I already posted this at the700Level in response to the goal:

I always complain about the officiating obviously. Maybe I am being ridiculously biased or there is some validity in my griping over the refs. There will always be missed and phantom calls for both teams. I would say the Flyers are on the wrong end of most of those usually, but like I said, maybe I am just too biased.

Regardless, there are two calls that I take exception to in this series. The first has to be the penalty given to Giroux in game 2. In regulation time, call that penalty. But in OT of a Playoff hockey game? Are you kidding me? As soon as that call was made you knew it was signed, sealed and delivered to the Penguins. The next call is Crosby’s goal last night. After reading over the official NHL rules I am further affirmed that it should not have been a goal. The rules cited are incredibly ambiguous and yet, I feel that it clearly discredits Crosby’s goal. That is saying something. Again, maybe that is my biases talking . . .

The problem with both these calls? They both have had SIGNIFICANT impact on the individual games and series as a whole. It is frustrating to see the contradictions and inconsistencies in the NHL’s rulings and rationals for the calls they make. It is sad for hockey, when the refereeing has such a crucial impact, hindering the raw excitement that hockey is supposed to be all about. Its like getting up after diner and you still aren’t full. You just don’t feel like you are satisfied. What have they done with the precious game I once called hockey?

I am not saying the Flyers would have won or that they got cheated. In the end MAF played well and the Flyers just didn’t have the killer instinct they needed (which, to me, was not surprising for some reason). I hope the Penguins and their fans feel very lucky. I don’t think they can deny the Flyers deserved to win this game. They didn’t earn it but they won. Unfortunately, sometimes that is just the way it goes.

Frustrating to say the least . . . Lets see how our boys respond with their backs up against the wall . . . again.

The Giroux penalty was really just bad luck. by no means was it a vicious slash, he just hit the stick at the right angle. There is so much ambiguity in NHL refereeing they have to have something that is clear cut, if a player’s stick breaks its an automatic penalty…it wasnt a bad call it was just a bad break.

I took more issue with the Knuble penalty in game 2 as thats the kind of stuff that goes on in front of the net all the time. thats a call that you simply dont make in OT.

Yeah, that’s ridiculous, but allow me to explain. Giroux’s slash is a penalty. He broke the stick. However, stick on stick checks are penalties now? That is in itself ridiculous. Think about it. Isn’t that the only way to defend a guy without the puck? You can’t check him until he gets the puck, so how do you defend him without the puck? You eliminate his stick. Yes, his stick broke. That used to show the severity of the slash, but it doesn’t any more. These sticks break all the effing time! They break on slap shots, they break if they get stuck in the boards, they break if the player gets checked, hell, they even break on FACEOFFS. So, the rationale behind a black and white “if the stick breaks, it’s a penalty” rule is absolutely ridiculous with such flimsy sticks. That needs to be looked into.

Plus, these calls are SEVERELY inconsistent. In game 2 of the Caps/Rangers series, Backstrom broke Staal’s stick on a clearing attempt with a slash, turnover leads to a wide open one-timer by Ovechkin in the slot. No call. When I mentioned this, Fehr and Balanced commented that because Staal had the puck, it isn’t a penalty. What? A slash is a slash is a slash. If the stick breaks, the stick broke. Penalty. Nope… And Carter’s slash in game 3? 4? I forget. The stick didn’t even break, it wasn’t even a slash, it was a stick check. Remember those? I just don’t get the slashing calls anymore.

Lastly, and why I waiver on this, even Stevens said there was no reason for Giroux to slash his stick. Why would he do it? Yes it was overtime, all the more reason to not slash his stick. The puck wasn’t even on its way to the Penguin. It was just a dumb thing for Giroux to do, completely unnecessary, and that’s why I’m okay with it being called a penalty.

But yes, I do miss the days of refs putting the whistles away in OT. Didn’t it make for more intense hockey?

That was a great analysis at the700level.com All I can say is, weird goal, and I’d want it to count for us, but the rules are an absolute clusterfuk. The points there that I think are important are: Crosby impeded Biron’s progress across his net; and Crosby initiated contact with Biron, in his crease, that resulted in a goal.

However, in regard to the contradicting table from James Mirtle, I feel that the crucial distinction is “loose puck” rather than “incidental contact”. In this case, can that puck even be considered “loose” since it was a pass? Wouldn’t that rule be referring to a rebound that a goalie is trying to cover and an opposing player is trying to jam it home?

I share his opinion though, that it is good we are all willing to discuss this rather than shout. Especially here (Props to FrankD again for always being respectful) with different people making good arguments.

Oh, please. Like the Pens haven’t been trying to hurt our players, too. That’s playoff hockey. Your players ADMITTED that they were taking runs at Timmonen to take him off of his game and could have really potentially hurt him with that shot.

But that’s hockey and most of the people on here thought it was a clean hit, but slightly dirty.

I just love how everybody else’s team is perfect and never does anything wrong—so holier than thou.

And the Caps don’t look like they are playing all that well, so I’m not too worried about them—and who’s beating them? That other cheap shot dirty team, the Rangers.

Gimme a break. And Filthadelphia is sooooo orginal, I’ve never heard that one before. Kudos to you.