08-09' Blackhawks (46-24-12) 104 PTS - 4th Seed In The West!

[cubswin2009]

Toronto hates us.

[Cynosure]

Can't even be pissed about that... could have gone either way, shitty NHL rules are semi-credited to that.

[Cynosure]

AVALANCHE GOAL

 

1 - 5:10 - Smyth scores (13), assisted by Wolski (13).

 

Avalanche lead 1-0.

[brinoch]

Toronto hates us.

 

Eh? What the heck are you talking about?

[cubswin2009]

Toronto hates us.

 

Eh? What the heck are you talking about?

The NHL office in Toronto where they look at replays. I don't think we've won one call from them in 2 years.

[Cynosure]

Toronto hates us.

 

Eh? What the heck are you talking about?

 

I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but if not... and for those who don't know:

 

Controversial goals are handled in the "War Room" in Toronto. Unlike MLB/NFL, the people in the "War Room" make the ultimate decision, not the officials on the ice.

[UMFan83]

The Hawks are losing and they aren't even playing Detroit? WTF is up with that?

[Cynosure]

The Hawks are losing and they aren't even playing Detroit? WTF is up with that?

 

To be fair... until after the Toronto game where they came back from 4 down... their first periods were AWFUL and they came out with fire in the 2nd and 3rd, I expect the same tonight.

[Cynosure]

HAWKS GOAL

 

2 - 5:16 (PP) - Campbell scores (7), assisted by Kane (26).

 

Tie game 1-1.

[Cynosure]

And the Hawks face Patrick ROYcroft.

[17 Seconds]

hawks should have at least 3-4 goals right now

[17 Seconds]

holy hell. how is the puck not going in the net right now? that last minute was insane

[cubswin2009]

Refs win!

[Cynosure]

Really sucks when your team vastly outplayed the other team but still loses. Especially after the controversial goal they got.

 

I can't complain about the decision of the goal from Toronto due to rules that can be interpreted in many ways (kick ins).

 

Patrick RoyCroft beat us tonight.... 43 saves... GTFO here.

 

For you Anze/Dexter... this was a "legit" loss in my book... so now the Hawks' real record is 37-1-0 ;-)

[UMFan83]

So wait, its been awhile, how many points do we get for a non-Detroit loss? 1?

 

Wait its 0? WTF?

[kujay]

Classy comments by Raycroft re. last night's game:

 

"If you are going to win in this league most nights, you are going to have to make one or two [saves] that look like steal saves, but sometimes they are easier than others," Raycroft said. "You need a little bit of luck too. [Chicago] had some chances they missed, and that was the difference."

 

I'm looking forward to going back and watching last night's game and tomorrow night's game on the DVR. Hopefully I won't be watching two losses.

[Cynosure]

I watched the last period again this morning since I don't really remember it last night, haha.

 

I cannot believe that homer puck drop... man was that terrible. Also... how did some of those rebounds not go in!??!

[jersey cubs fan]

I watched the last period again this morning since I don't really remember it last night, haha.

 

I cannot believe that "homer puck drop"... man was that terrible. Also... how did some of those rebounds not go in!??!

 

I'm not familiar with the rule, but the announcers sure made it clear that it was legit. What was Sharp doing standing around like that after the whistle?

[Cynosure]

I watched the last period again this morning since I don't really remember it last night, haha.

 

I cannot believe that "homer puck drop"... man was that terrible. Also... how did some of those rebounds not go in!??!

 

I'm not familiar with the rule, but the announcers sure made it clear that it was legit. What was Sharp doing standing around like that after the whistle?

 

It's "in the rulebook" but NEVER happens... let me find that quote from Q.

[Cynosure]

"After that game coach Joel Quenneville was visibly incensed and didn't mince words when reporters asked about the play. "You can't justify that play they made to get the power play. It was totally unacceptable. It was a homer drop--haven't seen that in four years.""

[Cynosure]

Just looked up the rule... after the ref blows the whistle, he is to drop the puck after 5 seconds. HOWEVER, the refs are "supposed" to warn the player to get in the circle before dropping the puck. What he did was 100% on point with the rulebook, but still bush league due to the unwritten rules of hockey.

 

And I am not excusing Sharp at all.

[nilodnayr]

Just looked up the rule... after the ref blows the whistle, he is to drop the puck after 5 seconds. HOWEVER, the refs are "supposed" to warn the player to get in the circle before dropping the puck. What he did was 100% on point with the rulebook, but still bush league due to the unwritten rules of hockey.

 

And I am not excusing Sharp at all.

 

 

Additionally, the reason why the face off was being delayed was because the Avs were changing lines (as you know, home team gets to be last to change lines), so because the Avs were delaying the game to get the matchup they wanted on the ice, the ref blew his whistle. It was the Avs fault the delay occurred, the ref CAN drop the puck 5 seconds after he blows the whistle but its up to his discretion. Since it was the Avs and not the Hawks that were causing the delay, he should have waited for the Hawks to get to the dot. It was pure crap. And then to call the penalty...we really got jobbed there.

[nilodnayr]

BTW, I just re-watched the disputed goal (since I only watched the third period lastnight) and that SOOOOOOOOOOOO was a goal. Good overturn. I actually am shocked that they called that no goal on the ice.

[Cynosure]

BTW, I just re-watched the disputed goal (since I only watched the third period lastnight) and that SOOOOOOOOOOOO was a goal. Good overturn. I actually am shocked that they called that no goal on the ice.

 

I agree it was a good goal.... BUT it should NOT have been a goal.

 

it was called NO GOAL on the ice. Smyth DID make a kicking motion putting the puck in the net... there was NO conclusive evidence that he didn't. it's a subjective matter on what a "kicking motion" is and it needs to be ratified by the NHL. He did make a "kicking motion" but he didn't raise his skate above the ice.

 

If the initial call on ice was GOOD GOAL I wouldn't have argued it... but the fact is was called no goal, it should have stayed that way.

[rickrolled]

BTW, I just re-watched the disputed goal (since I only watched the third period lastnight) and that SOOOOOOOOOOOO was a goal. Good overturn. I actually am shocked that they called that no goal on the ice.

 

I agree it was a good goal.... BUT it should NOT have been a goal.

 

it was called NO GOAL on the ice. Smyth DID make a kicking motion putting the puck in the net... there was NO conclusive evidence that he didn't. it's a subjective matter on what a "kicking motion" is and it needs to be ratified by the NHL. He did make a "kicking motion" but he didn't raise his skate above the ice.

 

If the initial call on ice was GOOD GOAL I wouldn't have argued it... but the fact is was called no goal, it should have stayed that way.

 

I really didn't see a kicking motion from Smyth.