1992 -- Rangers best in the NHL, Devils 4th in the Patrick, went 7 games.
It was a war.
Now I am recalling - wasn't that the year Rangers should have won the Stanley Cup. They had won like 11 in a row before a player strike that killed their momentum. Beat the Devils in 7, were leading Pittsburgh until Richter let in a 65 foot soft goal, Pittsburgh turned the series around and won in 6 and won the Cup?
Rulebook also states you must have conclusive evidence to overturn an on-ice call.
The ref called it a goal. Every camera showed Neil made a distinctive kicking motion.
No cameras showed Neil definitively made contact with the puck. It was equally likely that Lundqvist's own stick caught it.
The refs also sucked, as stated by every Sens fan tonight time and time again.
They didn't call goalie interference on Neil when he clearly used his stick to shove Lundqvist out of the crease. Then to make matters worse, they called it a goal, when Neil clearly kicked the puck in. Toronto added to the embarrassment by allowing the goal when it was clearly a kicking motion that sent the puck into the net, regardless of the fact that Lundqvist's glove touched the puck AFTER Neil kicked it.
LOL @ a Sens mod in here trying to defend that obvious blown call.
Are you going to defend Neil spearing Hank in the crease, even allowing that puck to magically cross the line?
I'd have to watch the replay again and watch specifically to see what Neil does to impede Lundqvist (if he does anything at all). My recollection holds that he did not do anything to Lundqvist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevesis
Haha...
Excellent argumentation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Click
The refs also sucked, as stated by every Sens fan tonight time and time again.
They didn't call goalie interference on Neil when he clearly used his stick to shove Lundqvist out of the crease. Then to make matters worse, they called it a goal, when Neil clearly kicked the puck in. Toronto added to the embarrassment by allowing the goal when it was clearly a kicking motion that sent the puck into the net, regardless of the fact that Lundqvist's glove touched the puck AFTER Neil kicked it.
LOL @ a Sens mod in here trying to defend that obvious blown call.
Again, I'd have to review it to see if Neil interfered with Lundqvist.
As far as the kicking the puck in goes, it was obviously a kicking motion by Neil - however, it's a flip of the coin as to whether the ref thought Neil actually contacted it or whether he saw Lundqvist's stick push the puck in the net (note: stick, not glove). Ref said 'no' and video review was inconclusive.
The last sentence is completely unnecessary, just ad hominem.
__________________ CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
Leaf fan here...please, please, please: put the Senators away in game 7. Our disdain for this team knows no bounds. Neil is a dirtbag who picks his spots 90% of the time, and tonight he got away with MURDER. How that wasn't goalie interference, I don't get. He was in the crease, spearing Hank, preventing him from making a save while attempting to kick the puck in the goal. Whether he made contact or not is INCONSEQUENTIAL. He inhibited the goalie from making a stop with both feet in the paint, while using his stick illegally. Absolute, inexcusable TRAVESTY in terms of officiating.
Alfie is losing his composure, thats a good sign...and no doubt, the refs will clamp down on the crease activity in the final game.
Keep playing Alfie hard, make Karlsson's life hell, block shots, throw a wall up in front of Hank, get to Anderson early and by all means, prevail.
Now I am recalling - wasn't that the year Rangers should have won the Stanley Cup. They had won like 11 in a row before a player strike that killed their momentum. Beat the Devils in 7, were leading Pittsburgh until Richter let in a 65 foot soft goal, Pittsburgh turned the series around and won in 6 and won the Cup?
Unfortunately...yes. They lost Game 4 in OT, lost Game 5 at home thanks to a dominating performance by Jagr, and got killed in Pittsburgh back in Game 6. I just remember the entire building chanting 1940 the 3rd period of Game 6. That was a tough one.
Since Kreider's first shift tonight you can tell he looked more confident. He didnt stray away from behind the net hits/play and was finishing his checks.
Unfortunately...yes. They lost Game 4 in OT, lost Game 5 at home thanks to a dominating performance by Jagr, and got killed in Pittsburgh back in Game 6. I just remember the entire building chanting 1940 the 3rd period of Game 6. That was a tough one.
Rulebook also states you must have conclusive evidence to overturn an on-ice call.
The ref called it a goal. Every camera showed Neil made a distinctive kicking motion.
No cameras showed Neil definitively made contact with the puck. It was equally likely that Lundqvist's own stick caught it.
The goal should have been overturned on the grounds that Neil should have been thrown in the box for goalie interference. He used his stick to impede the goaltender while standing in the paint, attempting to kick the puck in the net. EVERYTHING about that is an infraction.
Gaborik is still troubling to me. Quiet is an understatement.
Same thign is happening to him that happened to Malkin. They are just giving him absolutely no space and time. Once Gaborik gets the puck they have 3 players collapsing to him.
I'd have to watch the replay again and watch specifically to see what Neil does to impede Lundqvist (if he does anything at all). My recollection holds that he did not do anything to Lundqvist.
Excellent argumentation.
Again, I'd have to review it to see if Neil interfered with Lundqvist.
As far as the kicking the puck in goes, it was obviously a kicking motion by Neil - however, it's a flip of the coin as to whether the ref thought Neil actually contacted it or whether he saw Lundqvist's stick push the puck in the net (note: stick, not glove). Ref said 'no' and video review was inconclusive.
The last sentence is completely unnecessary, just ad hominem.
Which is why no one is taking you seriously. If your that blind that you didn't notice the blatantly obvious interference then I am not surprised you believe kicking motion was a "coinflip" as well. The puck clearly picks up speed after Neil's skate kicks it, which according to the laws of physics is accurate.
__________________
I feel like this is such an appropriate quote for these boards...
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience"-Mark Twain
I'd have to watch the replay again and watch specifically to see what Neil does to impede Lundqvist (if he does anything at all). My recollection holds that he did not do anything to Lundqvist.
Excellent argumentation.
Again, I'd have to review it to see if Neil interfered with Lundqvist.
As far as the kicking the puck in goes, it was obviously a kicking motion by Neil - however, it's a flip of the coin as to whether the ref thought Neil actually contacted it or whether he saw Lundqvist's stick push the puck in the net (note: stick, not glove). Ref said 'no' and video review was inconclusive.
The last sentence is completely unnecessary, just ad hominem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67
The goal should have been overturned on the grounds that Neil should have been thrown in the box for goalie interference. He used his stick to impede the goaltender while standing in the paint, attempting to kick the puck in the net. EVERYTHING about that is an infraction.
Seeing the replay again, yeah, Neil's stick is definitely pushing Lundqvist.
I'd have to watch the replay again and watch specifically to see what Neil does to impede Lundqvist (if he does anything at all). My recollection holds that he did not do anything to Lundqvist.
Again, I'd have to review it to see if Neil interfered with Lundqvist.
Why do you keep saying you have to watch the replay again? I saw it during the game and it was clear as day Neil had both hands on his stick, shoved it into Lundqvist's stomach, pushed Lundqvist to the side, then proceeded to kick the puck into the net.
Why do you think Neil HAD to kick it in? It's because his stick was embedded into Lundqvist's stomach the whole time. He couldn't put his stick on the ice or the puck.
Stop trying to defend the indefensible. Refs sucked and made terrible (non) calls against/for both teams tonight (I'd argue in Senator's favor). Toronto claimed ignorance just like you are, and added to the already strong belief by most fans, that the NHL is an absolute joke.
Which is why no one is taking you seriously. If your that blind that you didn't notice the blatantly obvious interference then I am not surprised you believe kicking motion was a "coinflip" as well. The puck clearly picks up speed after Neil's skate kicks it, which according to the laws of physics is accurate.
I fail to see your logic. Because I'm watching Neil's skate and Lundqvist's stick, instead of being attentive to Neil's stick, my opinion on the kicking motion (not the interference, but the kicking motion) is completely invalidated?
You could just as easily argue that the puck picks up speed after Lundqvist's stick makes contact with the puck, but you can't see it because Neil's foot swings just over the puck as it picks up that speed.
I fail to see your logic. Because I'm watching Neil's skate and Lundqvist's stick, instead of being attentive to Neil's stick, my opinion on the kicking motion (not the interference, but the kicking motion) is completely invalidated?
You could just as easily argue that the puck picks up speed after Lundqvist's stick makes contact with the puck, but you can't see it because Neil's foot swings just over the puck as it picks up that speed.
Agreed. You cannot assume. You have to be able to conclusively point to an image of the skate contacting the puck, and you can't make that claim. All of this is inconsequential, as everything about Neil's conduct during the play invalidates the kick argument anyway. He deserved a penalty, full stop. Nothing else about the play even matters.
I fail to see your logic. Because I'm watching Neil's skate and Lundqvist's stick, instead of being attentive to Neil's stick, my opinion on the kicking motion (not the interference, but the kicking motion) is completely invalidated?
You could just as easily argue that the puck picks up speed after Lundqvist's stick makes contact with the puck, but you can't see it because Neil's foot swings just over the puck as it picks up that speed.
Really?
You can easily see Hank touches the puck a little with his stick, causing the puck to move slightly, then when Neil goes into a kicking motion, the puck suddenly picks up speed and goes into the net.
I agree that DZ should be suspended on what the league is "trying" to do with hits to the head but with the way other things have been handled it does not warrant a suspension. If they really want to put an end to this stuff they need to put it in black and white in the new cba stating that ANY hit to the head will result and a specific amount if games suspended. Then multiple offenders should face harsher punishment/more games susp. It should not matter if someone gets hurt. A dirty hit is a dirty hit
Why do you keep saying you have to watch the replay again? I saw it during the game and it was clear as day Neil had both hands on his stick, shoved it into Lundqvist's stomach, pushed Lundqvist to the side, then proceeded to kick the puck into the net.
Because I didn't notice it during play, so I would want to go and double-check the replay paying attention to Neil's stick instead of watching the puck before conclusively arguing Neil was or was not interfering with Lundqvist.
Quote:
Why do you think Neil HAD to kick it in? It's because his stick was embedded into Lundqvist's stomach the whole time. He couldn't put his stick on the ice or the puck.
I didn't know why Neil was attempting to kick it in, because as I have said, I was not paying attention to his stick, just his skate and whether it made contact with the puck. That's why I went to watch the goal again.
Quote:
Stop trying to defend the indefensible. Refs sucked and made terrible (non) calls against/for both teams tonight (I'd argue in Senator's favor). Toronto claimed ignorance just like you are, and added to the already strong belief by most fans, that the NHL is an absolute joke.
Let's review what I've said:
It is not definitive whether or not Neil kicks it in or whether Lundqvist's stick knocks it in.
It is definitive that Neil makes a kicking motion at the puck.
I was unsure of whether Neil interfered with Lundqvist so I needed to review it
Upon review: it is definitive that Neil interferes with Lundqvist.
It is definitive that the NHL War Room could not overturn the goal call on the basis of these three points in accordance with the NHL rulebook.
.: The goal should not have counted, but it did because refs have to make split-second reactions and the War Room cannot overturn all ref decisions.
Now, quit attacking me personally on the basis that I'm a Sens fan and start critically evaluate what I'm actually saying.
Last edited by CanadianHockey: 04-23-2012 at 11:23 PM.
You can easily see Hank touches the puck a little with his stick, causing the puck to move slightly, then when Neil goes into a kicking motion, the puck suddenly picks up speed and goes into the net.
To me it looks like Neil's skate goes over the puck. Neil's skate makes it difficult to determine whether Lundqvist's stick makes contact with the puck again while hidden from view by the skate.
