overtime98 Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 just saw the post game interview and of course he had to make sure he made the "zajac hit his glove on that goal" remark. and he also called his goaltender Flower not fluery. DOUCHE! Crosby great hockey player, lousy attitude and bad complainer! I hope we destroy them next wednesday! oh and another thing Matt cooke is a big tough guy fighting Rob freaking niedermayer! Pittsburgh Penguins = DOUCHE BAGS!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 I'd be upset if that Zajac goal goes in against the Devils. The ref obviously couldn't see it in real time and it's not reviewable but it should be a no goal, no penalty interference situation in hindsight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtime98 Posted March 13, 2010 Author Share Posted March 13, 2010 I'd be upset if that Zajac goal goes in against the Devils. The ref obviously couldn't see it in real time and it's not reviewable but it should be a no goal, no penalty interference situation in hindsight. yea your correct. i just find crosby more annoying every game. He is a great hockey player and probably would love him on the Devils. but as long as his is on a division rival, fvck him! LOL .............. and Malkin is just as annoying. great hockey players but annoying little whiners. Penguins are growing as our nasty rivals with the flyers and rangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 I'd be upset if that Zajac goal goes in against the Devils. The ref obviously couldn't see it in real time and it's not reviewable but it should be a no goal, no penalty interference situation in hindsight. It's a good goal. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. Both players have equal rights to the puck in the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 It's a good goal. Both players have equal rights to the puck in the situation. I would argue Zajac made no effort to avoid the contact. He also made no effort to initiate contact. Therefore it's incidental but not permitted so no goal, no penalty, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hit the post Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 I'd be upset if that Zajac goal goes in against the Devils. The ref obviously couldn't see it in real time and it's not reviewable but it should be a no goal, no penalty interference situation in hindsight. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidRobot Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Both players have equal rights to the puck in the situation. Reading that quote almost made me cry. That's the exact same rule that was quoted in game 4 last year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 (edited) Fluery was out of the crease. Zajac was trying to deflect the puck. Why should he move just because Fluery wants to make an agressive save on the puck? It doesn't matter if he is out of the crease, although he is almost half in the crease, the goalie has to be given the full opportunity to make the save. Fluery has his glove in position to catch the puck and then Zajac knocks his glove out of the way so Fluery was not given an opportunity to make that save. In the same idea, a player can't go pushing the goalie out of the way because they're trying to receive a pass and then have a puck float in either, that would be waived off, the only reason this isn't is because it was so bang bang that the refs couldn't see that the glove was knocked aside by Zajac in real time. Edited March 13, 2010 by Devils731 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie McKraut Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 I despise sidney crosby. I agree that the last goal should technically have been waved off, but I won't lose sleep over it because the Penguins couldn't put another one on the board regardless. I'm glad Kovalchuk got the goal. He always looks depressed and I worry about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJayDevil Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Zajac wasn't even looking at Fleury when he made contact, and nor should that be his responsibility when Fleury is a full foot or so outside of the crease. Good goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidRobot Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Zajac wasn't even looking at Fleury when he made contact, and nor should that be his responsibility when Fleury is a full foot or so outside of the crease. Good goal. I'd say no goal, no penalty since while Travis didn't intentionally hit him, he didn't try to avoid him either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blown01NJ Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Doesnt even matter. They didnt score a second goal anyway. What I cant stand is how everyone holds up on Crosby. Nobody hits him hard. I saw two or three devils come in hard on him then hold up. Salvador especialy. Just hit that motherfvcker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Really...there needed to be a thread started because Crosby called his goaltender by his nickname and mentioned Zajac hitting Fleury's glove? As for Matt Cooke...he absolutely is a douche and a clown, but he deserved to go with Niedermayer after Robbie bashed his head in. It's a shame Cooke would never accept a fight from any player after all the sh!t he's done though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Zone Trap Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 I'd say no goal, no penalty since while Travis didn't intentionally hit him, he didn't try to avoid him either. Why should he try to avoid him ? "Flower" was outside the crease That makes all the difference. Zajac has just as much right to the ice as the goalie does. Besides, Travis was trying to deflect the puck, inadvertent contact = good goal. Besides all that, with the way close calls have gone against the Devils over the last five years or so, it's about damn freaking time a controversial call has gone our way..........for once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prucenterrules Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Reading that quote almost made me cry. That's the exact same rule that was quoted in game 4 last year That's the first thing I thought of when the goal happened last night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsdude530 Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Maybe one day the rivalry will get so intense, we can actually spell Sid's name right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 731 is right on. If that happens to the Devils, ya 'll are up in arms. Fact is it was incidental contact and should've been wiped out. The Devils probably still would've won because they forced the Pens to the perimeter, allowing Brodeur to see the shots. They out-gritted the Pens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elias Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 I hate Crosby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 731 is right on. If that happens to the Devils, ya 'll are up in arms. Fact is it was incidental contact and should've been wiped out. The Devils probably still would've won because they forced the Pens to the perimeter, allowing Brodeur to see the shots. They out-gritted the Pens. You can't really fault the ref either way on that call, though I think the benefit of the doubt should go to the goalie. But that's a judgment call when both players have the intent to play the puck, and both players are moving into the contact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Since they implemented the two ref system, it's been an epic fail. There are too many instances where they're either not in the right position or make the wrong call or reverse. They never really showed the positioning on replays. Just Zajac's stick and Fleury. It would've been nice to to get the official perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Fan Posted March 14, 2010 Share Posted March 14, 2010 fleur mean flower in French, that is why Crosby calls him Flower. Anyway, that goal should open a can of worms...and hopefully we won't be in the receiving end...again... 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.