Hockey fans - thoughts on the playoffs?

Watching Hawks/Wild. Hawks lead 2-0. Wild scores. Announcer says "Minnesota has just cut the Hawks lead in half!!"
Now that's optimism, eh?
 
Brian Bickell with the unnecessary penalty almost gave away the game, but even I am shocked that the Blackhawks swept this series.

Hoping against hope for Calgary to upset the Duck.
 
I think the Habs win in MTL and TB takes it at home...

Also hoping for Calgary tonight...

Wash-NY game tonight should be good too....
 
wagdog said:
They scored all their goals in one game.

TB takes the next game and the series.

Hoping for Calgary to win tonight.
Click to expand...

You could say the same about TB of the 12 goals they have 6 were in 1 game and 6 have been on the PP. I said before that TB was winning in spite of their play and while I think they have more than enough wiggle room to win (yes it has been done but it really is a rare thing to lose 4 games after winning 3) against presumably the Caps (though I would say the same thing about the Rangers) they could well be swept which isnt what you would expect or want. They have been outshot and out possessed badly particularly in the last 2 games and that's not a winning strategy against a team with a Alex Ovechin or Rick Nash (even though Nash has been invisible). TB is a good fast team but they often have not looked it in the playoffs and seem to be winning almost in spite of their play (probably because of Bishop). Like the Montreal/Ottawa series this could easily be 3-1 the other way

I won't be surprised if the Caps win tonight, Ovechin seems to want this much more than ever before and it certainly shows. What is surprising me is that the second round seems to be more of a mismatch than the 1st and teams you expected to play well (Rangers, Wild) have been very disappointing.
 
The Rangers came up big last night. Tight games.

The size advantage is a much bigger factor in the Anaheim vs Calgary series than I thought it would be.

Minnesota was playing on a good streak. I know it seems like a long stretch to be a streak but they were like Montreal to a degree...only with scoring. Dubnyk is a free agent so I wonder if they will sign him or let him go. He has really only had the stretch this year and a season of being hung out to dry in Edmonton. I think teams would be nuts to pay him long term and $4 million per year but who knows?
 
smorgdonkey said:
Minnesota was playing on a good streak. I know it seems like a long stretch to be a streak but they were like Montreal to a degree...only with scoring. Dubnyk is a free agent so I wonder if they will sign him or let him go. He has really only had the stretch this year and a season of being hung out to dry in Edmonton. I think teams would be nuts to pay him long term and $4 million per year but who knows?
Click to expand...

Dubnyk probably played well enough that some team will happily pay him $4M, since top-10 goaltenders are being paid in the high $5M to $6M range right now. Minne needs goaltender stability in the worst way, but not sure how much they can commit under the cap seeing they paid Suter and Parise a boatload of money.
 
Didn't see the Wild going down like they did, especially to Chicago. If Chicago keeps playing the way they have been, they may take the Cup.

The ducks will clinch tonight... Rangers and caps? Who knows. I'm thinking the caps, but if it goes to game 7, there's no telling.

Habs should be done tonight. I love the thought of all of Quebec waking up disappointed in their club, again.
 
wagdog said:
Rangers and caps? Who knows. I'm thinking the caps, but if it goes to game 7, there's no telling.
Click to expand...

That goal that was disallowed because Lundquist dove into Ward? Embarrassing. The NHL has some serious issues to remedy.
 
Here's hoping all the remaining series go 7. The only ones that don't want to see that are fans of the teams in the lead. For the rest of us that's just more hockey and more hockey is good, less hockey means a long summer with nothing to watch :(

As to the goal, I thought it was an ok call. I suppose if you don't like the Rangers you disagree but Ward did to some degree impede the ability to make the save.

rule 69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

You can argue that he was pushed into Lundquist though but did he make a reasonable effort of avoid the contact. I would say no and the refs got it right.
 
nuke_diver said:
Here's hoping all the remaining series go 7. The only ones that don't want to see that are fans of the teams in the lead. For the rest of us that's just more hockey and more hockey is good, less hockey means a long summer with nothing to watch :(

As to the goal, I thought it was an ok call. I suppose if you don't like the Rangers you disagree but Ward did to some degree impede the ability to make the save.

rule 69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

You can argue that he was pushed into Lundquist though but did he make a reasonable effort of avoid the contact. I would say no and the refs got it right.
Click to expand...
Goalie interference is a tough call, especially how fast and ugly things get around the crease.

As far as that particular call, Ward was pushed by the defender into the goalie - and the rules don't see to distinguish between that and intentional contact, so good call, I guess. That should probably looked at.

I seem to recall it wasn't too long ago that a player couldn't have his skate lace in the crease and they would disallow a goal.
 
wagdog said:
Goalie interference is a tough call, especially how fast and ugly things get around the crease.

As far as that particular call, Ward was pushed by the defender into the goalie - and the rules don't see to distinguish between that and intentional contact, so good call, I guess. That should probably looked at.

I seem to recall it wasn't too long ago that a player couldn't have his skate lace in the crease and they would disallow a goal.
Click to expand...

I hated when you couldn't put a toe in the crease even if it was on the opposite side of the goalie. They do however need to help protect the goalies otherwise they will just be bowling pins. So there are going to be some close calls but I think it's in the best interests of everyone.

Caps/Rangers Game 6 was a whole lot of fun. Just when it looked like the Rangers would win and by more than 1 goal...they don't. I'm hoping for 2 game 7's this week (I know most of you hate the Habs so don't). But no more west coast games until the Conf finals and no game tonight....looks like reruns instead of hockey :gah:
 
nuke_diver said:
As to the goal, I thought it was an ok call. I suppose if you don't like the Rangers you disagree but Ward did to some degree impede the ability to make the save.

rule 69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed. 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; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), and not by means of video replay or review.

You can argue that he was pushed into Lundquist though but did he make a reasonable effort of avoid the contact. I would say no and the refs got it right.
Click to expand...

My argument is that not only was Ward impeded and/or pushed by the Rangers' player but also that Lundquist lunged into Ward making it appear as though his ability to make the save was impeded. It was nothing more than a screen...if screens are illegal then it was the right call but that is not the case.

Callahan is out for Tampa with appendicitis so that is a major advantage for the hated (by me) Habs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top