Friday, April 11, 2008

2008 Playoffs: Round 1, Day 2

Four games, four stories.

A bit of controversy in Motown over the Red Wings' game winner:
The controversy over the game-winning goal centered around whether an attempted clear by Predators defenseman Shea Weber hit linesman Pierre Champoux at the blue line or outside the blue line.

Television replays left little doubt that the puck hit Champoux, but apparently he told the Predators otherwise.

"He denied everything," goalie Dan Ellis said. "What a beauty. He said he didn't have any contact with it. But it is what is. You can't do anything about it."
It's never good to have officials interfere with the play and have it result in a goal, a situation that the league could look into perhaps.

The interesting part?
The goal was reviewed at the NHL office in Toronto, where it was determined that the puck did hit the linesman, but did not cross the blue line.
A video review for an offside call? I can't say I've heard of that one before.

And speaking of Ellis, I think it's time the guy finally got some credit. He had another terrific game here and led the league in save percentage this season.

The Preds were 23-10-3 with him in goal during the year.

The Dallas Morning News, meanwhile, says the Ducks were turned "into dodos" yesterday after taking 10 (!) penalties in the first two periods. The Stars won with four power-play goals.

Eric Duhatschek has all you need to know on the lopsided Game 2 in the Calgary-San Jose series:
In the second period of the second game of their Western Conference playoff series Thursday night, the San Jose Sharks outshot the Calgary Flames 27-3.
Blame Kiprusoff?

And the Kostitsyn brothers had a nice coming-out party yesterday in Montreal.

All of the talk about how the Bruins would come out tough and lock things down went out the window two minutes in, as both Belarussians scored.

It didn't help that Habs fans were bringing the house down:
"The crowd's so loud, he couldn't hear me yell, 'screen,' " said [Boston netminder Tim] Thomas. "So I never saw the puck until he stuck his foot out."
"They came out," said Mark Stuart, "and did exactly what we wanted to do."
Good stuff.


At 10:02 a.m., April 11, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The NHL did review a goal scored by the Islanders Bill Gurein this year to determine if it were offsides(possibly a two line pass/icing. The rule book doesn't matter in the NHL head offices. They review what they want, when they want, and then release the memo after all is said and done. - Hockey1919

At 11:09 a.m., April 11, 2008, Blogger Doogie said...

There were apparently concerns regarding the Habs' ability to outscore at EV, given their reliance on their PP.

Final score at EV last night: 4-1 MTL.

So far, so good.

At 11:28 a.m., April 11, 2008, Blogger Chemmy said...

27-3 good lord. Looks like the Sharks don't fancy being upset.

At 11:34 a.m., April 11, 2008, Blogger YzermanZetterberg said...

RE: The "controversial goal" for the Wings -- I thought the puck hit Champoux (great name) while he was still at the blue line. Either way, though, I can't figure out why they felt a need to review the play. After all, on "The NHL Hour" the other day, Gary Bettman claimed that the strength of the league's goal review system is that they don't review extraneous stuff like that.

RE: Calgary being outshot so badly in the 2nd period -- Just a guess, but perhaps it had something to do with the six consecutive penalties against them.

At 12:15 p.m., April 11, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's an important distinction between reviewing ingame in order to (possibly) overturn bad calls, and reviewing after the game for the purpose of determining whether or not correct calls were made.

There are lots of things that you might review outside the flow of the game in order to judge how well your officials are doing their jobs, but not during a game. It's fairly common in the NFL.

At 12:16 p.m., April 11, 2008, Blogger Adam C said...

Did they review the goal with the consideration of overturning the call, or did they review it because they were curious and released a statement only because their conclusions were the same as the referees'?

Lack of discipline is a problem for the Flames.

At 12:17 p.m., April 11, 2008, Blogger Adam C said...

Yeah, um, what he/she said.

At 12:31 p.m., April 11, 2008, Blogger BDH said...

was anyone else's Versus coverage of the Wing vs. Preds game seriously messed up last night? Mine kept freezing, or hesitating really, and at one point Babcock was interviewed and the audio was like 5 seconds off.

At 1:14 p.m., April 11, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the Islander game they went to the scorers table for a verdict from upstairs so that would put it as in game review versus post game performance analysis. - Hockey1919

At 1:39 p.m., April 11, 2008, Blogger The Forechecker said...

I'm a little surprised that there's no discussion of suspension for Kronwall's hit on Rich Peverley in the 3rd period last night. He left his feet and nailed Peverley right in the head, two of the main criteria for dishing out a suspension.

I suspect the real reason it's not being reviewed is that Peverley got up and went right back to playing hockey; if he had lain flat for a minute and waited for a trainer, perhaps Colin Campbell might have noticed.

At 1:46 p.m., April 11, 2008, Anonymous PPP said...

There were apparently concerns regarding the Habs' ability to outscore at EV, given their reliance on their PP.

Valid concerns considering their scoring breakdown was as follows:

EV: 154 / 59.9%
PP: 89 / 34.6%
SH: 7 / 2.7%
EN: 6 / 2.3%
PS: 1 / 0.4%

That's a pretty hefty chunk of the offence dependent on being a man up. It probably won't hurt them against the Bruins who look set to fold up tent after 3 more losses in a row but it will in the next round.

God willing.

At 2:11 p.m., April 11, 2008, Anonymous Chris said...

On the Forechecker: B/C the hit wasn't dirty, that's why. I don't even think their should be a penalty on it.

At 3:08 p.m., April 11, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Habs' 148 5-on-5 goals (as opposed to even-strength) are a pretty respectable total. Not dominant, but ninth in the league and 6th among playoff teams.

Next round? Too soon to say. I'd only really worry about scoring drying up against the Rangers.

At 4:11 p.m., April 11, 2008, Blogger Costa said...

"On the Forechecker: B/C the hit wasn't dirty, that's why. I don't even think their should be a penalty on it."

I'm no expert, but from what I saw, he did indeed leave his feet and hit him in the head. Aren't those offenses both supposed to be punishable by suspension?


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker