HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Philly Media Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-25-2008, 06:06 AM
  #1
Giddens
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 142
vCash: 500
The Philly Media Thread

After reading what the Philadelphia Inquirer had to say about the game last night I think it's worth it to have a thread to monitor the stupidities being written... Here is a sample and the link...


-The Flyers blew another two-goal lead, albeit with ample help from the officials.

-A high-stick goal by Montreal's Alex Kovalev in the second period and a dubious kneeing call on Mike Richards late in the game resulted in two Canadiens goals as the officials basically handed the game to Montreal.

- The Kovalev goal, which tied the game at 2-2 in the second period, was reviewed, but the officials upheld it. Kovalev practically needed a stepladder to hit the puck out of the air and into the net.

-Quoting Biron: "I thought it was a high-stick right away," Flyers goalie Marty Biron said. "They had to go to Toronto [for the video review], and once they go to Toronto, that's what happens."

- Biron outplayed Montreal rookie Carey Price in goal.

-A lengthy review upheld the goal. The key language in Rule 80.4 on disallowed goals is "where the puck made contact with the stick." In this case, the contact was above the crossbar. The goal should not have counted.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sport...nch_Toast.html

Giddens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 06:18 AM
  #2
wedge
Registered User
 
wedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: victoriaville
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,304
vCash: 500
well... I think we're lucky that the goal was good because IMO it was not.

But the Richards hit???? COME ON!!! Help from the refs??? The flyers has been hooking and making interference and the refs didn'T call the infractions.

Had we lose, I would have simply said that we we're lucky because we played well. Why can't they say the same thing?The Flyers played well and they almost won the game.

wedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 06:18 AM
  #3
Iwishihadacup
Registered User
 
Iwishihadacup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quebec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,713
vCash: 500


yes... of course

Iwishihadacup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 06:45 AM
  #4
Beaker
In My Lab Goggles
 
Beaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In The Lab.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,418
vCash: 500
Am I the only one who was watching on CBC? The goal was CONCLUSIVE in Toronto, it was a goal. It wasn't blurry, or they didnt know for sure, it was conclusive! They showed a shot of where the stick touched the puck, it was under the bar.

Beaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 07:07 AM
  #5
Blades 0f Steel
Registered User
 
Blades 0f Steel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Tibet
Posts: 11,523
vCash: 500
I'm sorry, but

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The goal was good, plain as day on CBC.

Next thing you know, there's going to be a big write-up about how Briere thinks we're diving.

Blades 0f Steel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 07:16 AM
  #6
All-Star
Registered User
 
All-Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snake Mountain
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealistic View Post
Am I the only one who was watching on CBC? The goal was CONCLUSIVE in Toronto, it was a goal. It wasn't blurry, or they didnt know for sure, it was conclusive! They showed a shot of where the stick touched the puck, it was under the bar.
I was on the phone with my Flyer-loving friend at the time, and even he agreed it was clearly a good goal after seeing that replay.

All-Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 07:44 AM
  #7
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,793
vCash: 500
Biron needs to explain me how to get EYES BEHIND MY HEAD, I'm interested.

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 07:53 AM
  #8
ruxpin
Accidental User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Williamsport, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealistic View Post
Am I the only one who was watching on CBC? The goal was CONCLUSIVE in Toronto, it was a goal. It wasn't blurry, or they didnt know for sure, it was conclusive! They showed a shot of where the stick touched the puck, it was under the bar.
Flyer fan.

I am more calm this morning. I didn't see CBC, but there was very clear replays on CSN that showed it above.

Also, it was a downward swing with the stick. He hit the puck and THEN the top of the crossbar with the follow-through. I don't understand how it would be physically possible to NOT be a high stick. When was the "war room" taken over by the Warren Commission?

The Richards' penalty was simply wrong, but not what a would call a horrible call. There was no contact with the knee and was 100% shoulder...a legal hit. But, I cannot fault either ref there. The game isn't played in slow motion, and I'm sure what it looked like to them. If they thought knee, you can't allow that. I don't care what the clock says, a knee is dangerous.

HOWEVER, let's be real. The "controversial" goal was even possible because of a botched Flyers play in the offensive end on the POWER PLAY (and also some really nice play by the Canadiens), and a really lame rebound by Biron (who otherwise played very well). And that puck goes in the net with or without "the touch." And Richards' penalty doesn't matter if the Flyer penalty-killers do their job and they put the right face-off guy out there (Dowd). I can't blame Carter--his stick broke--but, I don't think he was the right guy out there.

Bottom line is that the Canadiens won the game because their penalty kill was outstanding, they won the important faceoffs when they needed to, and they made an excellent play and shot at the end of regulation.

And overtime had nothing whatsoever to do with the refs, the war room, planet alignment, or anything else. Overtime was about a very good team showing why it is first seed.

Really good game. I'm looking forward to more.

ruxpin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 07:56 AM
  #9
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,154
vCash: 500
Meh, our media aren't that much better (when it comes to bias). We get a free pass since it's easier to hide as half of it is in french.

Orange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:07 AM
  #10
beowulf
Not a nice guy.
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,938
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Whatever, I really do not care what the media from another city thinks. In the end the Habs won and it really had nothing to do with the stuff they are crying about.

beowulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:13 AM
  #11
HH
GO HABS GO!
 
HH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,303
vCash: 500
Biron outplayed Price?!?! WHAAA????

Biron allowed 2 softies...the 1st Kovalev goal shouldn't even have been a rebound from that far out and the OT goal where he allowed like 900 rebounds before Kostopoulos scored. Price IMO only bad goal was the 3rd one which he should have caught.

HH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:15 AM
  #12
Sebaldian
Registered User
 
Sebaldian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruxpin View Post
Flyer fan.

I am more calm this morning. I didn't see CBC, but there was very clear replays on CSN that showed it above.

Also, it was a downward swing with the stick. He hit the puck and THEN the top of the crossbar with the follow-through. I don't understand how it would be physically possible to NOT be a high stick. When was the "war room" taken over by the Warren Commission?
The physical possibility argument is hilarious.
As has been pointed out numerous times, Kovalev's stick is curved. It's possible that the puck hit the heel of his stick, while both were below the crossbar, and then have the toe actually hit the bar after. People making the physical impossibility argument seem to think that sticks have perfectly straight blades.
Also, please explain why, if it is so obviously not a goal, the war room called it one. What is their motivation? If they wanted us to win why did they allow the Flyers reviewed goal from earlier?

Sebaldian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:17 AM
  #13
belko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
I hear a lot of talk about the stick hitting the crossbar after it hits the puck, as proof of the fact it wasn't a good goal.. but I'm not sure he hit it with the blade of his stick.. if the puck hits the shaft of the stick, as I think it did, then this 'physical impossibility' seems to become quite possible..

Either way, stolen game for the Habs.. That's just the way it happens sometimes. Hopefully they'll play with a little more urgency right from the first whistle on Saturday instead of waiting until there's less than two minutes left in the game :/

Phil Sheridan has a much more even-keeled view of the game than Panaccio, though he, too, thinks it was no-goal.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sport...Canadiens.html

belko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:22 AM
  #14
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryI View Post
Biron allowed 2 softies...the 1st Kovalev goal shouldn't even have been a rebound from that far out and the OT goal where he allowed like 900 rebounds before Kostopoulos scored. Price IMO only bad goal was the 3rd one which he should have caught.
Both goalies were equally average last night, imo. On the 1st Kovalev goal, Biron didn't control the rebound well which is exactly what happened to Price on the third goal. It also had happened prior in the game. Price lost the puck 2-3 times after it hit his glove hand. He didn't look comfortable with his glove. On the Dowd goal, Price had a chance to stop the play, he missed it, they scored later on that play.

Orange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:25 AM
  #15
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruxpin View Post
I am more calm this morning. I didn't see CBC, but there was very clear replays on CSN that showed it above.
The CBC showed a great shot where you clearly see some white space between the stick and the goal post (front view) at the time of contact, which clearly indicates the contact was under the crossbar.

Orange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:25 AM
  #16
BoNeS42
Registered User
 
BoNeS42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by belko View Post
I hear a lot of talk about the stick hitting the crossbar after it hits the puck, as proof of the fact it wasn't a good goal.. but I'm not sure he hit it with the blade of his stick.. if the puck hits the shaft of the stick, as I think it did, then this 'physical impossibility' seems to become quite possible..

Either way, stolen game for the Habs.. That's just the way it happens sometimes. Hopefully they'll play with a little more urgency right from the first whistle on Saturday instead of waiting until there's less than two minutes left in the game :/

Phil Sheridan has a much more even-keeled view of the game than Panaccio, though he, too, thinks it was no-goal.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sport...Canadiens.html
Oh yeah stolen game. Try to score goal without the help of Breezer and your ****ing leg, then come here to talk.

BoNeS42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:29 AM
  #17
Orange
Registered User
 
Orange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoNeS42 View Post
Oh yeah stolen game. Try to score goal without the help of Breezer and your ****ing leg, then come here to talk.
Let's not be douches. Putting aside the goal and the penalty, the Habs still stole it in the dieing seconds of the game. He didn't say the ref stole it, he said the Habs did. Which is true.


Last edited by Orange: 04-25-2008 at 08:36 AM.
Orange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:30 AM
  #18
Ice Poutine
Photoshop Nut
 
Ice Poutine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: ____
Country: Martinique
Posts: 11,668
vCash: 500
So all we did was dive this year and win games because of the Refs and managed to finish 1st in our division and with the NHL's best offense?

Gee... who knew hockey was so easy, that Carbo is a genius!




Edit; oh and we're a 'soft' team too.

Ice Poutine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:34 AM
  #19
belko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoNeS42 View Post
Oh yeah stolen game. Try to score goal without the help of Breezer and your ****ing leg, then come here to talk.
Dude, I'm a Canadiens fan, and even I realise we stole this one. But that's hockey, that's how it happens sometimes. I'll take it!

belko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:40 AM
  #20
BoNeS42
Registered User
 
BoNeS42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
I know that we stoled that game. But my point is : if we didn't came back, they would've stoled the game too with those 2 BS goals. That's hockey, they gotta stop complaining.

BoNeS42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 08:48 AM
  #21
RE-HABS
Registered User
 
RE-HABS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giddens View Post
After reading what the Philadelphia Inquirer had to say about the game last night I think it's worth it to have a thread to monitor the stupidities being written... Here is a sample and the link...


-The Flyers blew another two-goal lead, albeit with ample help from the officials.

-A high-stick goal by Montreal's Alex Kovalev in the second period and a dubious kneeing call on Mike Richards late in the game resulted in two Canadiens goals as the officials basically handed the game to Montreal.

- The Kovalev goal, which tied the game at 2-2 in the second period, was reviewed, but the officials upheld it. Kovalev practically needed a stepladder to hit the puck out of the air and into the net.

-Quoting Biron: "I thought it was a high-stick right away," Flyers goalie Marty Biron said. "They had to go to Toronto [for the video review], and once they go to Toronto, that's what happens."

- Biron outplayed Montreal rookie Carey Price in goal.

-A lengthy review upheld the goal. The key language in Rule 80.4 on disallowed goals is "where the puck made contact with the stick." In this case, the contact was above the crossbar. The goal should not have counted.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sport...nch_Toast.html
Just watched on the NHL Network the Coach Stevens post game media answer/question period. Looks like we have a Coach that is full of excuses and it is going to be funny watching him come up with them the rest of the way!

Some quick hits on his excuses:

(1) Kovalev goal to tie it 2 - 2 on the Philly PP. He said it was no goal because his stick was above the net. (Well, it went to Toronto where they have a war room and top technology equipment to review these things and they said it was a goal. If you watch the replays sure Kovy's stick hits the cross bad, but that is allowed because it wasn't over = GOAL).

(2) Richards penalty. He said he would have to look at game tape because it was pretty questionable, he even said Richards was questioning it. Every player questions a call be it blatten or accidental! He stuck out his stick and planted the knee as well, penalty.

(3) Montreal got all the breaks. What? We got a goal that was reviewed and a goal to tie it on a legit penalty call. If anything Philly got more breaks than Montreal! (A)Brisebois puts one in his own net (not a Philly player, a Hab player scored the 1st goal of this series for the Flyers), (B) 2nd goal Price was screened by his onw player (that happens to all goalies once in awhile, just want to point out it was Brisebois at fault though), and finally (C) 3rd goal was a shot that Price bobbled and it fell out of his glove and hit the leg/skate of Lupal and went in.

And we got all the breaks?

New name for the Coach, John "The ExcuseMaster" Stevens. I've seen him in post game interviews before and seen him make up excuses, but I guess one really notices it when you watch the game he is making them up for.

Can't wait for the next game to see what jibberish comes out.

RE-HABS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 09:03 AM
  #22
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,177
vCash: 500
I will happily acknowledge to Flyers fans that it was a game with a lot of flukey breaks both ways and that in the end the Habs had to be lucky to steal the game, just as the Flyers had been lucky to get a lead.

But apart from that, the winning team won, the losing team lost. Move on.

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 09:26 AM
  #23
marc1337
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruxpin View Post
Flyer fan.

I am more calm this morning. I didn't see CBC, but there was very clear replays on CSN that showed it above.

Also, it was a downward swing with the stick. He hit the puck and THEN the top of the crossbar with the follow-through. I don't understand how it would be physically possible to NOT be a high stick. When was the "war room" taken over by the Warren Commission?

The Richards' penalty was simply wrong, but not what a would call a horrible call. There was no contact with the knee and was 100% shoulder...a legal hit. But, I cannot fault either ref there. The game isn't played in slow motion, and I'm sure what it looked like to them. If they thought knee, you can't allow that. I don't care what the clock says, a knee is dangerous.

HOWEVER, let's be real. The "controversial" goal was even possible because of a botched Flyers play in the offensive end on the POWER PLAY (and also some really nice play by the Canadiens), and a really lame rebound by Biron (who otherwise played very well). And that puck goes in the net with or without "the touch." And Richards' penalty doesn't matter if the Flyer penalty-killers do their job and they put the right face-off guy out there (Dowd). I can't blame Carter--his stick broke--but, I don't think he was the right guy out there.

Bottom line is that the Canadiens won the game because their penalty kill was outstanding, they won the important faceoffs when they needed to, and they made an excellent play and shot at the end of regulation.

And overtime had nothing whatsoever to do with the refs, the war room, planet alignment, or anything else. Overtime was about a very good team showing why it is first seed.

Really good game. I'm looking forward to more.
It's kind of funny, Kovalev pushed to puck in the goal... the end of is stick was touching the cross bar and the puck at the same time... how can you be to high? he touched the puck higher then the cross bar for sure. But it's when the puck leaves is stick that matter!


marc1337 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 09:39 AM
  #24
Riot55
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange View Post
The CBC showed a great shot where you clearly see some white space between the stick and the goal post (front view) at the time of contact, which clearly indicates the contact was under the crossbar.
Yes I seen this footage too from behind the net, and thats the first thing I noticed was the white ice (about an inch) between the top of his stick and the bottom of the crossbar. Someone should try and post that footage on the Silly board.

Riot55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2008, 09:40 AM
  #25
habfan4
Registered User
 
habfan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Deus Amat Pretzel
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,424
vCash: 500
I love the inference by Biron that once it goes to Toronto for review somehow a bias in favour of Montréal is to be expected. The Toronto review room is staffed by professional officials who have access to every network camera feed available. Is Martin Biron under the impression that review calls from the Bell Centre ring through to my cell phone?

In terms of stealing the game, I'll concede that the Habs did not play at a high level, nothing more. In a game where neither team was clearly dominant and that featured 4 flukey goals (add in Dowd, of all people, wiring one top shelf a la Mike Richards) it's pretty hard to say that anyone deserved to win.

habfan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.