10 February 2008

Get off your knees, ref, you're blowing the game (Wings 3, Ducks 2)

What the $*&#ing %#$@ was that?

14 comments:

Kirsten said...

GDI, you guys were supposed to beat them so I could gloat about how much the Ducks suck, etc.

KMS2 said...

damn, Steph....what happened?

Steph said...

Kirsten: Trust me, I know. I wanted to join you.

Kms2: I try not to blame losses on bad officiating because I figure it generally evens out in the end and most of the time that's just making excuses but...this was bad all game long, and then with 50 seconds left the tying goal got waved off because of "goaltender interference", when Holmstrom wasn't even in the crease and it looked more like Giguere ran into him. I have no idea what the thought process was there...sigh.

Kirsten said...

PS, did I ACTUALLY just cheer for the Red Wings a little bit?

Steph said...

Kirsten: Oooh, yeah...I'm pretty sure you just did.

Kirsten said...

Damnit. Steph, you have corrupted me! Take it back! Get off the Red Wings germs! Ack, ack, poisened Red Wings germs!

Earl Sleek said...

I'll definitely agree that it was a shame that such a marquee game had to suffer from atrocious officiating (especially the Homer nonsense), but I'm not really that sorry.

I saw that DET-COL game last week when the same b.s. happened to Colorado, and there wasn't nearly as much yelling from Detroit fans then. Sometimes karma sucks, I guess.

Teebz said...

I know one ref who won't be getting a playoff gig this year. Simply brutal call.

Steph said...

Kirsten: TOO BAD, you're infected :P

Sleek: Yeah, that's why I try not to get to argumentative over bad officiating - I know it's gone in our favor more than once. (I heard someone say that if you have to rely on bad officiating as your reason for losing a game, you should've been playing better hockey to begin with - probably true.) I'm sure you're not sorry :P

Teebz: Damn right. I mean sure, it happens to ever team at some point - but I swear if it had been anybody but Homer standing there it would have been different. Poor guy, everyone just has it in for him this season.

cupster33 said...

Homer was in the crease there are about 700 pictures on the net proving it steph

Earl Sleek said...

"In the crease" is no longer the determining factor on allowing or disallowing a goal.

I'm not sure there are 700 versions of the NHL rules to confirm this, but I'm dubious as to the 700 bits of photographic evidence, too (I've seen but one picture re-used in a couple of places).

Earl Sleek said...

Added just for evidence: don't forget, the Rangers scored a goal against the Ducks this past weekend while a player was inside the net. That goal was allowed.

Steph said...

Cupster33: I actually have yet to see the one picture I've been told is being bandied around but I don't think a picture (or 700) alone could answer the question of if it should have been a goal anyway. It seems to me that it wasn't his placement called into question but the movement - and I still don't think he touched Giguere. I could always be wrong.

(If anything, to me, it looked like if there was any contact at all Giguere almost leaned into Homer just in his moving forward to get into position, but my memory of it isn't perfect by now and my TV is small, so like I said.)

Teebz said...

The call had nothing to do with Holmstrom being in the crease. The referee specifically said it was due to goaltender interference. The problem is that Giguere slid out into Holmstrom.

That's why the call was wrong. Giguere initiated contact, not Holmstrom.