I guess two possible sweeps featuring two completely dominating teams is just not exciting enough. Gotta make it look like one of them had a one in a million chance to win the series.
Kudos to Dallas for finally doing some things right. When you're given all the chances to win and you capitalize on a few of them it really gives you the advantage but to keep Detroit down (with some help from the officiating) is something to commend.
So a goal that didn't affect the outcome of the game gets called when it shouldn't have is being compared to a goal that definitely changed momentum of the game and the outlook of the game that wasn't called. And where did Holmstrom knock into Turco to impede movement. Just because the guy is in the crease doesn't mean it is a penalty.
Here's my little thing: WHY IS THAT CALL NOT REVIEWABLE?
If a ref is going to call someone (and I would understand giving Holmstrom less lee-way) like that, you better be damn sure he interfered with the goaltender, cause you can't take it back.
That said, I think Dallas did a hell of a job with their breaks. They were able to take that non-goal and turn it into a momentum shift for that. They got open in a perfect spot without getting pressure from the defense (wtf Rafalski) and were able to put the icing on the cake.
End of the game comment: Homer should have beat the **** out of whoever piled on top of him in those final seconds. That is pathetic.
you need to get it through your head that player doesn't have to touch a goaltender to be called for interference, if you stand in front of a goaltender blocking his path to the top of the crease that is interference.
you need to get it through your head that player doesn't have to touch a goaltender to be called for interference, if you stand in front of a goaltender blocking his path to the top of the crease that is interference.
Which will call off a goal but not initiate a penalty.
Quote:
If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all cases in which an attacking player initiates other than incidental contact with a goalkeeper, whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease, and whether or not a goal is scored, the offensive player will receive a penalty (minor or major, as the Referee deems appropriate). See also
What Holmstrom does cannot warrant a penalty, only a disallowed goal. He does not run the goalie, or hit the goalie, he gets in front of the goalie and as close as possible to provide a screen.
Here's a gem.
Quote:
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
(NOTE) For this purpose, a player "establishes a significant position within the crease" when, in the Referee's judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.
Which will call off a goal but not initiate a penalty.
What Holmstrom does cannot warrant a penalty, only a disallowed goal. He does not run the goalie, or hit the goalie, he gets in front of the goalie and as close as possible to provide a screen.
and thats where the all was missed in game 1, and where the call was made improperly in game 4. and to say that the goal in game one had no effect on the games outcome is a little presumptuous.
and thats where the all was missed in game 1, and where the call was made improperly in game 4. and to say that the goal in game one had no effect on the games outcome is a little presumptuous.
I would gladly trade goals.
Personally, I can understand refs missing calls and whatnot, but why not make it reviewable? The old crease rule was, so why not this?
I agree these type of rules should be re-viewable.
Either way, I think regardless of missed calls and whatnot, the Stars played very well and I gotta give them my dues for a job well done. Even if Morrow's final goal made my blood boil.
Badat, why don't you just start your own thread where you can talk about game 1 all day long. That non call had very little impact on the game anyways, but its over. I don't know, maybe you'll find someone who would like to discuss it with you. I on the other hand prefer to move on. GO WINGS.
By burning down your home and replacing it with a flimsy plywood shack.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by the flying moose
so Pronger should have manned up and fought Kesler or laid him out with a big hit later in the game. retaliation by stomping on someone is cowardly. its not like Pronger isn't a big guy and can't stand up for himself.
If he could stand up for himself he'd still be in Edmonton.
Badat, why don't you just start your own thread where you can talk about game 1 all day long. That non call had very little impact on the game anyways, but its over. I don't know, maybe you'll find someone who would like to discuss it with you. I on the other hand prefer to move on. GO WINGS.
and why don't you go to another forum sign up make one post so you can complain about somebodies opinion?
Western Conference Finals: Detroit vs. Dallas
Linear Mode
