Thursday, May 15, 2008

Stars finally win one

Western Conference final
(1
) Detroit v. (5) Dallas
Red Wings lead series 3-1
Modano, the former Stars captain, ensured his team would live to play another day. In a game when the Detroit Red Wings had a second-period goal disallowed because of a goaltender interference call, Modano's third-period power-play goal broke a 1-1 tie and led the Stars to a 3-1 victory over the Red Wings last night, staving off elimination for another game at least.
We have a series?

The pertinent play in this one? Well, I'll let someone else explain it: "What do you want me to say?" Red Wings coach Mike Babcock said. "The guy's not in the paint? The guy's out of the paint. That was a reputation call totally. It's disappointing.

"The way I look at it is this: In the league, there's lots that goes on, on the ice. Sometimes a guy gets tripped and you miss it. Some times, things go wrong and you miss it. Just don't make stuff up, that's all. Kelly Sutherland's a good referee. He just blew the call. That's life."

Horrible call. Then again, the Stars were much better in this one, more like the team that made it to this point, so maybe, if they can win in Detroit for the first time in who knows how long, there'll be some semblance of a conference final.

We'll see.
.

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

At 8:05 AM, May 15, 2008, Blogger Frequent Reader said...

I love this blog, thanks for sharing.
- George Ya76oo

 
At 10:02 AM, May 15, 2008, Blogger Leather McWhip said...

Definitely a blown call. But as many have mentioned, and will no doubt continue to mention, Holmstrom was in the paint and interfered with Turco earlier in the series. If that missed play had resulted in a correct no-goal call at the time, then who knows where we'd be, who knows how that would have altered either team's momentum at that particular juncture of the game and the series. Maybe the series would be returning to Detroit all tied up.

A lot of maybes, I know. My only point is that Babcock and Detroit have no business talking about the blown call unless they simultaneously recognize that they've been just as fortunate as Dallas was last night, and arguably more fortunate when considering at what point in the series each call came.

 
At 10:26 AM, May 15, 2008, Blogger saskhab said...

Holmstrom has gotten a LOT of leeway for his crease crashing. While he did nothing wrong on that play, he's gotten away with a lot of goaltender contact and I'd like to see that kind of play stopped. This playoffs has seen a lot of goaltnender contact go uncalled... glad to see the refs remembered they're supposed to look out for that. For a while, I thought this was one of the new ways the NHL was exploring to increase offence.

 
At 10:38 AM, May 15, 2008, Blogger rickibear said...

Rule 78- Protection of the Goal Keeper.:

""Section A:Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; ""

""Section D: If (i) a goalkeeper initiates contact with an offensive player who is in the goal crease; and (ii) such contact is (a) initiated by the goalkeeper in order to establish position in his goal crease; and (b) results in an impairment of the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.""

""For purposes of this rule, "contact", whether incidental or otherwise, shall mean any contact that is made between or among a goalkeeper and attacking player(s), whether by means of a stick or any part of the body."

Any part of the body! No mention of feet in the crease as part of the rule.

Clearly both sections deal with preveting a goaltender from getting into proper position. Its about goaltender positioning!

These two sections clearly give the Refs a wide birth in diallowing a goal.

1/2" of Holstroms ass was in the crease from the top view. As Turco slide over clearly holmstrom's position affected his attempt to stop the puck. If his ass (part of his body)had not been in the crease it would have been a good goal.

Read your rules before you questions the the quality of a refs call.

http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule78.html

 
At 11:01 AM, May 15, 2008, Blogger Nick said...

You dallas defenders are funny. can't you just admit it was a bs call but admit that you'll take the win anyway?

The refs won't help you steal all the games, good luck winning the next 3 in a row.

 
At 11:03 AM, May 15, 2008, Blogger James Mirtle said...

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would defend that call. Can anyone point out an instance from during the year, all 1,230 games of it, when a goal was called off for something similar?

 
At 11:10 AM, May 15, 2008, Blogger poploser said...

Is there anything worse than a fan who will blindly justify everything in his or her team's favor, no matter how obvious the evidence?

Regardless, James, do you know the stat of teams that are down 3-0, win Game 4, and then lose Game 5? It always *seems* to me that it works that way but I have no evidence and could easily be wrong.

 
At 11:11 AM, May 15, 2008, Blogger Hallock said...

Dallas was indeed guilty of a bad call the other way earlier in the series--one which was clearly goaltender interference.

However, the playoffs should not be an exchange of bad calls, where one team gets one and then as a trade off the other team gets one.

The call was not appropriate, even given those definitions. The overhead angle showed that Holmstrom was not in the crease or touching Turco, thus not preventing his positioning. If it was entirely about prevention of positioning, any encroachment into the blue paint could be viewed as interference, being that it prevents the goalie from getting to that spot of the crease.

I disagree about his back-end, it looked like it could have been on the line but it was definitely not impairing Turco, who was already down for the save.

It was a miserable call, accept it and move on.

 
At 11:15 AM, May 15, 2008, Blogger saskhab said...

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would defend that call. Can anyone point out an instance from during the year, all 1,230 games of it, when a goal was called off for something similar?

Not of the top of my head, but I can think of plenty of goals that were allowed in spite of violations of the rule listed above.... and if that rule were actually enforced, Tomas Homlstrom would probably have about 8-10 less goals a season (not to mention how many fewer PP goals Detroit would have).

But yes, in this instance, Homstrom did nothing wrong. Of course, the previous shift, when Detroit missed the net by an inch, he knocked Turco over and there was no call. Call it a make up call.

 
At 1:29 PM, May 15, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

However, the playoffs should not be an exchange of bad calls, where one team gets one and then as a trade off the other team gets one.

Completely agree, especially with a makeup coming days later. Is a bad call in an overtime of a game seven okay if it is a makeup call for a clear error in the third game of the series?

It looks like the league realized that their major broadcast partner was in danger of nat having a game on the weekend, and decided to take action to make sure at least they would have something on Saturday.

 
At 1:56 PM, May 15, 2008, Blogger Jenlo said...

That goal ended up being good for my team, but I'll openly admit it was the wrong call. It probably was a make up call from previous probems with Holmstrom crashing the net, but what are you going to do? It happened, nothing left to do but move on.

Surely we're all used to the inconsistancy of the refs by now? I wish it wasn't that way, but sadly it is.

 
At 1:57 PM, May 15, 2008, Blogger saskhab said...

Completely agree, especially with a makeup coming days later. Is a bad call in an overtime of a game seven okay if it is a makeup call for a clear error in the third game of the series?

There is no evidence to suggest it actually was a makeup call, and if it was, I suggest it's not from Game 1, but from Holmstrom's previous shift when he knocked Turco over and the Red Wings almost scored as a result.

In case you're wondering, the phrase "call it a makeup call" isn't a justification or explaination, but essentially is another way of saying "shit happens."

 
At 2:00 PM, May 15, 2008, Blogger Joe said...

WHY IS NO ONE POINTING OUT THAT ERIKSSON SCORED HIS GOAL WHILE STANDING ALMOST COMPLETELY IN THE CREASE? Seriously, Lou Eriksson was standing almost completely in the crease on Dallas' first goal. The Holmstrom call was absolutely inexcusable in the first place, but then, when you have very very clearly set the interpretation of goaltender interference as someone being in the crease, whether or not they are making contact with the goalie, you have to stick to that interpretation for 60 minutes. These refs couldn't even do that, because after the botched call on Holmstrom, they let Eriksson's goal stand, when he is almost completely standing in the crease. Not only that, but I'm fairly sure that Steve Ott was in the crease when he set up the screen for the third Dallas goal by Morrow. What the hell?

The Holmstrom play was absolutely horrid, but to not even be able to stick to the same retarded (and incorrect) rule interpretations is just plain awful. The Wings got absolutely screwed on at least two goals last night.

 
At 2:21 PM, May 15, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe, because comparing those two plays are apples and oranges. Yes, the no goal call on Holmstrom was bad, but within the same goalie interference rule is the technicality that the ref called off the goal on. It reads:

"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."

That was the call, and, again, I believe it was an incorrect one. Where did Eriksson screen Osgood? Or is it possible Eriksson screened Osgood from his side, kind of like how Osgood confuses getting hit in the back when it was clearly on his chest?

 
At 2:23 PM, May 15, 2008, Blogger The Gate To The Groin For Yannick Bertrand said...

Tough break for the Wings! Some times the refs make the right calls, sometimes they don't! The Stars have the momentum now! If they can pull out a win on the road in game five, watch out!

/Today's ESPN Feature Comment, probably

 
At 8:11 PM, May 15, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can the NHL be considered a serious sports league when its on-ice officials miss obvious infractions such as Holmstrom's crease-clearing only to call off a goal on Holmstrom's phantom interference?

One can only conclude that the league and its officials are making up the entire rulebook on the fly.

The integrity of the NHL's playoff results took a fatal beating when DAL was awarded the Cup on Brett Hull's obvious illegal skate in the crease v BUF. Every officiating controversy that comes after that is a mere trifle by comparison.

And I don't cheer for or hate DAL. Nor am I a Red Wings fan. I'm agnostic. But if I want to watch fake sports, wrestling is on somewhere.

 
At 2:44 AM, May 16, 2008, Blogger rickibear said...

Nick: An oiler Fan Despise Dallas.

James: I do like to read the rules before I call bull shit. After seeing the Mcgeouh hand pass call in Edmonton, I understand the leagues aproach: Do what ever and apology only when it is against the rules.

//I can't believe anyone in their right mind would defend that call. Can anyone point out an instance from during the year, all 1,230 games of it, when a goal was called off for something similar?//

1. When has the league ever been consistent. (see pronger/simon). This league is not about consistancy. Has anyone come out of the league and said it was the wrong call.
Oh wait! Didn't the league tell Lidstrom something: "Lidstrom said he was told by two officials that Holmstrom's rear end got in the way."

2. The rules say the call is correct.
"I couldn't move freely to make that save on the shot," Turco said. "I really don't think it's a bad call."
Go back to SectionA of the rule, It says "positioning or contact" and "impairs... ability to move in crease."

3. Detroit take your three wins shut the up and go home and win game 5.

The real travisty in the whole situation: Kelly Sutherland's reputation has been harmed by an idiot coach whom doesn't even know the rules.

With the call being in the realm of the rules, I am surprised Babcock was not fined or suspended for his comments.

 
At 4:57 PM, May 16, 2008, Blogger Nick said...

Thank you for clearing that up, I see now that you are not an overly zealous Dallas fan but instead an overly pedantic edmonton fan.

Were you complaining about every other goal that Ryan Smyth scored because he was too close to the opposing teams goalie?

 
At 9:31 PM, May 16, 2008, Blogger rickibear said...

No just played physical sports up to and including for my country. Nothing I hate more than a rule that is not followed.

But all of the people commenting thought process is nice. Duh They didn't call me all the other times I cheated so they should not have done it now.

RE: Ryan Smyth he was constantly looking back to see if he was clear of the crease. He knew the rules. I have seen goals called back for the same thing when he is in front.

 
At 9:38 PM, May 16, 2008, Blogger rickibear said...

Love to see you as a parent! Now remember son cheat until they call you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


.

Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker