I think Wednesday is going to be pretty intense.

I disagree.

I disagree.

 

I could see that. It's not like it is a big game or anything.

I could see that. It's not like it is a big game or anything.

It's only an elimination game for ONE of the teams....so yeah, no big whoop.

It was great to see the Hawks come out and play so well, but two things still worry me about game 6.

 

1. The Flyers have been outstanding on their home ice, as has Leighton.

 

2. They still managed four goals last night despite the Hawks barrage.

 

It should be interesting, but it is nice to know that the Flyers would have to win at the UC to get the Cup.

 

 

I must say I have discovered the taste of victory. Its a free Egg McMuffin to help beat a hangover on the way to work in the morning. Thanks Brent Seabrook.

 

 

Didn't know you could score when an opposing player is laying in the net next to the goaltender.

 

I couldn't believe this wasn't discussed by the announcers, let alone called by the officials. Harntell was across the goal line and partly inside the net, clearly blocking Niemi's lateral movement, and the shot was to that side. I know its a non-reviewable judgment call, but it seemed pretty obvious to me, and I though it at least warranted some analysis and an explanation.

I had to listen to the first 12 minutes on the radio. Widerman (sp?) is awesome. Troy Murray said McCreary is have a terrible series. Widerman's response, "you played the game and broke bones doing it so you can say that.......and I agree with you."

 

Great game.

 

Pronger was on the ice for six goals and in the box for another.

 

As far as a fan is concerned that was a great game and this is a great series. If called correctly the Hawks are much more fluid. There were plenty of missed calls. I like that they called the elbow to Kopecky's head although I thought it should have been a harsher penalty but I am not sure what it could have been. That was a dirty play.

I was listening on the radio and Weideman was saying that the linesman can only call 4 or 5 minute majors. He can point out a 2-minute, but it's the referee's discretion to call or not call. Obviously, they "didn't see" it, so they didn't call it. Which sucks, by the way.

Yeah, I am aware, but I still think the comical no-calls are ridiculous. I was listening on the radio for a good portion of the game as well, and I think it was funny how much they talked about McCreary's inneptness

I couldn't believe this wasn't discussed by the announcers, let alone called by the officials. Harntell was across the goal line and partly inside the net, clearly blocking Niemi's lateral movement, and the shot was to that side. I know its a non-reviewable judgment call, but it seemed pretty obvious to me, and I though it at least warranted some analysis and an explanation.

 

I was wondering this too. As a new fan who started watching when Dollar Bill (as my old man is fond of calling him) was gone, I wasn't sure if it was something I didn't know about it. It was obvious that the guy was in Niemi's way over the goal line. I didn't think that you could do that.

I couldn't believe this wasn't discussed by the announcers, let alone called by the officials. Harntell was across the goal line and partly inside the net, clearly blocking Niemi's lateral movement, and the shot was to that side. I know its a non-reviewable judgment call, but it seemed pretty obvious to me, and I though it at least warranted some analysis and an explanation.

 

I didn't think that play should have been a penalty, but I did think a very strong case could have been made for that goal not counting. I'm not 100 percent sure on the exact specific wording of that rule though, but it was definitely a very close call at the very least.

I couldn't believe this wasn't discussed by the announcers, let alone called by the officials. Harntell was across the goal line and partly inside the net, clearly blocking Niemi's lateral movement, and the shot was to that side. I know its a non-reviewable judgment call, but it seemed pretty obvious to me, and I though it at least warranted some analysis and an explanation.

You're right on the last part, you would think they would have caught that and commented on it. It certainly was a judgment call, so you might as well touch on it.

 

Here's how it was ruled, as I see it.

 

Hartnell dove for the loose puck and ended up in the crease. He was there when the puck went in. However, he did not impair Niemi's ability to stop the shot. By rule then, it's a good goal.

 

If you slow it down, Niemi's down and out on the other side of the net (due to his own movements), and the puck is roofed before Niemi even has a chance to move more than just a little bit. Niemi's movement was not hindered by Hartnell, nor did him being in the crease prevent him from making the save. Nor was he making it if Hartnell wasn't there at all.

 

When it comes to goal/no goal situations in the crease, there's as much judgment as there is anywhere else in the entire game, because so many different things can play into it. It's not easy to call and leads to discussions often, but it's better than a hard and fast rule....it's no longer the infamous a toe in the crease opposite the play and goaltender and it was disallowed. One of the more ridiculous rules this sport had for a while. Now it's left up to judgment, like it should be.

 

Honestly I think the right call was made - and you didn't see anyone on the Hawks saying anything, unless I missed it. It should be a good goal, and one the Hawks would certainly want on the other end in the same situation.

 

But yes it looks awkward when a guy is in the crease up against the post, so you have to wonder if that was legit. "Edzo" could have explained that pretty quickly while watching the replay, but somehow chose not to do so.

Hartnell dove for the loose puck and ended up in the crease. He was there when the puck went in. However, he did not impair Niemi's ability to stop the shot. By rule then, it's a good goal.

 

 

This is your opinion, so Im not going to say you are wrong, but the way I saw it Hartnell directly impacted Niemi's ability to move to the other side of the net to deflect that rebound. Hartnell was laying against Niemi's leg and the puck went directly over Hartnells back.

 

It was a slick veteran move to distract and disrupt the goalie, but the first thing that popped in my head when I saw the overhead replay was that Hartnell very much impacted the play from Niemi.

There were 6 men on the ice for the Hawks when Versteeg scored goal #3.

The cheapest game seven tickets out there on stubhub are $740 each for SRO.

There were 6 men on the ice for the Hawks when Versteeg scored goal #3.

Yeah, they showed that on postgame last night.

 

WHOOPS!

 

There were 6 men on the ice for the Hawks when Versteeg scored goal #3.

 

Is this true? Why isn't it receiving more play nationally?

Quick question. Say the Hawks win on Wednesday, will Dale Tallon get his name on the cup (and get a ring)? I know he was with us this year early on, and now isn't (with another org). I mean he is the one who basically created this Hawks team. I would hope if it's a no, Rocky, John (especially) and Stan really give him pub/salute him in some way. I already feel bad for Cam Barker as well...

Quick question. Say the Hawks win on Wednesday, will Dale Tallon get his name on the cup (and get a ring)? I know he was with us this year early on, and now isn't (with another org). I mean he is the one who basically created this Hawks team. I would hope if it's a no, Rocky, John (especially) and Stan really give him pub/salute him in some way. I already feel bad for Cam Barker as well...

 

I don't think so, because he has not been a part of the team this year (unless they count whatever silent, STFU role he may have technically still held). The NHL has specific rules that govern engraving of names. I'm not sure what the specific rules are for executives, but I know that when the Oilers' owner had his non-involved dad's name added a few years back, the league got pissed and had it crossed off.

 

For players, a guy must have played at least half the year with a team, or at least one game in the Stanley Cup Finals. IIRC, Barker was traded at the deadline, so he might still be elgible.

 

 

Quick question. Say the Hawks win on Wednesday, will Dale Tallon get his name on the cup (and get a ring)? I know he was with us this year early on, and now isn't (with another org). I mean he is the one who basically created this Hawks team. I would hope if it's a no, Rocky, John (especially) and Stan really give him pub/salute him in some way. I already feel bad for Cam Barker as well...

 

I would have said yes, all except for his actions after he left here.

Is this true? Why isn't it receiving more play nationally?

 

It is true. Nobody is talking about it because the play is over, it wasnt a game winner, and there isnt going to be a late review.

In reality the game was over when the Hartnell thing happened which is why I think it was glossed over. If that was to tie or take the lead I think thre would have been a bigger discussion. I also was not sure why Edzo and Pierre did not even bring it up.

It is another symptom of how bad the officiating has been this series. Being in broadcasting, you can only talk about officiating so much, otherwise the broadcast suffers. If they were to have a serious discussion of each blown call in this series, they wouldn't talk about anything else.

This is your opinion, so Im not going to say you are wrong, but the way I saw it Hartnell directly impacted Niemi's ability to move to the other side of the net to deflect that rebound. Hartnell was laying against Niemi's leg and the puck went directly over Hartnells back.

 

It was a slick veteran move to distract and disrupt the goalie, but the first thing that popped in my head when I saw the overhead replay was that Hartnell very much impacted the play from Niemi.

Yeah he did, he was grabbing Niemi's leg pad as well. Its not really subjective, he clearly affected his movement in the crease.

Sounds like its Leighton in net tommorrow night, no surprise to me.

 

Laviolette just now on starting goalie: "Our goaltender has the best numbers in the playoffs, I don't think I have to announce it."

i mean he's only had to pull him twice in the finals, no biggie.

i mean he's only had to pull him twice in the finals, no biggie.

He did a nice job earning those numbers against one of the worst offensive teams in the NHL.