Only during the NHL Playoffs.

 

Wow Samuelsson showed up tonight. Wings up 2-0.

 

Tight boards up there in Hockeytown Wings 3-0.

 

Er, I think Detroit has this one!

 

And 3 out of 4 more.

 

No doubt about it, if tehy keep playing like this. 4 zip.

Poor Fleury. He' was on his own.

 

Damn, the Pens sure suck tonight! Wings 4-0.

 

I remember this type of beginning last series vs Dallas.

 

Might as well say it was 5-0 Wings....that first disallowed goal was clearly a goal, anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about the game of hockey. Even the announcers were saying it was a terrible call. Then to give Homer a penalty on top of it???? Gimmie a break.....

 

It was the right call. Holmstrom was clearly interfering with Flower in the blue.

Holmstrom is a dirtbag, but he's also a winner.

 

Any call against Detroit is the right call

 

Sorry Stealth, but you are wrong. Watch the replay a few more times, and then read the NHL rules. After the game every analyst that I watched said it was a goal also. Homer did not in any way interfere with Fluery and prevent him from making the save....not only that, but Fluery was out of his crease when Homer's stick was "between his pads".

It was a BS call made by some of the same officiating crew that waived off the obvious goal by Homer against Dallas too (O'halleran and Co.).

But whatever, turns out it didn't matter anyways.

 

The refs hose job has already mattered in this years playoffs. See Game 4 vs Dallas. Sorry Stealth, if that goal counted in game 4, you were swept.

And, on another note.. Osgood is a freaking machine. Here's to The Dominator finally retiring.

 

Really, you guys obviously are jaded fans. Holmstrom clearly forced his stick in the goalie's legs in the blue. It prevented Fleury from doing his job, goaltending, therefore the no goal call and the penalty.

Argue all you want, it didn't count yesterday, last week, and won't in the future.

I guess this replay isn't evidence enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LO_hW_4F4Y

 

Really, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. The replay also clearly shows that his stick in no way prevented him from doing his job.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing anymore....you can say I'm a jaded fan all you want, but I know I'm right.

EDIT: Here's an article explaining the rule and bogus calls:

http://www.bleacherreport.com/articl...at-s-The-Deal-

"In Game 4 against Dallas, Holmstrom was standing outside the crease, screening the goalie as he always does when Pavel Datsyuk scored. The goal was waived off. The only explanation that was given was that Holmstrom's butt was in the crease. Huh?

Last night, in Game 1 against Pittsburgh in the Stanley Cup Finals, Holmstrom was again outside of the crease when Lidstrom scored. This goal was immediately waived off as well. The explanation for this one was that Holmstrom hit Marc-Andre Fluery with his stick.

The official NHL rulebook has this to say about goaltender interference:

"Rule 78. B

If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed."

Let's look at the waived off goal in Game 4 against Dallas. Holmstrom was completely outside of the crease, Marty Turco was inside the crease. Holmstrom's butt was ruled to have blocked Turco's vision and so interference was the call and the goal was waived off. There wasn't contact against Turco. This doesn't fit the rule for goaltender interference.

How about Lidstrom's goal last night? Holmstrom was outside the crease and made contact with Fluery with his stick, but take a closer look. Fluery skated out of the crease to run into Holmstrom's stick.

Fluery initiated the contact and so this must be called incidental contact, so according to the rules this also was not goaltender interference. Yet, the goal was waived off AND Holmstrom was issued a penalty.

Both goals were waived off by referee Dan O'Halloran, who incidently also waived off a goal due to Holmstrom in the regular season. O'Halloran clearly either doesn't understand Rule 78.B or just has a personal vendetta against Tomas Holmstrom. Either way, something has to happen here."