Jump to content

2010-2011 NHL thread


Recommended Posts

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 2, 2011 -> 02:37 PM)
This year, I'd rather play the Wings, though I'm not saying we'd beat either. Canucks have played the best hockey the entire year, call them chokers or whatever you want, I don't care. Just because it's the Canucks doesn't mean "oh well they can't beat the Hawks" or that they'll in any way be afraid to face them.

 

This Hawks team isn't nearly the same, either.

 

My sentiments exactly. I'd much rather see the Hawks avoid Vancouver in the first round.

Again, though, when it's all said and done, I really don't care who they face in the first round because it means they'll be in the playoffs.

I can't believe how worried, frustrated and puzzled I've been about a team that's probably going to get 100 or more points. Weird year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Turco keeping busy on the bench

Fan says he bet Hawks' Marty Turco

 

An NHL spokesman on Wednesday refused to comment on a story that Chicago Blackhawks back-up goaltender Marty Turco placed a wager with a fan during Tuesday's game against the Canadiens in Montreal.

 

"We have no comment at this time," a spokesman said.

 

There's a Twitter photo of Turco, sitting at the end of the Hawks' bench, apparently accepting a $5 bill from a fan.

 

Someone describing himself as a Canadiens season ticket holder called a Montreal radio station and said the bet was made after Mike Cammalleri put Montreal up 1-0 in the second period.

 

"I bet him after the Canadiens scored that Chicago wouldn't score again," the caller said.

 

After the Hawks' Patrick Kane tied the game minutes later, money allegedly was exchanged.

 

"When they scored ... I gave him five bucks," the caller said. "I slipped it through the glass. He took it with no questions whatsoever. I wrote on the $5 bill with a Sharpie, 'Habs rule.'"

 

"I went triple or nothing after the second period, nobody scored. Into the overtime, I went 'Marty, I'll give you 5-to-1 the Canadiens win the game.' He took the bet. When the Canadiens scored in overtime, he handed me back a wad of $5 bills. And inside ... was the $5 bill that I gave him that he crossed out 'Habs rule,' and wrote 'Turco rules.'"

 

In a text to ESPNChicago.com, Turco said: "I gave back his five, and wrote something back, yeah."

 

The defending champion Hawks are fighting for their playoff lives and are in the eighth and final playoff position in the Western Conference. They host the St. Louis Blues on Wednesday.

 

Turco signed a one-year, $1.3 million contract with the Blackhawks, who walked away from Antti Niemi last summer when an arbitrator awarded him a $2.75 million judgment.

 

It's been a disappointing season for Turco, who is 11-11-3 with a 3.02 goals against average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 08:59 PM)
That couldn't have been a more fortunate original, on-ice, goal call on Hossa's goal. Saved the season. Hockey Gods...thanks.

Ya, certainly looked like his stick never touched the puck after his skate did. I'll take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And/or the puck may have never completely crossed the line.

 

Kopecky just said on the postgame that Hossa told him (during review) he didn't think it was a goal. My guess is his stick never touched it. It's what I thought the whole time, while it took "Edzo" 50 replays to realize it was kicked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 points clinches it. 2 points forces Dallas to win all three*, which if they do, they get in over us on tiebreakers.

 

*at least 2 in regulation/OT (if we get two OT losses)...3 in regulation/OT if we get the 2 pts as a regulation/OT win.

Edited by IlliniKrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 09:08 PM)
And/or the puck may have never completely crossed the line.

 

Kopecky just said on the postgame that Hossa told him (during review) he didn't think it was a goal. My guess is his stick never touched it. It's what I thought the whole time, while it took "Edzo" 50 replays to realize it was kicked.

 

I think sticking with the on-ice call was correct. You couldn't see if the puck crossed the line or not, and you couldn't tell for sure that Hossa's stick didn't touch the puck after the kick (the on-ice angle actually made me think Hossa's stick may have indeed touched the puck after the kick). Obvoiusly, the Hawks were VERY lucky it was ruled goal on the ice though, as it'd have never been overturned the other way either. I still don't think the puck ever crossed the line anyways, but we'll take it.

Edited by whitesoxfan101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the 300 level, it looked like a damn good goal to me. I don't know why they had to review it for so long. :D

 

Huge win after that awful start. Nothing quiets an amped up crowd like a goal 17 seconds in.

 

It would be nice to get some help from the Avalanche over the next two days, but they have literally won 4 games since the end of January so I doubt that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 07:46 AM)
Can't say again how important that two points was. The Hawks control their own fate over this weekend. Let's see what they are made of.

Thank the hockey Gods for that one. Bettman called down and said "uh yeah, call it a goal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBS Sports

QUOTE TO NOTE

"The reason we have video replay is to get the right call. They're probably going to make it into the playoffs anyways, but do we really have to make it that obvious that the league wants them in? They're going to get in anyways. It was a close play, but the puck never crossed the line. I was sitting there watching it, and I knew it wasn't over." -- Blues G Ty Conklin, on Marian Hossa's reviewed goal in the second period of the Hawks' overtime win Wednesday.

Edited by LittleHurt05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, sticking with the on-ice call was correct, that's why I said we were extremely fortunate to have a goal call originally. Bottom line is whatever was called on the ice was going to stick. You couldn't see conclusively whether his stick touched it nor could you see for sure if it was across/not across the goal line. Inconclusive, call stands. Had the whistle just blew and there was no call on the ice, we probably would have had no goal. But with the NFL standard we're using, it wasn't going to come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...