Comments on: Quick turnaround

By: Nasty 1

Nasty 1 — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:35:46 +0000

My take on things:

I thought that if Pitts could get 1 in Detroit, that they might have a chance to win this series, but I also knew that Osgood is O So Good in the playoffs and has more experience. With the Wings being older and playing back to back games, I thought maybe they would wear down a bit. But they didn’t and now they are up 2-0. It is pretty safe to say that Pitts will win 1 and lose one in Pitts, and this game will be wrapped up in 5 in Detroit. That is what I think at least.

How is everyone doing?

By: Rick Carpiniello

Rick Carpiniello — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:28:09 +0000

Avery would be in jail.

New post.

By: Dr. Ogrodnick

Dr. Ogrodnick — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:26:07 +0000

Carp, the funny thing about game 1 is that earlier in the third period the announcers talked about what a good strategy it would be to give the 4th line minutes considering the quick turnaround, then dismissed it, saying Detroit would do whatever it takes to win game 1. 5 minutes later they were shocked that the 4th line was getting minutes, and couldn’t figure out why. That is why Pierre Mcguire is a duche and bad for the game of hockey,like clutching and grabbing and the late 90s trap.

By: roc

roc — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:23:44 +0000

Come on Wings 2 more wins!! Get this off season going!!

By: NYRanger4Life

NYRanger4Life — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:18:11 +0000

Anyone doubt that if that was Avery instead of Malkin, he would be sitting from the press box for at LEAST one game??

By: ctrain016

ctrain016 — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:17:03 +0000

All players are not equal when it comes to enforcing rules. It’s obvious now. Shining stars get preferential treatment over less talented players. I mean how many case studies do we have in the past 7 years to support this?????

By: Tyler

Tyler — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:01:01 +0000

it is ridiculous that they didn’t suspend him it just goes to show you that the league protects their superstars from everything.

By: ctrain016

ctrain016 — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:59:43 +0000

Just another NHL double standard. They write these rules so clearly yet leave just enough loopholes, so that Colin Campbell and his cronies can review based on a number of different criteria. Yea that “criteria” is the NHL’s interest in giving the team they want to win the upper hand, and is not meant to uphold the integrity of the sport and its rules.

By: CDeck

CDeck — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:27:46 +0000

does anyone else find it mind boggling that Malking was NOT suspended?

By: Spraystop

Spraystop — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:32:24 +0000

Carp, you have to get a complete answer from the NHL as to why they are not suspending Malkin for game 3. I mean, we know why but I want you to get a full explanation just so we can see how ridiculous Bettman and Campbell have become. The rule is black and white – if you instigate a fight in the final 5 minutes of a game you are suspended. Period. Not only that, his jersey wasn’t tied down so that’s two misconducts in one game (one for instigating and one for the jersey not being tied down) which is an automatic suspension anyway. So even if they say his intent wasn’t to send a message and the fight was just frustration, he still has to be suspended for two misconducts in one game.

But the NHL has already said that Malkin won’t be suspended because at their discretion, he wasn’t looking to send a message, it was just frustration. They look like morons because the rule is very black and white. Once again the NHL is just bending the rules in whatever way Bettman wants. No wonder this league is only on Versus. Maybe Vince McMahon should be the next commissioner. If they are going to make up rules as they go along, they might as well hire a pro.

Zetterberg’s jersey wasn’t tied down either but that would only be one misconduct for him so he was out of the game at that point but wouldn’t get another game.

And it’s not just this game. How about Zetterberg closing his hand on the puck in the crease last game. The crease extends upward and he definitely closed his hand on the puck on Osgood’s back. That was a clear penalty shot. But the NHL says that the ref used his discretion and thought that Zetterberg was not covering the puck but was trying to bat it away. Huh? Look at that play on any replay and tell me how you could possibly say with a straight face he was trying to bat it away

This is the downfall of the NHL. Rules that are called at the discretion of the ref and the league as it suits their purpose. They did it to Avery ever since he came back – one set of rules for the other players and another for Avery.

In his quest to market the NHL to the mass audience in the US (who don’t care BTW), Gary Bettman continues to show he has no clue about the game of hockey and just ruins the game for long time fans.

Put their feet to the fire Carp. Make them give you an answer that can be justified.