View Poll Results: Who will win the Western Conference Finals?

**flyerfan2** · 05-09-2008, 09:42 AM

Man that was some brutal reffing. The call on fistric gave the wings early momentum along with the goal while the swedish turtle was clearly in the crease of his own free will.

Yes the wings still controlled most of this game but one can only wonder what if , if not for these two blatant bad calls.

There was also a blown icing call that set up another goal so the wings can thank the refs and linesmen for the early momentum that drasticly changed the course of this game.

Brutal when so much is on the line and one team favors from all the blown missed calls.

Garb · 05-09-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyerfan2

Man that was some brutal reffing. The call on fistric gave the wings early momentum along with the goal while the swedish turtle was clearly in the crease of his own free will.

1. No one has shown that punching someone in the face is not a penalty.

2. And didn't affect Turco's ability to make the save. HE didn't get touched, and he was able to move of his own free will. Being in the crease does not automatically disallow the goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyerfan2

There was also a blown icing call that set up another goal so the wings can thank the refs and linesmen for the early momentum that drasticly changed the course of this game.

Where was this?

**flyerfan2** · 05-09-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garb

Quote:

1. No one has shown that punching someone in the face is not a penalty.

Theres a difference between a punch and a glove to the face, No matter how you try and defend it it was a weak brutal call.

2.

Quote:

And didn't affect Turco's ability to make the save. HE didn't get touched, and he was able to move of his own free will. Being in the crease does not automatically disallow the goal.

You making up your own rules on this one.?? Ya need to re read the rule then you'll understand it.

Where was this?

First period icing call against the stars that shouldn't have been as Lidstrom clearly touched the puck in between the blue lines.

**wingsnut19** · 05-09-2008, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyerfan2

Man that was some brutal reffing. The call on fistric gave the wings early momentum along with the goal while the swedish turtle was clearly in the crease of his own free will.

Yes the wings still controlled most of this game but one can only wonder what if , if not for these two blatant bad calls.

There was also a blown icing call that set up another goal so the wings can thank the refs and linesmen for the early momentum that drasticly changed the course of this game.

Brutal when so much is on the line and one team favors from all the blown missed calls.

With Fistric, they've set that precedent in nearly every Wings game, and believe it or not the Wings have been called on it too. Detroit was playing better than the Stars right away; they didn't need the refs to help them win.

Garb · 05-10-2008, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyerfan2

First period icing call against the stars that shouldn't have been as Lidstrom clearly touched the puck in between the blue lines.

Didn't see that.

On Turco, being in the crease does not disallow a goal. Impeding Turco's movement does, but Turco backed up BY HIMSELF and had enough room on his right side to stop it. He wasn't kept from going side to side, he wasn't knocked over, and he wasn't touched. He is allowed to push Holmstrom out of the crease and if that causes a goal, it will be disallowed. I've read the rulebook on it.

Badat · 05-10-2008, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garb

Didn't see that.

On Turco, being in the crease does not disallow a goal. Impeding Turco's movement does, but Turco backed up BY HIMSELF and had enough room on his right side to stop it. He wasn't kept from going side to side, he wasn't knocked over, and he wasn't touched. He is allowed to push Holmstrom out of the crease and if that causes a goal, it will be disallowed. I've read the rulebook on it.

Being in the crease so a goaltender can't move forward is impeding his movment, and holmstrom was clearly in the crease and backed into it forcing turco to move back. You say Turco can take swings at him or shove him, yet if he does that he can get called for interference which would obviously help his team alot.

No it was a blatent missed call that is spelled out in the rule book. Saying its based on where is feet are stupid, by that definition you could stick your elbows or do a standing sit position like holmstrom but even more so to get your body in the crease but as long as your feet are out your safe.

Garb · 05-10-2008, 02:27 AM

How about we forget the whole Holmstrom penalty mumbo jumbo.

Here's the real question: Did it matter in terms of the Stars play against Detroit? Did Detroit need that to be a goal to be a force in this game?

Badat · 05-10-2008, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garb

How about we forget the whole Holmstrom penalty mumbo jumbo.

Here's the real question: Did it matter in terms of the Stars play against Detroit? Did Detroit need that to be a goal to be a force in this game?

No what really matter was the brutal call that gave the wings a 5-3 they shouldn't have gotten.

Garb · 05-10-2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badat

No what really matter was the brutal call that gave the wings a 5-3 they shouldn't have gotten.

I think Ott deserved a penalty much more than whoever else they put in there.

Was it a good penalty for the situation: Probably not?
Was it a legitimate penalty: I seem to think Ott's was. Why would he do something as stupid as pummell a guy 10 feet away from your goalie?