The Official NHL Playoffs Thread

[spamhead]

Lundquist did play a solid game.

[niss]

The goaltending in this series has been outstanding on both ends. Miller has been just as good.

[stealthcow]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG they got a replay review right.

Let me try to be fair -- I *think* Buffalo scored ... terrible sloppy play by the Rangers at the end with the icings and Lundquist's lazy play there. Tough call on the ice but I think it was in ... but you can't tell from the replay and therefore you can't reverse the call. Tough break for Buffalo but once they ruled no goal on the ice I think the no reversal call on the replay was correct.

Anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

note, i only saw the last 30 mins.

Yea, you're being pretty fair. The puck was in. Its annoying too because the camera angle they give favors the puck not being in the net. And obviously they can't have the camera directly over the net because of the cross bar.

The Rangers have been the better team in the series so far. I've been impressed. But hopefully the Sabres can raise it up a notch.

Wes- Saying i dont want avery on my team means i dont want to be on the powerplay? Does saying i wouldn't want darcy tucker on my team make me not like goals (because he scored ~ 30)? no. its because effective or not, i hate the way they play the game.

[Rubeskies]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF was he doing with the waltz back into the net though?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the same thing. It seemed like he stood next to the goal for a second or two before he went back in front of the net. For no reason really.

[1C5]

Benching Max tonight?? wow

[CrazyPsycho]

Sounds like TSN has the angle that shows it was in.

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
how the hell does'nt the red light go on? what are the refs looking at? doesn't the goal judge have a perfect view of the crease?

it was the right call on the replay, but that goddamn light should have went on. The the replay would have been inconclusive to overturn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Goal judge doesn't matter. The only reason he's there is for the crowd. It's what the ref indicates on the ice. If the ref says it's in, and the goal judge doesn't hit the light, it's a goal. If the goal judge says it is in, but the ref does not - no goal.

[bluef0x]

I haven't seen the goal yet... but it sounds like the same thing that happened in the San Jose - Detroit game last night. Cheechoo thought he scored, goal light on... but the ref doesn't call a thing for 30423042934 seconds. Zetterberg purposely leans over the net so that the top-down view can't see a thing. No goal stands. However, if it was called goal on the ice there wouldn't be evidence to overturn it.

[niss]

Give Ruff and Briere a lot of credit for their comments after the game. Very classy wrt the replay review not going their way and Briere saying that the Rachunek play in Game 3 should have been a goal.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
Avery draws more penalties then any one in the league... any team would want him.

Saying that you don't want him on your team is like saying "I don't like when my team is on the power play"

[/ QUOTE ]

he also takes more penalties than anyone in the league. he's led the league in minor penalties the last two seasons.

i wouldn't want him on my team. aside from this momentary NYR boost in scoring, he's never been a particularly good scorer either - in LA he was a liability.

btw I thought it was in, but the call could have gone either way. it's really too close to call - really, the Sabres should be dominating in this series, so it's immaterial. I don't know when they turned into the '06 Senators, but they better get their heads on straight.