David Puddy

He overuses the poke check. Kopitar totally baited him into it before he made his move. Also, it didn't help that Zubrus was too slow (out of gas?) to do anything on the backcheck. C'mon, man, you have to dive and make some kind of contact. EDIT: Just rewatched and it was the paddle down, not a poke check. Same damn thing... takes away mobility.

I love that Ramones movie with Bill Murray's woman from Stripes. Rock and Roll High School??? (p.s. born in 1982)

Doesn't matter. Lou will probably fire whoever made that post.

Let's make it 4... I have to go to a wedding the night of game 5!!!

Have the Kings played a defensively sound team yet?

It's stupid. No one on the team experienced that in any emotional way except Marty. They're not going to be mad about it or looking for revenge like the fans are. It's not going to affect them.

If you think of it meaning the edge leading into the offensive zone, it makes sense. They should change the wording to get rid of such a relative term. Hell, the USA Hockey rulebook considers the "outer" edge of the blueline to be the one closest to the attacking zone, which is the opposite of Fraser. However the USA Hockey rulebook is explicit in the Rink section, so this doesn't matter: "The zone line shall be considered part of the zone that the puck is in." This whole thing reminds me of a constant road trip debate in my family... which lane is the inside lane and which is the outside lane?

I wore my Devils t-shirt in Miami Beach Wednesday before the game, and some girl started getting belligerent with me. It really amused me.

No, the rule wasn't changed. It's still the same as usual. It's just bad wording. http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=387914 "What you need to know is as a result of the blue line being twelve inches wide there are two edges to consider for the offside rule; inside or leading edge and outside edge as the puck exits into the neutral zone." "When a team is attacking the zone, the puck must completely cross the inside edge of the blue line prior to the skates of any attacking players."

The leading edge of the blue line is the edge farthest from the puck. The puck has to completely cross the line to go in. Then, once it's in, it has to completely cross the line again to come out. (Another way to think of it is that the blue line is considered part of the zone that the puck is currently in.)

78.5 is not reviewable. That call would have to be made on the ice.

You can legally redirect the puck with your skate as long as there's no kicking motion. "A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident." Also the way that the rule is written, it only applies to pucks that go in off the skate. So if the puck went in off his leg, they made the right call in Toronto. "49.1 Kicking – The action of a player deliberately using his skate(s) with a kicking motion to propel the puck or to contact an opponent."

The puck has to completely cross the line. It was a REALLY close call. I went through the replay frame-by-frame and it's offside by a few frames, fractions of a second. You can't blame the linesman for missing that. Kovy pulls the puck back right before it crosses the line.

I want another look at the Kovalchuk non-goal. Was his stick really above the normal height of his shoulders? EDIT: Actually the rule is where the puck is contacted, not where his stick is.

Salvador will never get the Smythe, even if he deserved it. If the Devils won and he were the best candidate, we'd have a rehash of 2003 and Smith or Quick would get it.

NFL refs are currently shown videos just like this on rules like head checks and head contact. They've worked reallly well, huh?

No, this is just wrong. Have you ever played high level hockey? Talk to a few players, especially the gritty, feisty guys and they will tell you they will take any opportunity to run the goalie if they know they can get away with it. Just like guys will take any opportunity to legally "punish" QBs in the NFL.

Great game! Predictable whining from Rangers fans about the officiating and players diving. They forget that their team has been outplayed in almost every period of the series. They also forget the goal scored on that gift of a power play on the Ponikarovsky call.

Here's what I want to see tomorrow: 1. 2 Devils goals in the 1st period, plus at least 1 in each of the 2nd and 3rd. 2. Fonzarelli screaming and bitching the entire game so much that even his own players are rolling their eyes. 3. At least 1 soft goal let up by pretty boy Henrik. 4. Marty shutout or 1 GA. Of course, I'll be happy with any win, but I would really like the Devils to completely take over game 4 and send the message that the Rangers can't just sit back and wait for a lucky break.

Dominating the play means nothing if pucks aren't going in the net. The Devils have dominated with 2 different sets of lines so far.

I don't see it as desperation. I see it as a way to try to manufacture puck luck. This is not going to be a series won by creative play. It's going to be won by gritty goals, as we've already seen. Deflections, rebounds, etc. Changing up lines is a good way to force players to go back to the basics.

Tortorella is a sociopath.

No lanes. What do you want, someone to take a shot, have it get blocked up high and turn into a short handed breakaway or rush?

They just did a joke on this on SNL Weekend Update. Punchline, "it's a pretty cheap flight because there's a two-hour layover in Denver". I'm curious now, is this the first time the NJ Devils have been mentioned by name on SNL?

I want to say this definitely deserves a game because the intent was so obvious, but after the Weber incident, you never know.