Penguins 2009-2010

[furlanitalia 1]

[/sarcasm]

lol. Having the game be all about those two actually makes the game a little less enjoyable for me because I find myself only wanting to watch when one of them are on the ice. And considering Ovechkin doesn't come back behind his blue line I didn't see much of him in the first and with Crosby being watched closely he didn't really get a chance to do much. They are great teams and (i didn't watch the whole game) while it was probably a great game, it's a shame to go into it with only those two players in mind.

[n3ss 0]

Am I the only one whos sick of the "Crosby vs. Ovechkin" marketing poly by the NHL? The top 2 teams in the east are playing and all they wanna do is focus on 2 players?

It was fine when both teams werent that good and it was a good way to sell the game, but now were talking about 2 elite teams.

especially since neither of them really did anything in the first 65 minutes. ovechkin needs to stop looking for the pass and shoot more.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

They each had a point in regulation and Ovechkin and Orpik had a great battle all game long. Everytime OV had the puck I held my breath. They're not gonna get 3 goals a game everytime they play eachother.

Everyone better just suck it up and get used to it cause Crosby vs Ovechkin isn't going away now, or anytime soon, or even after they retire. They will always be compared to eachother.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

ovechkin needs to stop looking for the pass and shoot more.

Wow. Did anyone ever expect to hear a sentence like that? lol But I agree he is looking too hard to set up guys. Take a quick look, if nothing, let it rip.

Everyone better just suck it up and get used to it cause Crosby vs Ovechkin isn't going away now, or anytime soon, or even after they retire. They will always be compared to eachother.

Truth. They cast a pretty large shadow. I wonder how the OV/Crosby era will compare to others when all is said and done.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

What people should be doing is being happy that they can be around during the era of Sid/OV. Some of us didn't get to see much of Gretz/Mario, the old canadiens, etc... I think we should feel fortunate..

[Dr. Funk 6]

Agreed. Being a Pittsburgh guy, I love Crosby and his rivalry with Alex; in turn, I love Pens-Caps. However, I do wish the NHL was a bit more aggressive in promoting all of the other fabulous players in the league. I've lived in the mid-Atlantic all my life, so I'm assuming that other stars are more-heavily promoted in other regions; however, I'd love to see it on a national scale. One of my least favorite aspects of NHL hockey is how little I see of other regions' stars.

I understand that these two are "the guys;" I'd just like to see some of the other stars on ESPN and in print every now and again.

[furlanitalia 1]

What people should be doing is being happy that they can be around during the era of Sid/OV. Some of us didn't get to see much of Gretz/Mario, the old canadiens, etc... I think we should feel fortunate..

That's a great point considering my only memory of Lemieux is at the 02 olympics and of Gretzky it was listening to his last game on the radio.

[jeffw 1]

I noticed the Crosby vs Ovechkin thing died down quite a bit since the Pens won the Cup.

I listened to the game on the radio & even though the Pens lost I was feeling OK about it. Sounded like they played well without Geno and Gonchar and came away from Washington with a point.

Then I read this from Brooks Orpik. i love this guy.

"I think the frustrating part is you make the same mistakes over and over and you don't learn from them," the Pittsburgh defenseman said. "That's the frustrating part. It's not like we're getting behind. We're blowing leads. Here in the third period we're up by a goal....The Semin goal, we're just sloppy there, so it looks like we lost our focus there for whatever reason. I don't know, it's a little frustrating right now."

So I asked him whether he thought this was a game the Penguins should have won.

"Do I think so? Yeah," he said. "We're up by a goal in the third period. We get a power play and have a chance to make it 3-1, and instead we give them a short-handed goal. So all due respect to them, a team that's as experienced and as good as we are, we shouldn't be losing games that way."

In truth, part of his frustration came from the overall direction of his team. While Washington has won four of five and has just one regulation loss since the Olympic break, Pittsburgh has lost six of eight and has relinquished its division lead.

"Maybe I'm in the minority here, I'm getting tired of hearing that we played hard and we should have deserved better," Orpik said. "We're not winning hockey games, and that's what it comes down to. I don't know. I don't feel very good leaving the rink when you lose, no matter how you played....

"I'm getting very concerned. Everyone wants to talk about the playoffs. We've still got eight games to go here, and we're not exactly playing too well. The way we're playing now, we'll be out in the first round. It's getting pretty frustrating, yeah."

Still, Orpik didn't put any stock in the fact that the Penguins remain winless against their rivals this season.

"Look at last year; I think they beat us 3-1 last year, too," he said. "That didn't add up [in the postseason]. So I don't think it matters, but I think obviously, no matter who you're playing, you've got to take care of what you're doing a little better right now. We're not. We're finding ways to lose."

[Chadd 916]

Cooke really should have had a penalty for holding the stick before his goal today. The worst part is that it happened right in front of the ref and there was still no call.

[EBondo 233]

I'm not trying to get into an argument about the game because I'm simply disgusted from it, but how about the cross-check from Fedotenko on the same play?

[jeffw 1]

I love how it's always the officials fault. :P

[Chadd 916]

I love how it's always the officials fault. :P

Not at all, Pens dominated the play and seemed to win just about every race to a loose puck. I'm just amazed at how Cooke seems to always get away with so much.

[EBondo 233]

Not at all, Pens dominated the play and seemed to win just about every race to a loose puck. I'm just amazed at how Cooke seems to always get away with so much.

Pens did dominate the play ( :o I'm a FLYERS fan!). But, once again, the referees didn't help. The disallowed goal, which I thought was BS, the thrown stick at Giroux on his breakaway, and then the overall suckiness of Flyers goaltenders. But I'm with you on the Cooke comment. 100%. If there's a player I hate almost as much as Crosby, it's Cooke. Or Kunitz.

[Chadd 916]

Pens did dominate the play ( :o I'm a FLYERS fan!). But, once again, the referees didn't help. The disallowed goal, which I thought was BS, the thrown stick at Giroux on his breakaway, and then the overall suckiness of Flyers goaltenders. But I'm with you on the Cooke comment. 100%. If there's a player I hate almost as much as Crosby, it's Cooke. Or Kunitz.

Disallowed goal was the right call and probably should have been a penalty. The contact was absolutely intentional. The thrown stick was a missed call, but that is almost never called.

[LegoDoom 0]

Disallowed goal was the right call and probably should have been a penalty. The contact was absolutely intentional.

Wasn't it ruled incidental contact? If so, how can that be the right call?

And there's no way that contact was intentional.

[Trooper 8]

Wasn't it ruled incidental contact? If so, how can that be the right call?

And there's no way that contact was intentional.

Come on, call it what it is. That and the previous one that was called were both intentional. The reffing was ok by NHL standards, although Cooke should have gotten a high stick in the neutral zone which I thought was the most obvious missed call of the game.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

Not that I'm complaining but I couldnt believe that Fedotenko did't get a crosscheck on that goal. I was at the game yesterday and there was a bunch of people around me that had that 'holy crap are they going to allow that?' look on their faces. I also have even less respect for Scott Hartnell than I ever have, he's probably made himself one of my top 3 hated players. People talk about Matt Cooke playing on the line and not backing it up, holy crap its just as bad with Hartnell. Twice I watched him smear a Pens player into the boards hard and make a beeline for the bench.

Didn't really understand the call on Hartnell when I believe it was Sid that hit him and they both went down, Hartnell went to the box. IDK if it was on the TV feeds but he sat on the ice for a good long time and the entire arena booed him until he went up and got himself to the box. Then the Pens scored real quick on the PP. Epic. I hope todays Toronto game is just as good :)

[Chadd 916]

Wasn't it ruled incidental contact? If so, how can that be the right call?

And there's no way that contact was intentional.

Incidental simply means no penalty in that case, the NHL rules have an option to disallow the goal but not issue a penalty.

[LegoDoom 0]

Incidental simply means no penalty in that case, the NHL rules have an option to disallow the goal but not issue a penalty.

Am I reading the rule wrong?

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

[Chadd 916]

Am I reading the rule wrong?

I'm just going by past practice, this is nothing new at all. You can have incidental contact and a goal, incidental contact and no goal and intentional contact and no goal. Essentially they are saying that there was no intent to hit the goalie, but there was too much contact for the goalie to have had any chance at stopping the puck.

When I read this part of the rule one thing pops out at me:

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.

I don't believe the guy (Leino?) made any attempt to avoid contact. He may not have intended to run Fluery, but he certainly didn't do anything to avoid him.

The funny thing is, I can recall a number of situations where this has happened in the past, but even the NHL chart doesn't seem to address it.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

[LegoDoom 0]

When I read this part of the rule one thing pops out at me:

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.

This is in the rule about goaltender interference, right? So, if he didn't make any reasonable effort, it isn't incidental contact and thus a penalty. It certainly doesn't state that the goal should be disallowed even though the contact was incidental (unless I'm reading the rule wrong).

I don't believe the guy (Leino?) made any attempt to avoid contact. He may not have intended to run Fluery, but he certainly didn't do anything to avoid him.

I actually believe he was trying to play the puck and when he was working it out of the feet of the defencemen, he inadvertently ran into Fleury. I would be unhappy with, but could understand, a penalty in that situation. What I can't understand is no penalty and no goal. It's either incidental contact or it's not.

But for people to contend that the contact was intentional seems ridiculous to me. As with JVR's, whose feet were tangled and he wound up falling backwards into Fluery (who was well out of his crease).

The Flyers probably lose the game even with the goal allowed and other calls made properly, but that doesn't mean calls shouldn't be made properly.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

What about the goalie establishing a position outside the crease to make a save and he gets run into? Ya know, right on top of the paint? Is there incidental that didn't prevent the goalie from making a save, thus a goal..incidental that did prevent the goalie from making a save, no goal no penalty, and last intentional contact, no goal, and issue a penalty?

[LegoDoom 0]

Between this wording:

69.4 Contact Outside the Goal Crease - If an attacking player initiates any contact with a goalkeeper, other than incidental contact, while the goalkeeper is outside his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

A goalkeeper is not “fair game” just because he is outside the goal crease. The appropriate penalty should be assessed in every case where an attacking player makes unnecessary contact with the goalkeeper. However, incidental contact will be permitted when the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside his goal crease provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such unnecessary contact.

And this situational table:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

I just don't see how this isn't a penalty or a goal since the goalie was outside of the crease.

[Chadd 916]

As with most situations in the NHL, published rules and past practice are not always in sync.

[Fire0nIce228 1]

Pens sign Letang 4 years, 3.5 million per.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=316025