Newsflash: Angry Rah, Ming, Sava (et. all 'Hawks fans) in Chicago in late April

[-Jrabbit]

This is what happens when Havlat gets through a season without major injury.

Seems to me there's a pretty clear shot of Leopold pushing Ladd backwards into Kipper at :34...

I'm surely no source of hockey knowledge, so I recuse myself from having an opinion on this -- other than "Go HAWKS!"

[Asher]

There was definitely bumping, but as anyone who's watched a lot of hockey or skated a lot will tell you -- Ladd could've stopped. He also angled his momentum into Kipper even though he was shoved more to the side.

It's been a tactic Chicago used the whole game, it's far from the first time Kipper was run. NHL players are particularly good at embellishing or leveraging legit actions (like the shove) to their advantage.

But the rule is simple -- if the player had enough time to stop -- even if he was shoved before they got to the net -- then it's goaltender interference. Ladd had more than enough time to stop or avoid the collision, he just didn't. He directed himself towards the net and could've stopped, but didn't.

[rah]

That's why it's important to have the better record during the regular season. If we had been on the road, probably a different outcome. It was close enough to be a judgement call.

[Asher]

That's why it's important to have the better record during the regular season. If we had been on the road, probably a different outcome. It was close enough to be a judgement call.

Chicago and Calgary each had 46 wins in the season.

Only difference was Chicago had more "loser points".

Vancouver, who are seeded ahead of Calgary, have less wins than Calgary. They are simply more productive losers.

[Ming]

But the rule is simple -- if the player had enough time to stop -- even if he was shoved before they got to the net -- then it's goaltender interference. Ladd had more than enough time to stop or avoid the collision, he just didn't. He directed himself towards the net and could've stopped, but didn't.

It's a judgement call... and frankly, it didn't look like he had enough time to stop when the replay is seen at regular speed. So you are welcome to your opinion. Obviously, the refs don't agree with you

And as rah said, thank god it was a home game

[Asher]

It's a judgement call... and frankly, it didn't look like he had enough time to stop when the replay is seen at regular speed. So you are welcome to your opinion. Obviously, the refs don't agree with you

Yes, this ref has a spotty history too.

I wouldn't be surprised if Eric Furlatt didn't ref another Flames game this year. This is the second time in 2 weeks he generated a ****storm. It doesn't help him that it was two similar plays with two very different results, but each time he took great care to ensure the Flames were shafted.

After the goal he hesitated, looked around (at which point the game-ending celebration had already started), then ruled it a goal. As you said, it was because it's a home-game...they didn't even review the frickin' play. Cowards.

[rah]

Chicago and Calgary each had 46 wins in the season.

Only difference was Chicago had more "loser points".

Good thing I said better record instead of more wins.

[Asher]

It's still imprecise though. It is not uncommon for a lower seed to have a better record than a higher seed thanks to the NHL's seeding rules.

[rah]

I'll agree to that, but the better record helped here.

[-Jrabbit]

It seems pretty clear that Ladd put himself in position to be shoved -- skating ahead of the defender and cutting between him and Kipper. It's the defenseman's job to get him out of there, and in realtime, it happens in an instant. But from my POV, that's just good, smart hockey.

The judgment of the ref -- certainly open to debate.

[Zylka]

That was smart play by Ladd, and according to the letter of the law, it's unclear as to whether he was yet deserving of a penalty:

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease ...

It all depends on the definition of "attacker". Was Ladd still an "attacker" when being shoved by Leopold, or simply an opposing player being directed towards the net? (Yes, he went limp on purpose, but that's beside the point)

If this was indeed an instance of the ref looking around at crowd reaction before making the call, there's a serious problem with his ability to make confident technical decisions under pressure. Otherwise, I'd say well played by Chicago. This is good for the NHL market, they're the new darling of the playoffs, and the Flames simply have to man-up and utilize their incredibly stacked roster to "catch up" from what was a near win.

[-Jrabbit]

Good or not, failing to review the deciding goal in a playoff game strikes me as pretty lame.

[notyoueither]

I don't think interference is reviewable.

[-Jrabbit]

Huh.

[Asher]

2-0 good guys.