IlliniKrush

Steve's favorite player making it interesting at 3B. http://thechicagohomer.com/2014/05/21/cono...nging-the-plan/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 21, 2014 -> 12:22 PM) I'm sure he'd rather play with Handzus http://www.csnchicago.com/blackhawks/wayne...ay-patrick-kane Gretzky right now would be a better center than Handzus.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 19, 2014 -> 12:45 PM) With the team apparently, outside chance for game 2. This odd scheduling helps build in a few extra days, 2 days between both 1 and 2 and 2 and 3. Maybe there's a better shot for Sat if he gets the whole week.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 19, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) I don't know that that's true. If they had already decided to disallow the goal due to goaltender interference, then they wouldn't have bothered with Toronto. They used, in some way, the video review to support the possibility of interference. You don't know that's true either. They did huddle before, so they came up with no goal. The last part of what's reviewable is loose, so if they indeed asked Toronto if the puck was in on the initial shot (or if it was kicked, possibly), the replay was actually an attempt to help the Hawks at that point by seeing if there was a way it could be a goal. QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 19, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) Shaw is practicing. With team or just skating on own post-practice?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 19, 2014 -> 12:20 PM) At real time it looked like Toews stopped short of the crease, he was then pushed into the goalie by Voynov and while he tried to leap over Quick, he made contact and the puck slipped in before he landed. Its not like its that outlandish of an interpretation or "homerish" since at least one ref agreed that it was a good goal. I can see what you are saying real time. That part, not outlandish. But one of your first posts was "he didn't move Quick at all" in which case that is outlandish. Or talking about intent. It's kind of like obstruction in baseball, intent doesn't matter, onus is still on the player at that point, even if a scoring type of play. In real time, watch the ref. He's watching the play, and then he sees it in, waits...and instead of a hard point, it's more like "the puck is in...?" Zero confidence at all. I knew right then and there he was going to ask for help. Now that I think about it, after they huddled and had a no goal situation, my guess is that they actually asked Toronto if it was kicked in by Toews, as they probably had no idea how it got in the first time if not on the initial shot. But again, I would love if all goaltender interference situations could be reviewed in the box. I'm guessing that goes into play sooner than later. That simply has to be a reviewable play.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 19, 2014 -> 12:08 PM) Eh, I can't back you on this one here. There's rules for a reason. Sure, it was a s***ty goal because there was interference. However, the rules say you can't review interference. Thankfully, Hawks win, so who gives a s***. Again, they didn't use replay to review interference. The 4 of them huddled, came up with a ruling - Milbury talked about this during the intermission, how that was protocol starting last year. Asked Toronto if the initial shot was in, as that would make the contact irrelevant. Completely outside of this, though, I've thought that goaltender interference should be a reviewable play for years now. Even if you don't want Toronto to do it, you can have a replay system right there in the box. Let them have a better look than just one time, live speed. Especially on a scoring play, I'd rather have all of them looked at if there's any doubt.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 19, 2014 -> 11:53 AM) Copy/paste, it mustve been in all caps. And even looking at that with my "Hawks glasses" off. He moves Quick for sure, but to me the puck was in the net and the initial contact was made with the stick hand outside of the crease prior to him being moved. At real time it appears Toews is pushed towards Quick and he makes a reasonable effort to avoid contact. At game speed without replay it could easily be seen as incidental and the goal allowed, by rule. The better replay is from red line robo cam. Go to 1:04. Quick's pad is there, actually on and in front of the post. Contact is made (Toews isn't pushed), moving Quick's pad off the post, and the puck slides in right where his pad was. The puck simply isn't in before contact, and doesn't go in without contact. By rule, incidental contact disallows that goal. Granted we have the benefit of replay to now see the correct call was made. But even live speed I said s***, I think this one's going to come back.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 19, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) A. The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, makes contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored. LOL. Now we're just going to look on the chart for random places where it says "goal is allowed" and try to argue that? You conveniently failed to mention what part of the table that was under: 3. A PLAYER PUSHES, SHOVES, OR FOULS ANOTHER PLAYER INTO THE GOALKEEPER, WHO IS IN OR OUT OF THE CREASE. Which is not what happened.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 19, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) I never mentioned replay. I also didnt think he moved Quick or hit him intentionally. I also thought he didnt land in the crease until the puck crossed the goal line. In the end it didnt matter. You made the replay part at the end of the rule all caps... Wait, you don't think he moved Quick? Come on already, take off the Hawks glasses. The contact clearly moves him off the post towards the other side of the net, and the puck goes in right where his pad was. Can't argue that whatsoever. Nope, he didn't move Quick. And again, intentionally or not, it doesn't really matter. The onus is 100% on Toews not to make contact there. Rule says it's no goal, right call was made.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 19, 2014 -> 11:18 AM) What I am referring to when I talk about effort to avoid the contact. 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 judgment of the Referee(s), AND NOT BY MEANS OF VIDEO REPAY OR REVIEW. First bolded = why it was disallowed. Red = contact wasn't initiated outside of goal crease. Effort is irrelevant. Second bolded = replay review had zero to do with incidental contact decision, as has been covered multiple times. A better breakdown of situations: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 19, 2014 -> 11:02 AM) They are allowed to conference, however I still think it was incidental contact and Toews made the right amount of effort to avoid contact. In the end it didnt matter. Effort/intent is actually irrelevant here. The fact is that Toews ran into him, moved him and the puck went by him, and wouldn't have gone by him without the contact. Correct call. Incidental contact can wave off a goal.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 19, 2014 -> 10:28 AM) Wow, Carey Price is out for the entire ECF. Chris Kreider better skate with his head up tonight. They'll be looking for him, but with it only a 1-0 series, I doubt anything gets out of hand, they are still in a series. If it gets to 3-0? Well, potential for ugliness.

QUOTE (farmteam @ May 19, 2014 -> 09:18 AM) But that clear from the crease was pretty pretty. And his needless step up in the neutral zone that caused the first goal on a 2 on 1 wasn't pretty. Brookbank has been much better when he's seen the ice.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 18, 2014 -> 09:44 PM) I love the occasional Oduya passing brilliance. The no look, clean pass to the tape of Toews was a thing of beauty. The amazing thing about this team is when they get a great chance in a crucial moment they execute it. That is a rare feat in sports, not just Chicago sports. Oduya hasn't been as noticeably awful this postseason. Not as many WHAT THE f*** WAS THAT defensive moments. They are still there, and we've caught a few, but not as much as a liability. And adding in offensively was great, I believe it was also his pass (fake shot too) on the Toews disallowed goal. Pass wasn't great as it was in the skates, but the vision was good. But, LMAO at Sutter saying the Hawks have 4 #1 defensemen. PS Brookpank over Rozsival, please.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ May 18, 2014 -> 08:17 PM) If there is ever someone to side with the refs/ump 99% of the time, whether it's hockey or baseball, regardless of the call, we know who it will be. I just wish I was able to jump on here during the game and call that. What, exactly, is your point? And 99%? LOL that's just false. Go look up last year's posts from Detroit series game 7. But I call it like I see it, and provide plenty of reasoning, as opposed to your posts, which are all OMG IT WENT AGAINST MY TEAM KILL THE REFS THEY ARE WRONG. I also don't go out of my way to b**** and moan about refs, even when I do disagree with them.

Iowa Elites @IowaElites Follow Just interviewed Carlton Bragg and he told us his mom likes "Illinois and Ohio State"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 18, 2014 -> 06:12 PM) The problem is that is some NBA style officiating. They blew the initial call, so they did something they aren't allowed to do to balance it out. It is like in the NBA when they don't call the foul on a player going to the basket, but then when the offensive player knocks the ball out of bounds, they just let the offensive team keep the ball to balance it out. They are allowed to conference. They got the call right.

QUOTE (Real @ May 18, 2014 -> 05:01 PM) it wasn't goal tender interference as there was no penalty called the reason this whole thing is fishy is because the original call was goal, and then overturned without consulting any replay footage There's no way any of the refs saw it clearly enough to overturn it without using replay footage, which would be required to overturn the call on the ice which was goal Fishy as f*ck Nothing is fishy about anything. OMG CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE HAWKS. Ruled goal on the ice. Refs huddle to review, as they can (and do frequently, not only goals, but penalties too), and should, determine the contact with Quick was there. No goal. LOL at "they can't see it clearly enough." In live speed, I thought it would be disallowed because I saw the Toews contact with Quick, it was pretty obvious. Back ref can easily see that with a better perspective, as the lead is looking for the puck. The review was to see if it went in on the first shot, making the interference irrelevant, but that wasn't the case. No goal stands. There's no way in f*** that goal should count, it didn't, and everyone's b****ing. They got together to discuss and made the right call, which is what you want. Give it a rest already. What's absolutely hilarious is if the exact same thing happened on Crawford, everyone would be going crazy. No one here would be saying "well it was a goal on the ice initially, so it's totally cool that it stands." It'd be "WHAT THE f*** HE KNOCKED INTO CRAWFORD'S HEAD HOW THE f*** CAN THAT COUNT"

Overall, the goal shouldn't have counted. And it didn't. So not going to b**** about it.

Home Plate Club http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/cws/ticket...eating_club.jsp

I do remember, it was awesome. This must blow for Selanne...usually you wouldn't think about it being your last game as it'd be a tight game etc...now he has all game to think about it (barring a miracle). Maybe he drinks from the fountain of youth and scores 5 goals and then shoots his glove down?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 16, 2014 -> 08:08 PM) 20 years old, 6 career NHL games, in net for a game 7, no big deal. Not a good start...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) What year is this? Did last season not happen? I get what you're saying, but last season happened as much as 2012 did.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ May 16, 2014 -> 02:33 PM) Kings are the better matchup for the Hawks, IMO. Who do they even have after the Kopitar line? Plus home-ice advantage is always pretty nice. Are you asking this because you haven't watched these teams play and aren't sure, or because you think the Kings don't have anyone? The depth up front is pretty equal, actually. Williams and Carter have both been good, to name a couple. Both teams have a monster 1st line and then depth underneath it. Plus the Kings have Doughty from an offensive perspective.

Carlos Gomez and rich people conversations: http://fansided.com/2014/05/16/carlos-gome...became-wealthy/