Jump to content

Photo

congrats to the 2013-14 Champs, the Kings


  • Please log in to reply
833 replies to this topic

#301 lazer

lazer

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,711 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 10:52 AM

just had a bad feeling about the next two


  • 0
Posted Image

#302 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,352 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 11:18 AM

Not that it doesn't happen to every team, but I just can't agree that the 'non-call' was the right call. My biggest issue with saying the refs did nothing wrong, is that I am 100% positive I would be finding out where the refs live if this happened to the Devils. As a matter of fact, it probably would have taken less. Dwight interferes at the exact point at which the puck beats Lundqvist. If that isn't goalie interference, then just get rid of the rule completely.

 

I'd be much quicker to agree with the argument that the refs made the right call "because the Rangers suck, and deserve to be screwed over while the rest of the league laughs at them."

 

There's two questions though. Did the McDonaugh nudge make the Henrik bump happen? It's hard to tell in replay, McD's a strong and capable guy. If the answer is yes, the rule's black and white, it's a goal. If the answer is no, even then you have to ask did the skates push Henrik too far to his left or was the rear bump he's complaining about the one that happened the split second after the goal went in?

 

This is definitely one of the tougher plays I've seen in a long time. I probably would've called it what the refs called it (good goal), BUT I do feel that they should be able to review it.


  • 0

#303 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,428 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 11:55 AM

There's two questions though. Did the McDonaugh nudge make the Henrik bump happen? It's hard to tell in replay, McD's a strong and capable guy. If the answer is yes, the rule's black and white, it's a goal. If the answer is no, even then you have to ask did the skates push Henrik too far to his left or was the rear bump he's complaining about the one that happened the split second after the goal went in?

 

This is definitely one of the tougher plays I've seen in a long time. I probably would've called it what the refs called it (good goal), BUT I do feel that they should be able to review it.

 

Again, King enters the crease of his own volition.  That changes the play entirely.  If King were taking a route outside the crease and were nudged in by McDonagh, then it's a clear goal.  He wasn't, so it isn't.  What happened is that King's presence in the crease impeded Lundqvist from making the save regardless if there was any body contact initiated by King.

 

Whatever, I think the ref still hasn't blown the whistle on King's Cup Finals goal in 2012.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#304 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,771 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 12:42 PM

To me this raises an important issue...

We have spent a couple days now debating multiple parts of this play that happened in less than a second--does McDonagh knock King into Lundqvist, how much contact is made before the puck actually goes in, etc., and even after seeing many replays from various angles we can't come to a definitive decision one way or the other, yet the referee is expected to immediately decide on all of this having seen the play happen one time, live, in full speed, with players whizzing around him, while also keeping an eye out for all other infractions (as opposed to us watching the replays specifically looking to see if there is goalie interference).  How can they possibly make correct calls on plays like this consistently without being able to review it?  These plays are too important to leave up to the referee's guess as to what happened in that split second.  Let them just check out the replay in the scorekeeper's box (we don't need video goal judges or a call to Toronto) and give them a chance to see the play again and get the call right!


Edited by devilsfan26, 09 June 2014 - 12:42 PM.

  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#305 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,428 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 01:07 PM

To me this raises an important issue...

We have spent a couple days now debating multiple parts of this play that happened in less than a second--does McDonagh knock King into Lundqvist, how much contact is made before the puck actually goes in, etc., and even after seeing many replays from various angles we can't come to a definitive decision one way or the other, yet the referee is expected to immediately decide on all of this having seen the play happen one time, live, in full speed, with players whizzing around him, while also keeping an eye out for all other infractions (as opposed to us watching the replays specifically looking to see if there is goalie interference).  How can they possibly make correct calls on plays like this consistently without being able to review it?  These plays are too important to leave up to the referee's guess as to what happened in that split second.  Let them just check out the replay in the scorekeeper's box (we don't need video goal judges or a call to Toronto) and give them a chance to see the play again and get the call right!

 

I think that's a terrible idea.  I understand the rationale, but review is horrible for sports, it completely robs the game of flow and has all sorts of unintended consequences.  


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#306 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,771 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 01:13 PM

I think that's a terrible idea.  I understand the rationale, but review is horrible for sports, it completely robs the game of flow and has all sorts of unintended consequences.  

Making sure the right team wins is more important than "flow" and what are the other unintended consequences?


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#307 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,428 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 01:49 PM

Making sure the right team wins is more important than "flow" and what are the other unintended consequences?

 

The right team wins?  What in the world does that mean?  Why even have playoffs if that's your goal?  

 

So say this play gets reviewed.  Now I think this one is pretty cut-and-dried - maybe 3 looks at it would prove it.  Meanwhile we all have to sit around waiting for the 'correct' answer.  But what if it wasn't so clear?  What if King's path was a little closer to McDonagh?  The trouble with replay in sports is that the hardest plays to call are the ones that take the most time and are ultimately inconclusive.  There's plenty of calls where the first call may be right, it may be wrong, and it's really impossible to tell.  Meanwhile the excitement value of any particular scoring play is devalued when there's a Byzantine review process after a greater portion of plays.  I'm not arguing for instant replay to go away - I actually think hockey has it right.  Whether or not a puck goes in legally are the only reviewable plays, and I'd guess that 90% of goals result in little to no delay in dropping the puck, with 5% resulting in a slight delay, and only the other 5% are legitimately disputed.

 

I watch sports for the excitement of sports, not to see 'the right team' win.  The excitement of sports is the unexpected - goals off brilliant passes, fingertip touchdown catches, close plays at the plate, buzzer-beating shots.  The NFL is losing that in a mire of replay obsession and so I'm losing the NFL, and it seems that MLB is right behind them.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#308 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:20 PM

Again, King enters the crease of his own volition.  That changes the play entirely.  If King were taking a route outside the crease and were nudged in by McDonagh, then it's a clear goal.  He wasn't, so it isn't.  What happened is that King's presence in the crease impeded Lundqvist from making the save regardless if there was any body contact initiated by King.

 

Whatever, I think the ref still hasn't blown the whistle on King's Cup Finals goal in 2012.

Not relevant.

http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26557
 

3.  A PLAYER PUSHES, SHOVES, OR FOULS ANOTHER PLAYER INTO THE GOALKEEPER, WHO IS IN OR OUT OF THE CREASE. A.  The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, makes contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored.

Goal is allowed.
 

Now I agree with your other response earlier where the ref said he made the call because the contact happened after the puck crossed, it clearly hadn't.

But I think it's the overall right call, even it's by dumb luck. If McDonough is not in the picture, King doesn't touch Lundqvist at all, regardless of him grazing through the crease (which is not a penalty in and of itself). McDonough quite frankly doesn't give King anywhere to go.



At  0:04, King is right behind the net. Keep your eyes solely on him, with no McDonough he will peacefully pass to the front of the crease, instead 3s later in that clip McDonough initiates the contact that ultimately ends up with king disrupting Lundqvist.


Edited by squishyx, 09 June 2014 - 02:21 PM.

  • 0

#309 Colorado Rockies 1976

Colorado Rockies 1976

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,072 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:20 PM

I watch sports for the excitement of sports, not to see 'the right team' win.  The excitement of sports is the unexpected - goals off brilliant passes, fingertip touchdown catches, close plays at the plate, buzzer-beating shots.  The NFL is losing that in a mire of replay obsession and so I'm losing the NFL, and it seems that MLB is right behind them.

 

You've hit on something here.  On one hand, I want to see the right calls made, and I think most people do.  On the other, I sometimes miss the days when a TD catch was simply that...a catch.  Now we have to view it from 10 different angles to rule whether or not it really was a catch.  Was the ball being juggled, did he have control of it all the way down, did his big toe nick the turf, etc?  Yes, it's great to get things right, but sometimes the time it takes to get these things right is maddening...especially when the evidence is there as to what happened and the right call STILL isn't made. 

 

That being said, the one positive out of baseball's replay system is that some umpires are finally being exposed for how lousy some of them really are.  These guys have been blatantly missing calls for what seems like forever, and even worse, the league never takes umpires to task on their bad calls or makes them answer for their mistakes via the press...so they've become an entitled bunch of confrontational bullies who think they're untouchable, going so far to bait players into confrontations (http://www.youtube.c...h?v=w-OoFfCEhvk)

 

Joe West has been a complete prick for years who clearly makes the games about him (in a brawl involving the Mets and Phillies, he once picked up Phillie reliever Dennis Cook and threw him to the ground...baseball players aren't allowed to so much as graze an umpire (see Pete Rose), but West is allowed to pile-drive players to the turf?!  All that came out of West's actions was NL president Bill White stating that West was now prohibited from further physical contact from players.  No fine, no suspension.  Thank God Cook wasn't injured!)  West has only gotten minor slaps on the wrist, as far as I can recall (typical Joe West crap:  http://www.youtube.c...chv=c2Nvy3SFs7M ).

 

So anyway, I think replay could ultimately be a good thing for baseball, because for some umps, there's no more hiding.  Hopefully MLB starts finding ways to get rid of some the crappier, more confrontational ones (like Angel Hernandez).


Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976, 09 June 2014 - 02:22 PM.

  • 0
THE NHL MUST LOVE THE DEVILS - from who else? A RANGER fan!
[Mark Messier]: A big, bald attention whore with a stupid Easter Island-lookin face. - from who else? DaneykoIsGod!

Even when Marty comes back maybe Larry should put Clemmensen to be on the goal during the shootouts.
Can the coach do that ? Switch the goalies 5 seconds to go in overtime?
- Most priceless quote ever posted on a message board.

Martin Brodeur: THE MOST ALL-TIME WINS!, 12 straight seasons of 30+ wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Vezina Trophies, and zero respect from too many so-called Devils "fans" who are either too young or too bandwagon to remember the much darker days of Sean Burke, Craig Billington, Bob Sauve, Alain Chevrier, and the talented but overwhelmed Chico Resch, among many others.

It's easy to support a great player when he's playing at his very best. It takes a true fan to support that same player during those rare moments and stretches when he's not. Babe Ruth went 0-4 some games, and sometimes Wayne Gretzky was held pointless. There may be such a thing as greatness, but no such thing as absolute perfection every single night.

#30 FOREVER!

20 out of 1,946 njdevs.com members agree: CR1976 is the Most Knowledgable Poster of 2008! Victory is mine...oh yes, victory is mine!

#310 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,428 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:28 PM

Not relevant.

http://www.nhl.com/i...ge.htm?id=26557
 

 

Now I agree with your other response earlier where the ref said he made the call because the contact happened after the puck crossed, it clearly hadn't.

But I think it's the overall right call, even it's by dumb luck. If McDonough is not in the picture, King doesn't touch Lundqvist at all, regardless of him grazing through the crease (which is not a penalty in and of itself). McDonough quite frankly doesn't give King anywhere to go.



At  0:04, King is right behind the net. Keep your eyes solely on him, with no McDonough he will peacefully pass to the front of the crease, instead 3s later in that clip McDonough initiates the contact that ultimately ends up with king disrupting Lundqvist.

 

King is fighting for inside position there and he has to know that McDonagh is there.  Again, he takes a lane that puts him in the crease, and then he impedes the goaltender.  You're not reading the subclauses right here:  "The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact..."  I don't think he made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, by taking an inside lane and stepping into the crease without having been pushed there.

 

The critical part isn't the bumping of Lundqvist, it is the impeding of him from being able to make full extension on a save.  If the goalie initiates contact on a player in the crease who hasn't made a reasonable effort to not be in there, it's not a goal either, and that to me is the overriding call.


  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#311 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:52 PM

King is fighting for inside position there and he has to know that McDonagh is there.  Again, he takes a lane that puts him in the crease, and then he impedes the goaltender.  You're not reading the subclauses right here:  "The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact..."  I don't think he made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, by taking an inside lane and stepping into the crease without having been pushed there.

 

The critical part isn't the bumping of Lundqvist, it is the impeding of him from being able to make full extension on a save.  If the goalie initiates contact on a player in the crease who hasn't made a reasonable effort to not be in there, it's not a goal either, and that to me is the overriding call.

What you are talking about are the rules set in place to deal with just 2 actors, the goalie and the attacking player. The only section in the goaltender-interference-goal-being-allowed-or-not that deals with the 3rd actor (ie McDonough) is section 3 (and it's 4 sub-scenarios), so I don't see how the clause that deals only with 2 players overrides the one that more accurately describes the situation.

And if you (well not you, but someone else) can agree with that, then ultimately boils down to if you think King made a reasonable effort to avoid Lundqvist or not and I think he does; his skate does collides with Lundqvist skate (which probably does the most damage in terms of getting position) but from the clip above at around 38s I see King trying fall forward and away from Lundqvist, but it's hard to say for sure given how tied up he is with McDonough...


  • 0

#312 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,771 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 03:23 PM

The right team wins?  What in the world does that mean?  Why even have playoffs if that's your goal?  

 

I watch sports for the excitement of sports, not to see 'the right team' win.  The excitement of sports is the unexpected - goals off brilliant passes, fingertip touchdown catches, close plays at the plate, buzzer-beating shots.  The NFL is losing that in a mire of replay obsession and so I'm losing the NFL, and it seems that MLB is right behind them.

Holy cow that went completely over your head.  Obviously what I meant was making sure the correct call is made, especially on a play that ends with a goal, is worth sacrificing maybe a minute or two of "flow."  I am all for reviewing plays that ensure that games are decided by the actions of the players, and not a referee's split-second immediate 50-50 decision on a play that is very difficult to call.  Reviewing doesn't need to take as long as it does too.  We don't need video goal judges or a call to Toronto, just do what the NCAA does and let the referee watch the replay himself in the scorer's box and make the decision.

The NFL is different because as already mentioned, they've made things that should be simple become so complicated to the point where you almost need a law degree to know what a catch is anymore.

Imagine being a player who has worked his entire life to get better and reach the next highest level of play until eventually your hard work and training culminates with a trip to the Stanley Cup Finals and you make a borderline but legal play to score a goal but the referee has to decide right away if it counts and he thinks there was something there to negate the play you made.  You'd be okay with the explanation that the play was just too exciting to be reviewed and the game must continue with a crucial call going the wrong way because it wasn't worth disrupting the flow?


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#313 '7'

'7'

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,796 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 03:34 PM

Tri is right. King enters the crease and takes the lane of most resistance. What's McDonagh supposed to do. Just let him stand freely in front of Lundqvist? Some contact has to be made there but King puts McDonagh in a position where any contact is going to push him into Lundqvist. It's a perfect setup really, but this should've been whistled. Not necessarily a penalty since it was McDonagh who knocked him into Lundqvist. But just blow the play dead and have a faceoff. I've seen this called before.

 

King entered the crease and didn't allow the queen to extend fully to make the save. He impeded the goalies movements. He put himself in a position to do this. 

 

No he didn't run the goalie, wasn't anything that bad, but the queen wasn't given a fair shot to make the save

 

But whatever. very happy this went the kings way.


Edited by '7', 09 June 2014 - 03:39 PM.

  • 0
^7^ is just defending his sport sheeps.. as Alcibiades the exiled Athenian rationalizes in his speech to the enemy Spartans, he wants to take revenge on Athens because he loves it and can't stand to see the state it's in now - Triumph
Posted Image Posted Image

#314 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,352 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 03:48 PM

It'll be interesting to see if more forwards take that route, the path behind the defender between the goalie. Like '7' said, what else is McDonaugh supposed to do? Like it or not, it's very grey area. Might get called a no-goal 60% of the time, but a good goal the other 40%. 


  • 0

#315 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 04:00 PM

Tri is right. King enters the crease and takes the lane of most resistance. What's McDonagh supposed to do. Just let him stand freely in front of Lundqvist? Some contact has to be made there but King puts McDonagh in a position where any contact is going to push him into Lundqvist. It's a perfect setup really, but this should've been whistled. Not necessarily a penalty since it was McDonagh who knocked him into Lundqvist. But just blow the play dead and have a faceoff. I've seen this called before.

 

King entered the crease and didn't allow the queen to extend fully to make the save. He impeded the goalies movements. He put himself in a position to do this. 

 

No he didn't run the goalie, wasn't anything that bad, but the queen wasn't given a fair shot to make the save

 

But whatever. very happy this went the kings way.

Yea but the crease is no longer "no mans land" and as long as you are not interfering with the goalie you are free to roam around, plant yourself wherever, set up for high tea with the queen. 

Obviously he did interfere, so the question circles back down to how much of a shove did McDonough give him, that's going to be a judgement call. but if it's down to that, then King's placement is irrelevant.

Now as for what is McDonough supposed to do? Not interfere with a player who doesn't have the puck (there's a penalty for that) and instead establish defensive position on King. I think it's a pretty poor argument to say that McDonough had no choice but to shove King on to his goaltender.


Edited by squishyx, 09 June 2014 - 04:04 PM.

  • 0

#316 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,279 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 04:03 PM

It'll be interesting to see if more forwards take that route, the path behind the defender between the goalie. Like '7' said, what else is McDonaugh supposed to do? Like it or not, it's very grey area. Might get called a no-goal 60% of the time, but a good goal the other 40%. 

I don't think it will become more or less prevalent. If you are the "screen" guy your job is to get in front of the net as fast as possible, this was sort of a perfect storm of events, King trying to set up in front, Lundqvist moving left-to-right and the shot coming as McDonough ties up with King. It would hard to script that intentionally.


  • 0

#317 DJ Eco

DJ Eco

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,352 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 04:05 PM

Let's see how many suits wear the blue, they have no excuse tonight.

 

Bpt3w8GCIAEX6oc.jpg


  • 0

#318 msweet

msweet

    The Voice of Reason

  • Admin
  • 8,802 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 05:10 PM

A Rangers fan's achy breaky heart

 

 

ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

http://espn.go.com/b...hy-breaky-heart

 

Pain and suffering come with being a fan of the New York Rangers, even with a Stanley Cup to their credit from 1994. 

For those of you who are longtime followers, you’ll appreciate the list below. 

The losses to the Los Angeles Kings in Game 1 and 2 of the Stanley Cup finals got us to thinking about the other notches on the belts of the 30- and 40-something-year-old Rangers fans. We’re too young to remember Pete Babando’s Stanley Cup-winning goal for the Red Wings in Game 7 of the 1950 finals, but there’s a decent list to be made of heartbreaking playoff losses from the past 40 years. With the help of some folks on Twitter, here's a pretty good (or bad, depending on your perspective) group. 


  • 0
Follow me on Twitter @MSweetwood

"Quite frankly, all the players are getting paid too much and all the contracts are too long," general manager Lou Lamoriello said. "But if you want to compete in this market and you want to win, there are some things you have to do."


#319 devilsrule33

devilsrule33

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,938 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 05:11 PM

The right team wins?  What in the world does that mean?  Why even have playoffs if that's your goal?  

 

So say this play gets reviewed.  Now I think this one is pretty cut-and-dried - maybe 3 looks at it would prove it.  Meanwhile we all have to sit around waiting for the 'correct' answer.  But what if it wasn't so clear?  What if King's path was a little closer to McDonagh?  The trouble with replay in sports is that the hardest plays to call are the ones that take the most time and are ultimately inconclusive.  There's plenty of calls where the first call may be right, it may be wrong, and it's really impossible to tell.  Meanwhile the excitement value of any particular scoring play is devalued when there's a Byzantine review process after a greater portion of plays.  I'm not arguing for instant replay to go away - I actually think hockey has it right.  Whether or not a puck goes in legally are the only reviewable plays, and I'd guess that 90% of goals result in little to no delay in dropping the puck, with 5% resulting in a slight delay, and only the other 5% are legitimately disputed.

 

I watch sports for the excitement of sports, not to see 'the right team' win.  The excitement of sports is the unexpected - goals off brilliant passes, fingertip touchdown catches, close plays at the plate, buzzer-beating shots.  The NFL is losing that in a mire of replay obsession and so I'm losing the NFL,and it seems that MLB is right behind them.

 

Some really good points. Over reliance on replay can be brutal. I am seeing in the NBA all the time when Refs know they have the resources, so they use it all the time. And the worst part is it takes a viewer one second to see the call, and somehow the refs and conferring for 5 minutes.

 

The main thing for goalie interference is these are tough calls. Look at us debating for two days about that goal. Apparently the competition committee still isn't sure what the right call was for that play. Right now they go upstairs for kicking motion replays, and they absolutely have no clue. The refs don't know. The teams don't know. The fans don't know if it should be called a goal or not. We see the same plays being called a goal and the same ones not. I bet we'll see that for goalie interference and anything debatable, they'll just stick with the call on the ice which is really stupid on its own. So when you do that, we have the situation again where you get the same plays being called a goal sometimes and sometimes not because they stick with that damn call on the ice.


  • 0

logokx.jpg

"The Stanley Cup has fallen from the Stars. The new millennium has its first Stanley Cup Champion, and it's the New Jersey Devils." Mike Miller calling the Devils winning the Stanley Cup.

"It goes to the captain and then there are handoffs during a skate around the ice" Mike Emrick as Scott Stevens is being presented the Stanley Cup.


#320 StarDew

StarDew

    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,693 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 05:54 PM

All of this is just hockey karma payback for the Ranjuhs and their goalie.  I am sure Carey Price chuckled at Lundqvist's whining.


  • 0
Dew
So long and thanks for all the fish.
TIMEX RULES!!

"When we were struggling at the beginning of the year we were wondering what was wrong and trying to find reasons. At the end of the day, all we had to do was look in the mirror and the answers were right there." -- Sergei Brylin 12/2/2007




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users