Red Wings

[chemiclord]

I turned it back on about halfway through the third. So, it must have been one severe delayed reaction.

[Drew]

I would not blame the overtime goal on Ozzie, but the defensive zone group not being able to get the puck out of the zone. (without icing)

[chemiclord]

And so that the Ozzie Fan Club doesn't lose their mind and call me an irrational Ozzie hater...

It doesn't matter who is in goal when the team comes out and lays an egg through 20 minutes of play like the Wings did in the 1st. I'm not sure I've really seen a full 60 minutes from this team yet this playoffs. It's not a trend I like to see for a team trying to repeat as champions.

[chemiclord]

I would not blame the overtime goal on Ozzie, but the defensive zone group not being able to get the puck out of the zone. (without icing)

Ya know, it always seems like Osgood has an excuse for every goal that's scored.

At some point... you expect your goalie to make the tough save in crunch time. Not only did he not control the puck, the rebound he gave up bounced right onto the opponent's stick with half the net empty.

Sure, the Red Wings gave him no favors. But Hall of Fame netminders make that save more times than not. Not the rebound save, mind you... they don't give up that rebound to begin with. This is why Osgood is not considered in that company, despite the angst of many a Red Wings faithful about his "Hall of Fame credentials." Games like these are why the argument is made, "He's just lucky to be in a situation where his team carries him to wins and Cups."

He was good tonight. Unfortunately for him, thanks to the team sleepwalking through the first 20 minutes, they needed great. It really is kinda unfortunate... because he's not a bum. He's not awful. He is the "weak link" on the Red Wings, I suppose... but that's not so much speaking ill about him as it is nothing the depth of the team in front of him.

But at the same time, let's not make him out to be unappreciated. He makes his own bed far too often. That was a controllable shot, and he didn't do it.

[Greg H]

Looking at replays of the Kronwall hit, the 5 minute major is consistent with what the NHL has mandated.

This was very similar to the hit put on Hudler by Brown in the Anaheim/Detroit series. It wasn't malicious, but it was a blow to the head. Kronwall had decided long before to make that hit, come hell or high water, and he hit Havlat in the head.

That's 5 minutes, ladies and gentlemen, no matter intent, no matter why it happens. You don't hit opponents in the head. Period.

Nope. No blow to the head, not the same as the Hudler hit. That was a legal check. Blackhawks played better in overtime, bring on game 4.

[chemiclord]

Not from the replays I saw, Greg. Kronwall's left arm came up above Havlat's shoulder, and struck right across the side of the head.

[Greg H]

That's odd. The play that I saw live and on subsequent replays shows an arm in Havlat's chest, no where near the head.

[chemiclord]

I can look again.

You're right, it's not the arm, but the shoulder that makes contact with Havlat's head. The arm just looks to hit him as an optical illusion of sorts.

EDIT: Yeah, I gotta say, that was clean.

[chemiclord]

I suspect the NHL will contend that regardless of what the hit was led with, the first contact was made to the head, and that they had established the precedent on cutting down on such hits.

[Greg H]

The NHL can say that, but there was no hit to the head. Chest and shoulder, but certainly was not a headhunting play.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qINC26Qae0"]YouTube - Niklas Kronwall Detroit Red Wings Knocks Martin Havlat Chicago Blackhawks Unconscious 5/22/2009[/ame]

[chemiclord]

No, you're right, it wasn't a headhunting play... but contact WAS made to the head.

[Drew]

I questioned the way Kronwall was hitting last year, although he was laying some huge hits in the playoffs, dude was leaving his feet. But no penalty was being called, so, f*ck me, what do I know.

Well, look at the replay again and you'll notice that both of Kronwall's feet are at least six inches off the ice at the same time during the hit.

I'm sure the inconsistant NHL will make an example of this. I expect a suspension.

[DanO]

His feet don't come off the ice until he hits the player. Can't help that. It was a legal hit and there shouldn't have been a penalty. Had Havlat got up right away they would never have called a penalty but since the guy was hurt they have to throw a penalty and game misconduct in there. It's a bullshit call.

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

[Malto Marko]

When I saw the play live, I called a 2 minute penalty for elbowing. Even though he led with his elbow and it landed in the chest he raised it up and subsequent contact was made in the head and had I been calling the game, would have given him 2 for elbowing.

I do not understand how he could get 5 for interference and a GM.

After seeing the look in Havalets eyes, I knew he would not be back in this game. If I were his coach, he would have been sent straight to the hospital for tests.

Technically, it was a legal hit but I would still have called a minor for leading with the elbow even though it landed in his chest. When elbows are flying, someone will (and did) get hurt. Those elbows are supposed to be tucked in (ha, ha, like it happens in the pros) when you make a check.

[Rocky Bleier]

I'll defer to ex-NHLers Ed Olczyk (former Blackhawk), Brian Engblom, Keith Jones, and Barry Melrose. They all said it was a legal hit and should not have been called a penalty. Same with the guys on CBC. No interference - puck went through Havlat's legs - did not leave his feet, no elbow. Look again, Malto. It was all shoulder . I llike how the idiot Blackhawk player knocks Kronwall onto the prone Havlat. That really helped.