If you're a dallas stars fan, you can't be too happy about this.

[halifax]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oSXXD3HZ3vM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hawks ended up winning this game in OT.

[dcicon5148]

Of course being from Chicago I would want a goal no matter what at this time of year...... But this was reviewed in Toronto and they called it a good goal so Dallas fans should be complaining about the officiating in the war room and not direct anything at the Hawks.

Go Hawks!!

[shaftman]

Isnt the rule in hockey that the puck needs to completely cross the line?

[Louie14]

The war room owed them one.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VmEtDX41qSM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[smozoma]

Isnt the rule in hockey that the puck needs to completely cross the line?

There's another angle that shows when it hits the far post, it then goes over the line.

But it's really hard to tell if he got his stick on it or not.. it does appear that initially the puck was moving away from the net, and then after he swung at it, it changed direction slightly to go towards the net. I can't see the stick hit the puck, but if the puck changed direction, it must have hit it.. or blown air on it.. or maybe the puck hit a bump or had some spin on it. Hard to say! They should have had a net cam.

[Zalex]

even if the puck crossed the line, which i doubt, hossa kicked the puck in the net (on purpose).

this is bull s**t call

and why didnt they show any camera view from the inside of the net ? MAY BE CAUSE THAT CAMERA SHOWED THAT THE PUCK NEVER WENT IN COMPLETY ?? GAA CONSPIRACY GAA

[smozoma]

even if the puck crossed the line, which i doubt, hossa kicked the puck in the net (on purpose).

this is bull s**t call

and why didnt they show any camera view from the inside of the net ? MAY BE CAUSE THAT CAMERA SHOWED THAT THE PUCK NEVER WENT IN COMPLETY ?? GAA CONSPIRACY GAA

He kicked it towards the net, it hit the post, and he might have grazed it with his stick to change it's direction. the call on the ice was goal, and since they can't tell that his stick didn't hit it (since it appears to change direction when his stick is swung at it), it stays a goal. and there is another angle that shows it in the net (it's in the clip, but shown fast, and the resolution of the youtube video sucks too bad to show it in).. and you can see they don't have a net cam in that net

If the ref didn't call it a goal on the ice, I think they would have said no goal on the review.

EDIT: on a closer look, yeah, I don't really see it cross the line in the video.. although maybe it gets pushed in a second later.

[hokkeefan]

I hope chicago gets in for 8th and have to play the nucks .Canucks NEED to beat chicago ,which I think they will in 5 if they meet .Chicago lost wayyyyy too many key players this year.

Edited April 8, 2011 by hokkeefan

[RedWingDevil]

Didn't the Stars get something similar when they won the Cup in 1999?

If you're a Sabres fan, you're not gonna like it AT ALL.

Edited April 8, 2011 by RedWingDevil

[hokkeefan]

Didn't the Stars get something similar when they won the Cup in 1999?

If you're a Sabres fan, you're not gonna like it AT ALL.

hey you bum lets get our last disco game over with

[dan_lizhot]

I hope chicago gets in for 8th and have to play the nucks .Canucks NEED to beat chicago ,which I think they will in 5 if they meet .Chicago lost wayyyyy too many key players this year.

This season :

2-1 Chi, 7-1 Chi, 3-0 Van, 4-3 Van;

If Vancouver play against Chicago, that will be great.

Edited April 8, 2011 by dan_lizhot

[RedWingDevil]

Taking care of the house, Hokkee. Will play later!

I think it was a goal, just barely. At the last few seconds the puck did cross the line as it reached the right post. That was a matter of inches.

[The Russian Rocket]

I think the rule should be changed to:

''Any clear kicking motion towards the net, without intention of shoving it towards the stick, should make the play go dead at any moment the attackers gain the advantage, and if goal occured, it would be waived''.

Exemple: Some guy kicks at the net, the goalie reacting on instinct makes the save, gives a bad rebound and then someones scores on it.

That's still cheezy but it counts, I believe it shouldn't.

[dcicon5148]

I hope chicago gets in for 8th and have to play the nucks .Canucks NEED to beat chicago ,which I think they will in 5 if they meet .Chicago lost wayyyyy too many key players this year.

If the Canucks blow this one you can bet there will be a lot of new faces on the team next year.

Plus, the Hawks still have this guy.....

[Comeback_King]

There's another angle that shows when it hits the far post, it then goes over the line.

But it's really hard to tell if he got his stick on it or not.. it does appear that initially the puck was moving away from the net, and then after he swung at it, it changed direction slightly to go towards the net. I can't see the stick hit the puck, but if the puck changed direction, it must have hit it.. or blown air on it.. or maybe the puck hit a bump or had some spin on it. Hard to say! They should have had a net cam.

exactly what I'm thinking

He kicked it towards the net, it hit the post, and he might have grazed it with his stick to change it's direction. the call on the ice was goal, and since they can't tell that his stick didn't hit it (since it appears to change direction when his stick is swung at it), it stays a goal. and there is another angle that shows it in the net (it's in the clip, but shown fast, and the resolution of the youtube video sucks too bad to show it in).. and you can see they don't have a net cam in that net

If the ref didn't call it a goal on the ice, I think they would have said no goal on the review.

again, good point

I think the rule should be changed to:

''Any clear kicking motion towards the net, without intention of shoving it towards the stick, should make the play go dead at any moment the attackers gain the advantage, and if goal occured, it would be waived''.

That's still cheezy but it counts, I believe it shouldn't.

that wouldn't fly. It would be too hard to decipher a players intent on kicking it onto his stick. Even in this case, it's clearly an intentional kick, but he did have intent to kick it to his stick, which to me, looks like he fanned on it. But then how did it change direction if he did miss it? Air?! Hossa is Chuck Norris or something? I don't think a Blues player touched it in any way. The puck did cross the line and the call on the ice stands then. Tough call.

Speaking of TOUGH CALLS. It's amazing all these HABS fans making comments from the peanut gallery of it being a no goal when you were basically handed the game in O.T. by the refs. That had to be in the top 10 maybe top 5 at #5 worse officiating games I've seen. Since you guys are really good at commenting, I'd like to hear input from you on Tomas Kopetzky's interference penalty (interference with goaltender - 2 min 10:17, T. Kopecky drawn by C. Price) lol, this dive and a half = interference - 2 min 0:46, J. Toews drawn by D. Desharnais, and of course the other dive that led to the game winning goal in O.T.

Also, why no call on I believe Subban when he tripped Toews on the rush where Toews still managed to make a beautiful pass from his knees? No penalty? I really would like a Habs fan explain to me if they saw that? And the other B.S. penalties mentioned above. Because if the Montreal game was officiated fairly, this "no goal" Blues game wouldn't even be an issue.

[Zalex]

Speaking of TOUGH CALLS. It's amazing all these HABS fans making comments from the peanut gallery of it being a no goal when you were basically handed the game in O.T. by the refs. That had to be in the top 10 maybe top 5 at #5 worse officiating games I've seen. Since you guys are really good at commenting, I'd like to hear input from you on Tomas Kopetzky's interference penalty (interference with goaltender - 2 min 10:17, T. Kopecky drawn by C. Price) lol, this dive and a half = interference - 2 min 0:46, J. Toews drawn by D. Desharnais, and of course the other dive that led to the game winning goal in O.T.

Also, why no call on I believe Subban when he tripped Toews on the rush where Toews still managed to make a beautiful pass from his knees? No penalty? I really would like a Habs fan explain to me if they saw that? And the other B.S. penalties mentioned above. Because if the Montreal game was officiated fairly, this "no goal" Blues game wouldn't even be an issue.

We, habs fan, explained our neutral point of view, as it involved CHI and STL. We had no purpose on cheering for either STL or CHI.

Now you whine about the CHI/MTL game, as a blackhawks fan.Way to bring back a old game that had no influence in this hossa's call.

MTL-CHI game officiating wasnt perfect yes, but it wasnt perfect for both team. See AK penalty. If you think this was one of the worst officiate game ever, then I would suggest you to watch more hockey games.

[Comeback_King]

We, habs fan, explained our neutral point of view, as it involved CHI and STL. We had no purpose on cheering for either STL or CHI.

Now you whine about the CHI/MTL game, as a blackhawks fan.Way to bring back a old game that had no influence in this hossa's call.

MTL-CHI game officiating wasnt perfect yes, but it wasnt perfect for both team. See AK penalty. If you think this was one of the worst officiate game ever, then I would suggest you to watch more hockey games.

Zalex, please read what I wrote. I didn't say it was the "worst officiate game ever", I said it was in the top 10. Maybe top 5 being at #5. It was bad. It was an important game for both teams for the points. I also have watched a lot of hockey games and that is why it sticks out to me as a bad game. All I asked is I would like to hear from a Habs fan what he thought about those b.s. calls because I didn't hear anything yet from you so now I'm wondering how many games you watched. Surely a guy of your mighty hockey watching caliber knows b.s when he sees b.s. and it isn't about me being a Hawks fan and you being a Habs fan. Let's move past that. Let's discuss what happened.

"Way to bring up an old game." You act like I brought up a game from 2008 or something? How dare I? Which is why I brought up the game in the first place. The influence is POINTS. The controversy surrounding this goal is whether that goal is the reason the Hawks make the playoffs or not. The Montreal game took place right before the Hawks played the Blues it's not an old game. I'll explain further why I'm whining about it. If Chicago won against Montreal AND let's say the same thing happened with Hossa's goal, there wouldn't be a controversy about that goal influencing the Hawks making the playoffs. Right? I mean c'mon Zalex. That's what they're talking about. Not about did the puck cross the line and does Hossa record his 23rd or whatever goal of the season, the big deal is the points.

As far as AK goes. He was a hack that game. He played stupid and almost cost the Habs the game. Both his penalties were deserved. Which one do you think wasn't deserved by him?

Penalties for the game:

Montreal hooking - 2 min 17:40, P. Subban drawn by J. Toews (DESERVED)

Montreal interference - 2 min 19:54, R. Hamrlik drawn by T. Brouwer (DESERVED)

2nd Period

Chicago interference - 2 min 0:46, J. Toews drawn by D. Desharnais (DIVE)

Chicago holding - 2 min 7:20, V. Stalberg drawn by D. Desharnais (DESERVED)

Montreal tripping - 2 min 7:42, A. Kostitsyn drawn by J. Toews (DESERVED)

Montreal puck over glass - 2 min 12:45, P. Subban (DESERVED)

3rd Period

Chicago interference with goaltender - 2 min 10:17, T. Kopecky drawn by C. Price (TOTAL BULLSHIT)

Montreal holding - 2 min 13:20, A. Kostitsyn drawn by D. Keith (DESERVED)

OT Period

Chicago tripping - 2 min 0:37, J. Toews drawn by P. Subban (HARD TO SAY WITHOUT DISCUSSION- I'M LEANING TOWARDS DESERVED)

BUT- IF SO, THEN SUBBAN SHOULD'VE GOT THE ONE ON TRIPPING TOEWS WHERE HE MADE THE NICE PASS.

[The Russian Rocket]

Well the ''holding call'' was questionable

[The Russian Rocket]

that wouldn't fly. It would be too hard to decipher a players intent on kicking it onto his stick. Even in this case, it's clearly an intentional kick, but he did have intent to kick it to his stick, which to me, looks like he fanned on it. But then how did it change direction if he did miss it? Air?! Hossa is Chuck Norris or something? I don't think a Blues player touched it in any way. The puck did cross the line and the call on the ice stands then. Tough call.

It was pretty clear and dry Hossa didn't kick the puck towards his stick, neither was it close.

As for the Toews trip it was pretty damn clear that he put his blade under Subban's skate.

[Comeback_King]

It was pretty clear and dry Hossa didn't kick the puck towards his stick, neither was it close.

As for the Toews trip it was pretty damn clear that he put his blade under Subban's skate.

It was a blatant kick, but he did attempt to hit it with his stick and miss???. So who knows if that was his intention all along. I mean, I think Hossa knows if he kicked the puck in it wouldn't of counted so he better touch it with his stick.

But I think it was pretty damn close don't you think?

Toews- Isn't that still tripping then? I don't know exactly what the rule states. But, I'm pretty sure it isn't the puck carrier's responsibility to look down and make sure his skates are making contact with the ice each and every stride and not an opposing player's stick. Unless, it isn't tripping if it's accidental, but that doesn't make sense to me either, right? I think that's PK's responsibility to control his stick. Accidental or not.

Anyone else know the rules better?

[The Russian Rocket]

Are you f**king kidding me? How the f**k would he kick it towards his blade when his blade is just above his skate?!!

As for the Subban thing. Read again.

[Comeback_King]

Are you f**king kidding me? How the f**k would he kick it towards his blade when his blade is just above his skate?!!

As for the Subban thing. Read again.

relax, breath. I'm finding out a lot of Canadien guys are wired pretty tight on here with Mav being the leader. Just trying to have a little discussion here. Stay the course man.

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the no call on PK on Toews when he made the nice pass from his knees. Ok then, Toews penalty is deserved but then that means PK should've got a penalty for the same thing.

As far as Hossa then, If I'm reading this right, you're saying he wanted to kick the puck in the net, where he had absolutely no intention of touching it with his stick (yet we see him swing at it with his stick) and it wasn't even close (but there was a video review for Christ sake, it had to be a little close).

IDK man, I'm giving a player of Hossa's caliber, like the other great players, the benefit of the doubt on this one. I think Hossa knows it would be disallowed if he just kicked it in right? Regardless where his blade is, who knows what he had running through his head.

But the question is if he really did touch it. I don't think so. But like Don Cherry said awhile ago, remove those white plastic net guards towards the bottom of the net. Then you will be able to see these controversial goals. You mean to tell me the NHL can't come up with something as simple as that? Or Cherry said make them clear. The NHL can't put a small camera under the crossbar??????

Let me get this straight, we can put a man on the moon, millions of miles away, in outer f**king space, almost forty something years ago but in 2011 the NHL doesn't have the technology for a better camera system??

What a joke Bettman is.

[The Russian Rocket]

Comeback: No. All i'm saying is that when Hossa kicked the puck, unless he intentionally hit the crossbar, there was no freakin' way, he could have slapped the puck in.

The only reason he did, is because the post deflected it on the red line, hence, he took advantage of kicking the puck, while not directly disobeying the rules.

And I think there's a gap in the rules, you can somehow take advantage of the kicking motion, without putting it on your stick or teamates's stick and still get a good goal.

I think Hossa's goal was good, but that they should modify the rules for similar situations.

Same would go with my rebound exemple above.

[mav]

relax, breath. I'm finding out a lot of Canadien guys are wired pretty tight on here with Mav being the leader.

how did i suddenly become a leader in this? another thing is how the f**k did i get involved in this when i haven't said anything about hossa's goal. is it just cause im a habs fan? if that's the case i would probably say the same thing about you being a hawks fan.

As for hossa's goal i havent seen it, i dont want to see it, and frankly dont give a crap about it. All i know is that Hossa scored and hawks won the game. END OF STORY. And thats how much i care about it

Edited April 9, 2011 by mav

[Zalex]

LOL

i cant wait for playoff to start

HABS FAN UNITE

SHITSTORMS INCOMING

[Freydey]

lol yé tu fif ste gars la