Post-Game Talk: All it takes is one

[14ari13]

Why can't we play WC teams only?

Our record would be so much better.

Miller

 

[Tomas W]

watched from middle of the 3rd. good game. Wings needed a game like this high intensity game.

however.. boy did Nyquist ever lay an egg today

What ever he tries to do, he need to stop doing it because it doesn't work.

Good team effort though to actually come up with two points of a defensive minded ST Louis.

 

[Instl]

Correct call per the rules books would have been:

Slashing penalty on St Louis.
Playing with broken stick on Detroit
No Goal

Upcoming 3 on 3.

I'm not a sour grapes Blues fan coming in here but, technically, that's not correct. If you see the overhead view of the goal, you'll see that Abby's stick broke on Allen's pads, not a Petro slash.

Goal should not have counted but the ref missed it, it happens and it's not reviewable.

Stupid and lazy penalty by Berglund that put the Blues in that position to begin with.

 

[JHaggis]

Howard was best in this game

 

[TheOtherOne]

I'd like to hear an official NHL response to the goal. I'm not convinced that it shouldn't have counted.

Think of it this way: What if a goal was NOT scored on the play? Like say the exact same thing happened at center ice but all it resulted in was a pass to a teammate, or even a giveaway. Would Abby have been penalized? Even though the play on the puck was basically immediately after the stick broke? Like probably within a half a second?

I mean I get that if your stick breaks and 3 seconds later you try to make a defensive play with it to save a goal, that would be a penalty. But surely there is a short window of freedom where you are allowed to react on instinct without being penalized?

And if I'm right here, and it would not have been a penalty on Abby, then I think we can conclude that it was in fact a good goal. Because it seems to me that it's either or. Mutually exclusive. Penalty on Abby, or whatever happens after is legit.

Does that make any sense?

 

[chances14]

 

[Mister Ed]

I'm getting really annoyed of watching the games on NBCSN. They have some kind of ill-will towards the Red Wings, always bragging the other team and never the Red Wings. And don't get me started on the ''Subtle Interference'' thing.

 

[Instl]

I'd like to hear an official NHL response to the goal. I'm not convinced that it shouldn't have counted.

Think of it this way: What if a goal was NOT scored on the play? Like say the exact same thing happened at center ice but all it resulted in was a pass to a teammate, or even a giveaway. Would Abby have been penalized? Even though the play on the puck was basically immediately after the stick broke? Like probably within a half a second?

I mean I get that if your stick breaks and 3 seconds later you try to make a defensive play with it to save a goal, that would be a penalty. But surely there is a short window of freedom where you are allowed to react on instinct without being penalized?

And if I'm right here, and it would not have been a penalty on Abby, then I think we can conclude that it was in fact a good goal. Because it seems to me that it's either or. Mutually exclusive. Penalty on Abby, or whatever happens after is legit.

Does that make any sense?

The rule doesn't account for any time delay, as most rules don't. I know what you're saying about the timeframe of the broken stick and the touching of the puck but, according to the rule:

Rule 605 | Broken Stick


(a) Any player whose stick is broken must drop his stick prior to participating in the play. A minor penalty for an equipment violation shall be assessed for participating in play with a broken stick.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Ansar Khan ‏@AnsarKhanMLive 7m7 minutes ago
Lines:
Abdelkader-Zetterberg-Cole
Weiss-Sheahan-Tatar
Nyquist-Andersson-Pulkkinen
Miller-Glendening-Jurco
Datsyuk and Cleary rotating in.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Ansar Khan ‏@AnsarKhanMLive 7m7 minutes ago
Lines:
Abdelkader-Zetterberg-Cole
Weiss-Sheahan-Tatar
Nyquist-Andersson-Pulkkinen
Miller-Glendening-Jurco
Datsyuk and Cleary rotating in.

I would like to see datsyuk in on that 3rd line for tomorrows game

those would be four solid lines

 

[ap3x]

Why is Helm not skating, precaution?

 

[detredWINgs]

I'd like to hear an official NHL response to the goal. I'm not convinced that it shouldn't have counted.

Think of it this way: What if a goal was NOT scored on the play? Like say the exact same thing happened at center ice but all it resulted in was a pass to a teammate, or even a giveaway. Would Abby have been penalized? Even though the play on the puck was basically immediately after the stick broke? Like probably within a half a second?

I mean I get that if your stick breaks and 3 seconds later you try to make a defensive play with it to save a goal, that would be a penalty. But surely there is a short window of freedom where you are allowed to react on instinct without being penalized?

And if I'm right here, and it would not have been a penalty on Abby, then I think we can conclude that it was in fact a good goal. Because it seems to me that it's either or. Mutually exclusive. Penalty on Abby, or whatever happens after is legit.

Does that make any sense?

Kerry Fraser addressed it on Twitter. Ultimately, you can't review a missed penalty. Would be no different if Abdelkader high-sticked Pietrangelo in front of the net and then scored. Even black and white missed penalties can't be reviewed for a goal.

It shouldn't be a goal and I'd be pissed if it happened to us but ultimately, does Abdelkader's stick breaking cause the goal to be scored? No. Whether the stick is broken or not, he's getting the puck in the net. If the stick break had been caught by the refs, it would've been a HUGE break for the Blues. Wouldve saved them a goal AND put them on the PP eventually for what would've been an inconsequential element of the play.

 

[ap3x]

Right decision. No need to rush back in.

 

[Frk It]

Damnit, that stinks.

 

[detredWINgs]

Shocker. I knew the "out for 2 games" estimation was bunk. Datsyuk is a notoriously slow healer. Either that or its a tactical measure on Detroits part to always keep the opposition guessing if Datsyuk will be in.

 

[Frk It]

Ansar Khan ‏@AnsarKhanMLive 7m7 minutes ago
Lines:
Abdelkader-Zetterberg-Cole
Weiss-Sheahan-Tatar
Nyquist-Andersson-Pulkkinen
Miller-Glendening-Jurco
Datsyuk and Cleary rotating in.

Assuming Weiss is just a place holder for Helm?

 

[TheOtherOne]

Kerry Fraser addressed it on Twitter. Ultimately, you can't review a missed penalty. Would be no different if Abdelkader high-sticked Pietrangelo in front of the net and then scored. Even black and white missed penalties can't be reviewed for a goal.

It shouldn't be a goal and I'd be pissed if it happened to us but ultimately, does Abdelkader's stick breaking cause the goal to be scored? No. Whether the stick is broken or not, he's getting the puck in the net. If the stick break had been caught by the refs, it would've been a HUGE break for the Blues. Wouldve saved them a goal AND put them on the PP eventually for what would've been an inconsequential element of the play.

I know I'm kind of on both sides of the argument here, but I actually think that IS reviewable (at least in my understanding of the rules, which I guess is probably wrong).

If the penalty occurred any time prior to the goal, then right, it wouldn't be reviewable.

But the actual act of putting the puck into the net IS the exact same act that would be penalized. Same as goalie interference, same as kicking the puck into the net, same as hitting it in with a high stick. Those are all reviewable and this should be too.

However my main argument is that if it wasn't a scoring play, no ref in the league would call a penalty on Abby, because it was practically a follow-through on the same motion that broke the stick in the first place. And if that much is true, then the goal is legit.

I know I know, it's easy to just accept Fraser's answer as he should know more than any of us. And I see that argument and accept it. But I'm just not completely convinced that it's the best answer, at least in the spirit of the rules if not the rules verbatim.

I'd like to think if I was a Blues fan I'd be saying "Hey, that's an illegal goal!... but it would be kind of ******** to make that call so I'll grudgingly let it slide."

 

[FlashyG]

Shocker. I knew the "out for 2 games" estimation was bunk. Datsyuk is a notoriously slow healer. Either that or its a tactical measure on Detroits part to always keep the opposition guessing if Datsyuk will be in.

Whenever you get an injury report from the Wings double it.

That seems to be a pretty accurate gauge of how hurt the player really is.

They initially said he'd miss the 2 games in Florida. So missing the 2 Florida games plus the first 2 of the homestand is more likely the real timeline.

 

[DRL]

What happened to nyquist being a top scorer for the wings? Shouldn't he be a guy that plays wing on the top line with his scoring ability?

 

[Eggberto]

But the actual act of putting the puck into the net IS the exact same act that would be penalized. Same as goalie interference, same asi kicking the puck into the net, same as hitting it in with a high stick. Those are all reviewable and this should be too.
"

Goalie interference isn't reviewable though. There are countless examples of this from this season alone.

 

[detredWINgs]

I know I'm kind of on both sides of the argument here, but I actually think that IS reviewable (at least in my understanding of the rules, which I guess is probably wrong).

If the penalty occurred any time prior to the goal, then right, it wouldn't be reviewable.

But the actual act of putting the puck into the net IS the exact same act that would be penalized. Same as goalie interference, same as kicking the puck into the net, same as hitting it in with a high stick. Those are all reviewable and this should be too.

However my main argument is that if it wasn't a scoring play, no ref in the league would call a penalty on Abby, because it was practically a follow-through on the same motion that broke the stick in the first place. And if that much is true, then the goal is legit.

I know I know, it's easy to just accept Fraser's answer as he should know more than any of us. And I see that argument and accept it. But I'm just not completely convinced that it's the best answer, at least in the spirit of the rules if not the rules verbatim.

I'd like to think if I was a Blues fan I'd be saying "Hey, that's an illegal goal!... but it would be kind of ******** to make that call so I'll grudgingly let it slide."

Goals going in with high sticks, kicks, hands, etc are not penalties. The broken stick play is. It would have had to have been called on the ice in order to review it. It wasn't.

 

[Eggberto]

What happened to nyquist being a top scorer for the wings? Shouldn't he be a guy that plays wing on the top line with his scoring ability?

He hasn't been scoring lately, and has been playing without much confidence. He has been making mistakes with the puck and hasn't really been playing with any fire in his game.

If I'm not mistaken he started the game against the blues on the first line with Z and Abdelkader but the line was not producing much. Of course these lines changed to start the 3rd period which worked out well.

 

[ap3x]

Ansar Khan ‏@AnsarKhanMLive 12m12 minutes ago

Helm is fine. His significant other delivered a child today.

 

[Vladdy84]

Ansar Khan ‏@AnsarKhanMLive 12m12 minutes ago

Helm is fine. His significant other delivered a child today.

Congrats Shannon!

 

[Frk It]