changed maybe once (and that call surprised everyone watching, who believed the refs called it right). But it's times like these -- when the referee had an honest case for being out of position to make a key call that was easy from any other angle -- that they would be best served to trust their cameras. Yet we have this unchallengeable "intent" rule. This rule, in my entire hockey-watching history, has not ONCE been used to protect a goalie from being run, or to save a covered puck from being unfairly dislodged and put past the line. Every time I've come across this rule -- watching most Red Wings games and countless other teams' matches since the mid-'90s -- it has overturned an otherwise good goal.
Going back and whitewashing it for the fans doesn't protect the referees. Think this Watson guy is ever going to live this down? If they ever let him officiate a game in Detroit he'll be lucky if he leaves with only the word "Intend THIS!" keyed into his car. Reverse the call in Toronto and it's a blip in his life -- one referee caught off guard by a quick play who made a bad guess and was overruled by someone with a better view. Now his name is anathema across hockeydom.
To further your point, they put in the intent rule to try and protect goalies from guys poking around for pucks that are underneath or covered by a glove before the whistle goes. But, in the playoffs, who stops poking around before they hear the whistle?
It's ludicrous that the NHL is willing to sacrifice goals (weren't they trying to increase those?) to protect the goalies when they seem perfectly fine with Corey Perry crashing the net and coming down on a goalie's head or another player (I don't remember who) giving a goalie a slap to the back of the head. And those are just examples from last night's game.
If they want to protect the goalies from injury, that's fine, but at least make an effort to address the most dangerous situations first.
Hey. If any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like that ref, Watson, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other referees and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, fore-fleshing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is. Hallelujah. Holy shit. Where's the Tylenol?
Great takes here. Nice to see raw emotion coupled with intelligence.
This series is FAR from over.