This past season I thought the officials in the WCHA had a tough year, but it appears that even the best officials in the top hockey league make mistakes as well. This was definitely a horrible call, it was ruled that Tomas Holmstrom interfered with Dallas goalie Marty Turco on the play. If you look at the video you will see that Holmstrom wasn't even in the blue paint and made no contact with the Dallas goalie. While I am no fan of the Redwings, you could put me in the category of being a Redwing hater there is no excuse for making bad calls like this.
the blog that Yost Built was less than pleased with the call.
If anyone that is reading this article lives in southwest Madison and has young children, I apologize for teaching them some new words tonight. I had, shall we say, an unpleasant reaction to another example of stunning incompetance by the NHL and its officials tonight.
With the score 0-0 late in the second period of Game 4 between the Red Wings and Stars, Datsyuk put a shot past Turco to give Detroit the lead. Or so we thought. Kelly Sutherland immediately waived the goal off, saying that Tomas Holmstrom interfered with Turco's ability to make the save--that his butt was in the crease. How can I put this gently....Sutherland was completely and utterly WRONG. Holmstrom was clearly outside the crease and Turco, despite his comments to the contrary, had every chance to make the save. The only bit of "interfering" that Holmstrom did was blocking Turco's view, which is kind of his job (and completely legal provided he's not in the crease or going Sean Avery on the goalie).
To add to the hilarity, the Stars scored just a couple minutes later when Loui Eriksson showed everybody what it really means to be in the crease. Not surprisingly--especially with Dan O'Halloran down at that end of the ice--no one seemed to care that he was basically on top of Osgood, or that they had waived off a goal for a man in the crease just a few moments earlier.
Such crap. For the record, I do think it was correct to allow Eriksson's goal. But it was moronic to let that stand after waiving Holmstrom's off.
ReplyDeleteFor a league that embraces replay the way the NHL does, it's absurd that they can't review every situation where a goal could be waived off.
To me, if it's not severe enough to call a penalty, it's not severe enough to waive a goal off. It's hard enough to score in hockey without the goalies being coddled.
I heard it suggested last night that the non-goal call was a make up for the goal in game one maybe? For some reason i can't remember what goal they were talking about the Eriksson goal I can't remember why that one shouldn't have counted.
ReplyDeleteYou must be torn with Turco on the other side of the ice. I don't think Marty gets enough credit he was awesome last night.
Holmstrom tipped a shot in during Game 1 and he was completely inside the crease. It probably shouldn't have counted, but it did.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I have a real problem with makeup calls three games later. Especially waiving off a goal in a 0-0 game later in the second. The original goal made a 2-0 game into 3-0, and we later made it 4-0. It's not like Dallas was winning that one.
Eriksson was completely in the crease and from the overhead camera, it looked like he actually jabbed Osgood in the blocker with his stick. I have no problem with the goal counting, but if they waived Holmstrom's off for having his ass in the crease, it's crazy that they let that one stand.
All I wanted at the start of the series is for the Wings to win and Turco to not be the goat. I love the guy, but he's playing for the enemy right now. I'm thrilled that he's gotten rid of his playoff-choker reputation and if they come back to beat Detroit (which I don't expect) I'll have no problem rooting for Turco to hold the Cup and the Conn Smythe above his head.
GRR!! This pisses me off so much. How DARE they take away a completely legit goal from my favoriteeeest Wing?! >=(
ReplyDelete