Red Wings

[froot loops]

For all I know it is the intent to blow the whistle, but I've never heard that explanation in many years of watching the NHL until now. It has a Mike Pereira feel to it.

[DanO]

I've actually heard that explanation used before.

GO LIONS "09" !!!!!!!!!

[The Cat]

Deac. that is the best.

And I agree with others who say move on. The ref lost sight of the puck therefore he blew the whistle. I think the bigger controversy has been whether the puck was in before the whistle was blown. Either way it's a mistake by a guy trying to ref the fastest game in major league sports. Could easily happen to anyone. It's best, (apologies to you Gonz) to sit back and watch the wings win by three tonight.

[Tom]

I have also heard the "intent to blow the whistle" explanation before. Some friends and I at work were laughing about how ridiculous it is but I have heard it before.

[nhwbrooklyn]

I agree it was a bad (missed) call by the ref. Not the real problem for the Wings, however. They are simply being outskated by the Ducks.

I would say the wings were skating better then the ducks that last game. Just Hiller was on point for the ducks.

[Malto Marko]

Funny thing about the NHL trying to school the viewing public that the intent to blow the whistle and not the actual whistle itself has a curious CYA aspect to it. And the league has credibility issues in regards to this sort of stuff. I've watched hockey for 30 years and have never heard that explanation on a broadcast, not once. The whistle has always been emphasized. Its play to the whistle, the whistle signifies an end to the play.

I bring this credibility issue up because they do trot out these explanations like they are making up crap on the fly, like they did for the Brett Hull explanation on the Stanley Cup game winning goal. They claimed there was a vote before the playoffs on a rule change about possession of the puck nullifying the crease rule or some nonsense like that.

Sure the Wings were outplayed in the first period, but not by a whole lot. Yep, the big scorers need to do more, thats a given. But this is playoff hockey where they swallow the whistle and allow a lot of nonsense to go on. If you are expecting the big scorers to start shining, you might be disappointied. They have to get garbage goals. Start blatantly running Hiller, thats the way the playoffs roll in the NHL.

Hmmmm. I have been watching hockey for a year or two but, I am not sure what you are talking about the Bret Hull explanation on the Stanley Cup game winning goal.

It does seem to me as well that the timing of the whistle has always been the determining factor. Seattle Lions Fan mentioned the same thing.

The Officials control the whistles. The whistles control the game. All Officials in every sport have a control they use to justify their call.

For all I know it is the intent to blow the whistle, but I've never heard that explanation in many years of watching the NHL until now. It has a Mike Pereira feel to it.

Sometimes the intent to whistle is impeded from the act of defending yourself as an Official needs to bring his hand to his mouth to blow the whistle. If you are putting your hands in front of yourself to protect your head or other body parts, you can not blow a whistle.

This is the difference between intent and ability.

[Tom]

"Hmmmm. I have been watching hockey for a year or two but, I am not sure what you are talking about the Bret Hull explanation on the Stanley Cup game winning goal."

During the 98-99 regular season, the NHL had a rule that stated if any part of an opposing player's body was in the crease, no goal would be allowed. In the Finals, in the last game against Buffalo, Brett Hull scored the series clinching goal while his skate was in the crease. When the NHL was questioned about the clear violation of the rules, they said something about sending around a memo before the playoffs stating that it was okay if a player was in the crease as long as they were not touching the goalie. It was very suspect but as usual, the NHL likes to act as if everything is fine even when errors are made.

[Malto Marko]

"Hmmmm. I have been watching hockey for a year or two but, I am not sure what you are talking about the Bret Hull explanation on the Stanley Cup game winning goal."

During the 98-99 regular season, the NHL had a rule that stated if any part of an opposing player's body was in the crease, no goal would be allowed. In the Finals, in the last game against Buffalo, Brett Hull scored the series clinching goal while his skate was in the crease. When the NHL was questioned about the clear violation of the rules, they said something about sending around a memo before the playoffs stating that it was okay if a player was in the crease as long as they were not touching the goalie. It was very suspect but as usual, the NHL likes to act as if everything is fine even when errors are made.

....and there were no rules about reviewing the play so your point is what???? My point is that the Officials deal with the rules they are trained for.

The Official made the right call given the rules he is supposed to observe.

Again, the Weasel known as Bettman is not doing his job. I say this with his non promoting of the league.....and with the non enforcement of rules for the integrity of the game.......

Bring on any opinions to prove me wrong.

[Newbomb Turk]

they had replay and chose not to use it after the Stars started celibrating....

he is absolutely correct on this one Mark.

[Newbomb Turk]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_URO6cwLbM"]YouTube - 1999 - Brett Hull goal[/ame]

[Newbomb Turk]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF_LRVuhNa4&feature=related"]YouTube - 1999 Stanley Cup Brett Hull Goal Explanation[/ame]

Bullshit tap dancing... all fucking season goals just like this were waived off like Pee Herman at a all night peep show........

[froot loops]

Allegedly the rule regarding the crease was change prior to those playoffs. That was the leagues BS reason for not going to the review. In fact the way they were calling the crease that year would have been no goal, except they didn't review the call and put up this lame excuse and had further egg on their face when several GMs said they had not heard of this alleged rule change much less voted on it.

[Sharkbait]

I would say the wings were skating better then the ducks that last game. Just Hiller was on point for the ducks.

Maybe so, but one thing I have always enjoyed about watching the Wings is how it always seemed they were all over the ice. Almost like they had more than 5 skaterboys on the ice at any given time. Ducks are doing that to the Wings now. Seems no matter where we go, they have 3 skaters there.
Damn OT, now I got to wait longer for the Wings game.

[Drew]

Wings behind one minute in. VS missed it.

[Drew]

Thanks to a late goal by Chicago, they'll be leaving this game to show overtime in their game.