F00king glove!!!!!
__________________

 

Zuccarello!!!!!

 

I hope this is not a game 1 clone.

 

3 f00king giveaways.

jeesus!

 

St. Louis!!!

 

Brassard!!!

 

Rangers made an appearance this time in the second.

Hopefully they do in the third as well.

 

Out running errands with the fam. Can't watch :-(

But happy to check when I checked the score :-)

 

So far so good!

 

F00king goalie interference exactly like that which was called against Pouliot.

 

Home to finish it out....4-4 WTF!

 

f00king 0t.

bsbsbsbsbsbs

 

now I'm skurred of home team advantage...cant believe the high score.

 

2 games...2 OTs...

 

booooo

 

I hate Doc.

 

Man, I thought Nash had that oscar locked up for the best dive of the playoffs, but Henrik definitely steals the show with his dive

 

There is something seriously wrong with the ice. Everyone is falling for no reason.

 

I think his knee got wrenched...took the slash right there, and then the shoulder check put weight and twisted it.

 

Riiiight cause he did not touch him at all.

 

fucking suspense...

 

f00king hate it. Flay me instead.

 

Man, it's too bad left this thread...him and Sarlacc discussing hockey would've been awesome.

 

Well, blame your team for choking up a 2-goal lead.

Like seriously, where's this King Henrik that we're supposed to see...? Quick's numbers are pretty average...NY should be kicking themselves for this...both games now.

 

He'd just act like he knew everything about everything...and then innocently ignorant about everything else...

 

f000king 2nd 0t

 

Really? You really want to get into this? Your goalie gave up goals a 12 year old quadripilegic could have stopped.

Hank has stopped numerous sure goals as has quick. There have been great goals & lucky bounces on both sides. Lets not forget the gift goal with a King on top of Hank.

 

Um...Chicago is not built from the net and out? I have few expectations for him to steal games. But, Hank? Heck yes.

Seriously, your team should be up 2 games now if they could hold the lead. Just saying. Chill dude.

 

fuuuuuuuuuuuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yeah...that just happened.
Comeback KINGS!!!

 

Well, Kings held serve as they say...the Rangers better win their games at home.

 

How many leads did Chicago blow?

Seriously.

 

At Yumchah trying to have a hockey discussion with Cabbie

 

He is not looking for conversation, he is rubbing salt.

It is funny seeing as his team blew soooo many leads they were eliminated.

Also, the game changing 3rd King goal was in the crease goalie interference that at minimum should have caused a whistle.

 

I'm on the rags bandwagon and I don't see it as rubbing salt unfortunately the unbreakable stick is right. The rags had both games well in hand and let it slip away.

Yeah, the no call on goalie interference was a bad no call but it didn't give la the lead or even tie it up. The rags let la back in both times. On the positive side, they've proven that neither team is "far superior" to the other. The rags have probably controlled more periods than la so far but that didn't work out to wins.

In the end, nothing significant happens until someone loses at home or wins game seven at home.

 

California Moogs, he's undeniable,
Fine, fresh, fierce,
He's got it on lock...

 

Ok but coming from him it's pretty funny.

 

Those responses were from my phone, here goes.

Without goal three, a clear interference which at minimum should get a stoppage there can be no goal 4, had goal 4 been goal 3 the game ends in regulation 4-3 Rangers.

They called the penalty outside the crease no goal on Puilliot, this was in the crease & there was a goal, no call.

There seems to be no consistency. That is nonsense.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs/2014...-crashing-goal

LOS ANGELES -- Sitting in his dressing room stall after a crushing 5-4, double-overtime loss to the Los Angeles Kings, New York Rangers goalie Henrik Lundqvist peeled the tape off his skate, balled it up and fired it. The frustration of the loss was still fresh. Especially a loss in which he felt the Kings got unnecessary assistance.

Aside from the game winner by Dustin Brown, there was no goal bigger than Dwight King's third-period goal for the Kings. It cut New York's 4-2 lead down by one.

In Lundqvist's opinion, it should have been disallowed.

King and Rangers defenseman Ryan McDonagh were wrestling for position at the top of the goal crease when King deflected a Matt Greene shot past Lundqvist. There was clear contact between King and Lundqvist before the goal, even more after. There was no call made on the ice, and the goal stood.

"They score a goal and I can't even move," Lundqvist said after the game. "I don't expect a penalty on the play, but they need to blow the whistle. A goalie can't move when you have a guy like that on top of you. It's such an important play of that game."

After the goal, Lundqvist slammed his stick on the ice. He also had words with referee Dan O'Halloran. Lundqvist said he was told that the puck had already passed him when the contact occurred.

"I don't buy it," he said. "That's a wrist shot that I'm just going to reach out for, and I can't move. It's a different game after that. It's such an important play in the game."

Making it worse for Lundqvist, Rangers forward Benoit Pouliot got a two-minute penalty in the second period for interfering with Jonathan Quick, a call Lundqvist didn't like.

"Benny got pushed in and tried to avoid him, and he gets two minutes. And the puck was not even there," Lundqvist said. "Then, we have the same play and they score. I don't think it's a penalty, but you've got to stop the play if the goalie can't move in his crease. It's not like I'm outside the crease. I play pretty deep. Just be consistent with it."

The controversy is just the latest involving goalie interference during this postseason.

Tampa Bay Lightning coach Jon Cooper was unhappy when a Ryan Callahan goal was disallowed in the first round against the Montreal Canadiens because of goalie interference.

The San Jose Sharks were livid when Kings forward Justin Williams appeared to push goalie Alex Stalock and the puck in with his stick after Stalock made the initial save during a controversial goal in Game 6 of the first round. The Sharks never recovered from that goal in that game and ultimately the series.

In Game 1 of the Western Conference finals, Chicago Blackhawks center Jonathan Toews had a goal disallowed because of contact with Quick. It was controversial not because the goal should have counted, but because there was confusion as to whether or not a goal was called on the ice.

Goalie-interference calls, as hockey fans have learned so well this spring, are not reviewable, at least for now. Next week in New York, the NHL's competition committee will meet on Monday, and the league's general managers will meet on Wednesday. In light of these controversies, goalie interference and replay will likely be discussed once again.

One NHL source told ESPN The Magazine there was momentum at the last general managers meeting to expand replay, including a suggestion to put a monitor in the penalty box to help with goalie-interference calls, but the GMs received pushback from the league on the issue. There's a real fear of unintended consequences if replay is expanded in a sport that makes it much more complicated than in other sports.

Asked at his annual state-of-the-game news conference before Game 1 about expanded replay, commissioner Gary Bettman said the league plans to continue moving with caution when it comes to replay.

"If we're going to take the next step and it's something we're discussing internally, it's going to have to be a series of discreet things we're comfortable we can get right," Bettman said. "Yes, you have an occasional call that is wrong, inopportune, glaring in its consequence, but when you devise a system to deal with those handful of instances, are you going to make it worse by the unintended consequences that follow? That's why we move slowly."

Lundqvist had just one request for those gathering to examine rule changes in regards to goalie interference.

"Be consistent with it," he said. "If they don't call that [on King], you can't call what they called in the second period."

 

^^^
You lost me after speculating what would have happened if the 3rd goal was waived off. It could just as easily be said that waiving off the goal would have lit a fire under la and they still tie it up or potentially win it in regulation.

Fwiw, I watched players in both sides snow the goaltender last night which if you are a bruin was a 2 minute unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

Personally, I'm scared of goaltender interference being a reviewable play. I feel it will end up being like the foot in the crease rule where good goals get waived off on a technicality that in no way changed the outcome of a play.

 

No wonder you get the responses you do in here cab.


And yes, Hawks could not hold a lead and hence they are eliminated. Duh. Your team can't either and thus are in serious trouble. Maybe they should've learned from the Hawks' failures?