devilsrule33 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Hopefully everyone can see the video. The TSN crew go over the final few seconds and do a pretty good job covering a few other things. It won't be what everyone wants to here, but I have to agree with what they say. Darren Pang actually has a few good observations that maybe other people didn't catch. http://watch.tsn.ca/featured/#clip163986 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 they're right - it should never have gotten to that point as has been discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellOnICE Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Pang's right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SatansDevils Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Should of, could of, would of, but it did and the ref blew the call. It is clearly in the NHL rule book that was read by our very own Doc Emerick.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
95Crash Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) I thought there was more to that rule than just what that guy read on TSN. When Doc and Chico pulled out the rulebook on the postgame, the rule also said something to the effect of: if the contact is incidental, the player still has to have made an effort to avoid contact. And that is what Chico took issue with. He didn't feel that Jokinen tried to avoid contact. Nevertheless, I don't think the game should've come down to that anyway. The Devils defense sucked, to put it bluntly. Edited April 22, 2009 by 95Crash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Hmm. I think Chico knows best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Brodeur initiated that contact almost as much as Jokinen. It was a quick bump and that was it... Pang did bring up something interesting with Brodeur taking his sweet ass time on the final few seconds of the game. He kind of was getting ready for OT there it seemed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
95Crash Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 It is interesting. There seems to be slightly conflicting rules on this issue in the same rulebook. Bob McKenzie from TSN read this part of the rulebook: Table 18 - Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper Interference on the Goalkeeper Situations Situation 2 - THE GOALKEEPER IS OUT OF THE GOAL CREASE. B. An attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored. Goal is allowed. Link: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557 Doc and Chico read this part of the rulebook: Rule 69 - Interference on the Goalkeeper 69.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggie B Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) As frustrating as it may be, that was just a bad decision by Marty. The contact was as much, if not more, his fault as it was Jokinen's. No point crying over spilled milk now. LETS GO DEVILS! Edited April 22, 2009 by Biggie B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babrooks213 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 While extremely frustrating and discouraging, I have to say, they never should have gotten to this point in the first place. They fell too far behind. That's what killed them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattyelias Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 After seeing the replay a bunch, I don't think their was interference from Jokinen. The 3rd goal is another matter entirely. Bayda drove to the net, into the crease and then into Brodeur, pinning Marty back which DIRECTLY led to the goal. That was a joke. No question in my mind whether that goal should've been waived off and the Devils put on the PP. After the refs let that go, I think Marty felt he was owed a makeup call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevils1214 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 After watching the replay our D man got it in the corner and instead of just holding it there for the 3-4sec left decided to "attempt" to clear the puck from the zone and it wound up right on the Carolina Dmans stick. I guess its thoes decisions that decide games some times. Oh well as pissed as I am, I need to get over it and realize its over now and whats done is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrick Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 While extremely frustrating and discouraging, I have to say, they never should have gotten to this point in the first place. They fell too far behind. That's what killed them. Totally agree. Play 60 minutes, not 25 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Yeah, split second decision by Martin. He had Mottau to pass to behind the goal, he was open.....but he wants to get it out of the zone. Mottau ended up tipping the shot right by Marty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnderDogX Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 As Pang pointed out I've been saying all series that Marty looks slow after the save. He gets up slow, he moves around slow, and he watches the puck go into the corners before getting up. He might not be 100% and not meaning the injury isn't healed but he's not at top form physically whether its age, injury, or conditioning and he needs to compensate...like they pointed out, the Ref didn't want to make the call and have a PP start the OT so he was expecting OT as was Marty. Play through the whistle end of story and there is no goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undersold Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Look at this screenshot of the puck going past Marty (the black blur just to the left of his left skate - incidentally, this is where a pair of Jiggy Puff pads would've done the job... they compensate for goalies with poor positioning). Make no mistake -- Marty is not set here (he is inches away from deflecting the puck because he isn't in his full butterfly), and if you watch that overhead replay in slow motion, you'll see why and exactly how it unfolds. This is a save he makes easily if he doesn't get bumped on the right side of the crease and has time to get over. The goal should've been waved off. Edited April 22, 2009 by Undersold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Look at this screenshot of the puck going past Marty (the black blur just to the left of his left skate - incidentally, this is where a pair of Jiggy Puff pads would've done the job... they compensate for goalies with poor positioning). Make no mistake -- Marty is not set here (he is inches away from deflecting the puck because he isn't in his full butterfly), and if you watch that overhead replay in slow motion, you'll see why and exactly how it unfolds. This is a save he makes easily if he doesn't get bumped on the right side of the crease and has time to get over. The goal should've been waved off. No, Marty should have been in position and not taken the last few seconds off. It's a tough break but if it was us who scored in the similar circumstances I would have been pissed if it didn't count. He has his blue paint if he never wants to be touched, you can't waive off a goal because Marty strolled out to far to tap another player. Edited April 22, 2009 by squishyx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Should of, could of, would of, should HAVE, could HAVE, would HAVE you fail 8th grade english according to the nutjob teacher I had that would give an F on a paper if this mistake was made Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hattrick Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 should HAVE, could HAVE, would HAVEyou fail 8th grade english according to the nutjob teacher I had that would give an F on a paper if this mistake was made What about shoulda, coulda, woulda? Would that suffice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 No, Marty should have been in position and not taken the last few seconds off. It's a tough break but if it was us who scored in the similar circumstances I would have been pissed if it didn't count. He has his blue paint if he never wants to be touched, you can't waive off a goal because Marty strolled out to far to tap another player. Didn't Marty say very recently that he thinks the crease is too small? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theamazingtiny Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think we have to stop dwelling on the final few seconds and how big of a pooch screw it was. Sutter said it plainly. The mission was accomplished these last 48 hours we've reclaimed home ice, we played a mostly bad game in game 4 and still almost won if not be for a fluke/missed call/pooch screwing. So lets move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squishyx Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Didn't Marty say very recently that he thinks the crease is too small? I think so, I thought he also mentioned that any contact outside his new blue box would be fair game, any contact inside would be an automatic penalty, something to that effect. I think its a good idea, but he can't just start doing it and expect it to be called lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think so, I thought he also mentioned that any contact outside his new blue box would be fair game, any contact inside would be an automatic penalty, something to that effect. I think its a good idea, but he can't just start doing it and expect it to be called lol. But expecting incidental contact to be called, which is in the rules, is not out of the ordinary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 But expecting incidental contact to be called, which is in the rules, is not out of the ordinary. Right. The question is whether that was incidental. I think Jokinen knew exactly what he was doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Right. The question is whether that was incidental. I think Jokinen knew exactly what he was doing. Well incidental or not it can waive off a goal. I tend to think this was a classic case of incidental contact, a case where a player accidentally makes contact with the goalie leaving him at a disadvantage when the shot comes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.