|
|
Post by seventeen on May 5, 2006 23:50:50 GMT -5
The Ducks down (I'm too funny) the Avs 5-0. Theo plays well in 1st but obviously plummets to earth in 2nd, giving up 4 goals. Call me "not sorry he's gone".
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 6, 2006 8:02:13 GMT -5
I have a feeling that Coach Murray is none too impressed with his team after last night. Still riding on the press clippings. Blame it on rust. Whatever--that was brutal. TWO shorthanded goals, poor defensive coverage, giveaways galore, and Lalime-like goaltending.
You score 6 goals you should be able to win!
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 6, 2006 10:57:12 GMT -5
I wonder how Brunette's jaw is and if he'll be back for Game 2. Beauchemin hit him just as he was reaching for the puck.....should have been interference. Quenneville was livid and I don't blame him. Plus, it led to the first Duck goal....and then it was all Ducks after that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2006 17:14:36 GMT -5
Devils get smoked 6-0 by Carolina.
Perhaps the Habs weren't so bad, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 6, 2006 18:24:39 GMT -5
Regarding the Hemsky goal, the non-high stick call was the right one as the puck was contacted by Horcoff around chest-height (one replay showed this). I thought Hemsky directed the puck in with his knee though but I couldn't be sure from the replay myself. A high-stick is defined as a stick "above the cross-bar". It does not matter if it goes in the net or not. Once a stick make contact with the puck above the height of the cross-bar the only player allowed to make contact with the puck and play continue is the opposition. Horcoff high-sticked the puck, and it went direct to Hemsky, who scored. Once the ref called it a goal, the highstick was not reviewable. Conversely, if the puck directed off the Detroit player into the net than the high-stick was reviewable. That is my whole beef with the play. Once the ref called it a goal the only reviewable offense was that by the goal scorer, and not how the puck got to him. So the only thing they could hang theior hat on was that he directed into the net, which is rarely called now (unless you wear a CH). As soon as Hemsky touched the puck there should have been a whistle and the face-off in Edmonton's zone. I watched that replay half a dozen times and there is not way that stick was below the cross-bar. NOt even close. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on May 6, 2006 19:16:07 GMT -5
Regarding the Hemsky goal, the non-high stick call was the right one as the puck was contacted by Horcoff around chest-height (one replay showed this). I thought Hemsky directed the puck in with his knee though but I couldn't be sure from the replay myself. A high-stick is defined as a stick "above the cross-bar". It does not matter if it goes in the net or not. Once a stick make contact with the puck above the height of the cross-bar the only player allowed to make contact with the puck and play continue is the opposition. Horcoff high-sticked the puck, and it went direct to Hemsky, who scored. Once the ref called it a goal, the highstick was not reviewable. Conversely, if the puck directed off the Detroit player into the net than the high-stick was reviewable. That is my whole beef with the play. Once the ref called it a goal the only reviewable offense was that by the goal scorer, and not how the puck got to him. So the only thing they could hang theior hat on was that he directed into the net, which is rarely called now (unless you wear a CH). As soon as Hemsky touched the puck there should have been a whistle and the face-off in Edmonton's zone. I watched that replay half a dozen times and there is not way that stick was below the cross-bar. NOt even close. Actually, that is incorrect. According to the NHL rulebook, (Rule 61), the crossbar is the measurement when a goal is scored off of a puck batted out of the air (this is rule 61c). While batting a puck out of midair when not directing it into the goal, the measurement used is the height of the players shoulders (rule 61d). The replay showed by the network clearly showed that the right call was made with regards to the heigh stick, as when Horcoff batted the puck with his downward motion the stick contacted the puck below his shoulders, thus it was a completely legitimate play and should not have been whistled down. Had he batted it and it had gone directly into the net rather than bouncing off of Hemsky the goal would have been overturned. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 6, 2006 22:49:30 GMT -5
A high-stick is defined as a stick "above the cross-bar". It does not matter if it goes in the net or not. Once a stick make contact with the puck above the height of the cross-bar the only player allowed to make contact with the puck and play continue is the opposition. Horcoff high-sticked the puck, and it went direct to Hemsky, who scored. Once the ref called it a goal, the highstick was not reviewable. Conversely, if the puck directed off the Detroit player into the net than the high-stick was reviewable. That is my whole beef with the play. Once the ref called it a goal the only reviewable offense was that by the goal scorer, and not how the puck got to him. So the only thing they could hang theior hat on was that he directed into the net, which is rarely called now (unless you wear a CH). As soon as Hemsky touched the puck there should have been a whistle and the face-off in Edmonton's zone. I watched that replay half a dozen times and there is not way that stick was below the cross-bar. NOt even close. Actually, that is incorrect. According to the NHL rulebook, (Rule 61), the crossbar is the measurement when a goal is scored off of a puck batted out of the air (this is rule 61c). While batting a puck out of midair when not directing it into the goal, the measurement used is the height of the players shoulders (rule 61d). The replay showed by the network clearly showed that the right call was made with regards to the heigh stick, as when Horcoff batted the puck with his downward motion the stick contacted the puck below his shoulders, thus it was a completely legitimate play and should not have been whistled down. Had he batted it and it had gone directly into the net rather than bouncing off of Hemsky the goal would have been overturned. Correct..... But I still think the Wings got ripped. After Hemske shot it, the rebound went up into his midsection and dropped....it never touched his stick again, yet it went in....I think off the forward motion of his leg as he continued to go toward the net. But I guess for the boys in Toronto...it was inconclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on May 6, 2006 23:16:28 GMT -5
Correct..... But I still think the Wings got ripped. After Hemske shot it, the rebound went up into his midsection and dropped....it never touched his stick again, yet it went in....I think off the forward motion of his leg as he continued to go toward the net. But I guess for the boys in Toronto...it was inconclusive. Yeah, I agree with that. I thought he directed it in off his knee myself but I couldn't tell for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 7, 2006 1:23:41 GMT -5
Devils get smoked 6-0 by Carolina. Perhaps the Habs weren't so bad, after all. Yeah, but two lucky goals by Whitney and then 4 PP goals. I don't think Jersey is out of it by any stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 7, 2006 10:46:26 GMT -5
Devils get smoked 6-0 by Carolina. Perhaps the Habs weren't so bad, after all. Yeah, but two lucky goals by Whitney and then 4 PP goals. I don't think Jersey is out of it by any stretch. Yeah, the lucky bounces continue for the Canes. Followed by a 5-on-3 goal and the subsequent 5-on-4 goal. Where have we seen that before? (Game 2...and in the 7-3 game in Carolina) Notice how the second goal went in? Brodeur went to deflect the Whitney's pass out much like Rivet did on Stillman's shot. If the puck hits the blade it deflects away from the net. But the puck hit the heel of the stick and totally fooled Brodeur. Distance means nothing to a goalie in this case....as 999 times out of 1000 Huet and Brodeur are expecting the common result. Really, how many times have we seen goals like the ones Stillman and Whitney scored? Very rare. And how many times have you seen a goalie properly deflect a pass out front and a defenseman deflect a puck into the crowd? Most of the time. The lucky bounces and 3 misssed highsticks (so far) in these playoffs, and the Canes are one charmed team...(so far). |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 7, 2006 12:22:12 GMT -5
I question the phrase "normal" height of shoulders. If Zdeno Chara and Bouillon are side by side and Chara makes contact with the puck "just below" his shoulders, than it is obviously way above Bouillon's shoulders. Also, while I never knew the rule allowed contact above the crossbar, this rule says that contact above the shoulders is prohibited and not that play continues when a puck is contacted above the cross-bar .... the language is hard to decipher ... damn lawyers.  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 7, 2006 18:36:33 GMT -5
Avs in tough with the Ducks....yet to score. 3-0 in Game 2.
Theo had a solid game, and down 3-0, he gave the Avs a chance at a comeback with a couple of good saves on a 5-on-3 and the following 5-on-4 near the end of the second period. Some nice saves in the third as well.
The Ducks don't take a shift off and Bryzgalov, with a few outstanding saves of his own, got his third consecutive playoff shutout.
What really irked me, though, was Pierre McGuire setting up shop at the end of the Anaheim bench.....singing their praises all game long.
I guess since there was no in-between area for him to stand, the Ducks gave NBC permission for him to stand there.
Interesting: Theo avoided reporters after Game 1, saying only, "See me after Game 2."
Wonder what he had to say....
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 7, 2006 20:33:40 GMT -5
Yes, seems to be improving his save percentage, but still not winning. I guess it would help if the Avs would score. Reminds me in a way of Huet. Making good saves, but not stealing a game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 8, 2006 7:55:05 GMT -5
The Ducks down (I'm too funny) the Avs 5-0. Theo plays well in 1st but obviously plummets to earth in 2nd, giving up 4 goals. Call me "not sorry he's gone". Ya, you are too funny. Eider way they win. (works well in Quebec) Her's the one I liked as a big Greek / Aquinas philosophy fan: Bryzgalov hasn't allowed a goal in 229 minutes, 42 seconds, longest ever by an NHL rookie in the post-season, and fourth longest for any goalie. George Hainsworth tops the list with a stretch of 270:08 in 1930. Giguere is sixth on the list with 217:54 scoreless minutes in 2003. Bryzgalov has said reading philosophers such as Socrates and Plato has helped him put things in perspective, and that he feels no pressure in goal because hockey is, after all, a game. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 8, 2006 7:56:40 GMT -5
Devils get smoked 6-0 by Carolina. Perhaps the Habs weren't so bad, after all. Devils...smoked....hahahah |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 8, 2006 8:05:31 GMT -5
Devils get smoked 6-0 by Carolina. Perhaps the Habs weren't so bad, after all. Devils...smoked....hahahah Let's see.. Devils horny for a win.. Devils have tails between their legs.. Devils forked over by Canes... "Hell on earth" says Brodeur Devils burned... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2006 8:23:07 GMT -5
Devils get smoked 6-0 by Carolina. Perhaps the Habs weren't so bad, after all. Devils...smoked....hahahah Let's see.. Devils horny for a win.. Devils have tails between their legs.. Devils forked over by Canes... "Hell on earth" says Brodeur Devils burned... Hell has frozen over? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 8, 2006 9:06:21 GMT -5
The Leafs won the Stanley Cup? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 8, 2006 20:44:49 GMT -5
Yes, seems to be improving his save percentage, but still not winning. I guess it would help if the Avs would score. Reminds me in a way of Huet. Making good saves, but not stealing a game. So if Theo stood on his head and the Ducks were never to score the series would still be 0-0 and we'd still be in OT for game #1. Theo can't score, how exactly does a goaltender steal a game if his team doesn't score? If anything this reminds me of the Habs when Theo was here. We couldn't score for him in the playoffs either. We relied way too much on the goalie having to steal the game , and we score 1 ::)or no goals in the games and expect to win. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 8, 2006 21:35:52 GMT -5
Yes, seems to be improving his save percentage, but still not winning. I guess it would help if the Avs would score. Reminds me in a way of Huet. Making good saves, but not stealing a game. So if Theo stood on his head and the Ducks were never to score the series would still be 0-0 and we'd still be in OT for game #1. Theo can't score, how exactly does a goaltender steal a game if his team doesn't score? If anything this reminds me of the Habs when Theo was here. We couldn't score for him in the playoffs either. We relied way too much on the goalie having to steal the game , and we score 1 ::)or no goals in the games and expect to win. Skilly, I'm sliding over to your side of centre....... I see what you mean now, although Theodore was really stinking it up at the end of his tenure in Montreal. We saw the same phenomenon this year with Huet. He saved the season, much like Theo did in 2002, and got us into the playoffs. After scoring 12 goals in the first two games, 9 of them on Gerber who was absolutely horrid, we got only 5 goals in the last 4 games.....are you kidding me? 1.25 goals per game. Ward was good....but we had plenty of PPs that were a joke. Full marks to Carolina who pressured us....but still... We take solace in the fact that we were better 5-on-5......bah......yes the officiating was crap....but our scorers stopped producing.....and Carolina is still playing. The only difference is that Huet has yet to have a meltdown.....and if we don't get some consistent goal support, we may see a meltdown no matter who's in net. Prime example this year...Calgary. Kiprusoff will likely win the Vezina in posting great numbers and stealing many games throughout the season. The Flames continued their low-scoring ways vs. Anaheim and Kiprusoff ran out of miracles. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 8, 2006 21:41:43 GMT -5
Devils...smoked....hahahah Let's see.. Devils horny for a win.. Devils have tails between their legs.. Devils forked over by Canes... "Hell on earth" says Brodeur Devils burned... Hell has frozen over? That's got a funny je ne sais pas about it. I like it. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 8, 2006 21:42:32 GMT -5
The Leafs won the Stanley Cup? Even funnier! heyheh good one Franko. heh hehheh |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 8, 2006 21:45:20 GMT -5
Buffalo now up 2-0 over Ottawa.
I don't know why everybody's surprised. Miller is a great goalie....and the Sabres finished just 3 points back of the Sens. The shots were lopsided tonight, but great goaltending will steal you a game.
If Ottawa continues to outshoot and outchance the Sabres, the Sens could very well tie it up in Buffalo.
Meanwhile....the Devils were leading 2-1 when Staal scored with 3 seconds left in the third to force OT. I don't usually agree with Healy, but I did this time....basically he said, "You've got a chance for a split with just seconds remaining....do you let people stand around and take shots....no...you grab, you tackle....do not give them a chance to tie it. So you take a penalty....there's 5 seconds left."
And, of course, Wallin scores in OT to give Carolina a 2-0 lead. They seemed more than just a bit charmed in these playoffs, don't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 8, 2006 21:49:55 GMT -5
So if Theo stood on his head and the Ducks were never to score the series would still be 0-0 and we'd still be in OT for game #1. Theo can't score, how exactly does a goaltender steal a game if his team doesn't score? If anything this reminds me of the Habs when Theo was here. We couldn't score for him in the playoffs either. We relied way too much on the goalie having to steal the game , and we score 1 ::)or no goals in the games and expect to win. Skilly, I'm sliding over to your side of centre....... I see what you mean now, although Theodore was really stinking it up at the end of his tenure in Montreal. We saw the same phenomenon this year with Huet. He saved the season, much like Theo did in 2002, and got us into the playoffs. After scoring 12 goals in the first two games, 9 of them on Gerber who was absolutely horrid, we got only 5 goals in the last 4 games.....are you kidding me? 1.25 goals per game. Ward was good....but we had plenty of PPs that were a joke. Full marks to Carolina who pressured us....but still... We take solace in the fact that we were better 5-on-5......bah......yes the officiating was crap....but our scorers stopped producing.....and Carolina is still playing. The only difference is that Huet has yet to have a meltdown.....and if we don't get some consistent goal support, we may see a meltdown no matter who's in net. Prime example this year...Calgary. Kiprusoff will likely win the Vezina in posting great numbers and stealing many games throughout the season. The Flames continued their low-scoring ways vs. Anaheim and Kiprusoff ran out of miracles. Yabutt Abott....I think we were winning game 3, till the Saku eye poke, and that was our first game not scoring against them. After that all bets were off, n'est ce pas? Does anyone win without goalie gallumping them.? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 8, 2006 22:25:28 GMT -5
Skilly, I'm sliding over to your side of centre....... I see what you mean now, although Theodore was really stinking it up at the end of his tenure in Montreal. We saw the same phenomenon this year with Huet. He saved the season, much like Theo did in 2002, and got us into the playoffs. After scoring 12 goals in the first two games, 9 of them on Gerber who was absolutely horrid, we got only 5 goals in the last 4 games.....are you kidding me? 1.25 goals per game. Ward was good....but we had plenty of PPs that were a joke. Full marks to Carolina who pressured us....but still... We take solace in the fact that we were better 5-on-5......bah......yes the officiating was crap....but our scorers stopped producing.....and Carolina is still playing. The only difference is that Huet has yet to have a meltdown.....and if we don't get some consistent goal support, we may see a meltdown no matter who's in net. Prime example this year...Calgary. Kiprusoff will likely win the Vezina in posting great numbers and stealing many games throughout the season. The Flames continued their low-scoring ways vs. Anaheim and Kiprusoff ran out of miracles. Yabutt Abott....I think we were winning game 3, till the Saku eye poke, and that was our first game not scoring against them. After that all bets were off, n'est ce pas? Does anyone win without goalie gallumping them.? Our scoring outburst in the first two games was more a result of Gerber's porosity. Ward was better by far....but we still managed 3 on him to come back and win Game 2 in OT. If the loss of Koivu made "all bets off" for our other scorers....then we're in bigger trouble than anyone thought. I don't know what you mean by your last statement. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 9, 2006 10:19:42 GMT -5
Yabutt Abott....I think we were winning game 3, till the Saku eye poke, and that was our first game not scoring against them. After that all bets were off, n'est ce pas? Does anyone win without goalie gallumping them.? Our scoring outburst in the first two games was more a result of Gerber's porosity. Ward was better by far....but we still managed 3 on him to come back and win Game 2 in OT. If the loss of Koivu made "all bets off" for our other scorers....then we're in bigger trouble than anyone thought. I don't know what you mean by your last statement. I don't know what my last statement means either (eider). I was referring to the goalie factor as usually critical in playoff hockey. We coiuld have come around, and did largely from the Koivu injury, but this was no simple injury. This was Canada-wide news: potentially career ending, and as BG said, goes to the "person". It wasn't just a logistical temporary problem. Too true and too easy to overlook Gerber's baby food for our shooters. Other than the CannOt series opener most games are really very tight defensive battles. We coulda bin sumbaddy, we coulda bin a contenda I tells ya. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 9, 2006 22:21:49 GMT -5
And, of course, Wallin scores in OT to give Carolina a 2-0 lead. They seemed more than just a bit charmed in these playoffs, don't they? Does the vision of a cacophony of horseshoes bursting up a dark hole come to mind? |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 9, 2006 22:24:45 GMT -5
4-3 Ducks over Avs in O/T. Theo played well, got beat on a shot that hit a stick and slowed down, going 5 hole. Tough luck, still a loss...  |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on May 9, 2006 22:38:42 GMT -5
4-3 Ducks over Avs in O/T. Theo played well, got beat on a shot that hit a stick and slowed down, going 5 hole. Tough luck, still a loss... Too bad his old buddy Breezer gave that horrible give away to ruin a nice performance by Theo. Kudos to Lupul's four goals. That is one heck of a performance. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 9, 2006 22:42:49 GMT -5
4-3 Ducks over Avs in O/T. Theo played well, got beat on a shot that hit a stick and slowed down, going 5 hole. Tough luck, still a loss... Theo made 2 highlight reel saves and several solid ones in regulation time....and two more game savers in OT. Goals 2 and 3 by Lupul (he got all 4...what a game for him) were high glove side....it's been Theo's weakness all year. The Avs bailed him out of those with a Rob Blake blast to tie it at 3. It would have been over without Theo's heroics by that time anyway. What was Brisebois thinking in OT? He passed the puck cross-ice in his own zone...right onto the stick of Penner....backpass to Lupul, who said after the game that he was going 5-hole.....regardless it hit an Av stick and slowed down....through the 5-hole. And unless the Avs can pull off a 42 Leafs or a 75 Islanders 0-3 comeback.... Brisebois is going to be ripped to shreds for this one. |
|
