darksabre Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Watching this game for lack of anything better to do. Detroit is controlling the puck but the Pens are playing good D. Satan with a penalty, gosh it would be great if Detroit scored here. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 So if the Pens scored with too many men on could that be reviewed? Gallingly, apparently, no. http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule93.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 btw, watching this online, HNIC has Bettman on intermission. They're hammering him. Guy is an idiot. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Wings Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 So if the Pens scored with too many men on could that be reviewed? Olczyk was beside himself for how long the Penguins got away with it....what's more astounding to me is that NEITHER the Red Wings bench nor the officials realized it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Well the Pens got their one win of the series. Back to your regularly scheduled Detroit Cup repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Well the Pens got their one win of the series. Back to your regularly scheduled Detroit Cup repeat. Thats what I was thinking. It was nice however to see the Pens put up a fight and get some secondary scoring. I still believe that Detroit has this one in the bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Olczyk was beside himself for how long the Penguins got away with it....what's more astounding to me is that NEITHER the Red Wings bench nor the officials realized it. He really carried on and on about it, didn't he? Last night convinced me that the other VS guy (Darryl Reaugh) is a better color guy than Olczyk (who isn't bad, but still). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 He really carried on and on about it, didn't he? Last night convinced me that the other VS guy (Darryl Reaugh) is a better color guy than Olczyk (who isn't bad, but still). I don't think he overplayed it...that is almost an extra shift you can't get your players off the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 I don't think he overplayed it...that is almost an extra shift you can't get your players off the ice. Eye/ear of the beholder, I suppose. I agree that it was fine to talk about it during the too-many-men period, and certainly if Pittsburgh had scored or gotten a PP out of that possession it would be a real issue. But it ended up not having have any consequence, and it just felt like he kept talking about it for the rest of the game. He kept saying that the non-call was an opportunity that Pittsburgh took advantage of. The logic of this seems a bit strained to me -- since there was no call, Detroit didn't get a power play, so they didn't score a PP goal, so Pittsburgh had an opportunity...But this doesn't seem any different to me from 20 other non-calls that occur during the course of any game. Not a big deal either way, IMHO. To me the story of this game was Pittsburgh getting a few more calls, Fleury playing a bit better and Osgood playing a bit worse. And Malkin is really an absolute beast right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 So if the Pens scored with too many men on could that be reviewed? I couldn't find the YouTube video, but remember last year (2007-08) when Derek Roy somehow got completely behind the defense and received a breakaway pass that he score off of. I think it was a Flyers game. They showed on the replay that Timmy came toward the bench for the change, saw the play change direct and cut back into the defensive zone. Roy came on as he approached and didn't see Timmy turn back. It was clearly too many men and the other bench was screaming about it after the goal. No review. Edit: here's the SabresTV link. It doesn't show the botched change as well as the video that I remember watching on YouTube (I think it had the review after the play.) You can sort of see Timmy start heading to the bench and then as Max starts up the far side, you see him start back toward the bench. Roy, of course, was already behind the D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_Dudley Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Eye/ear of the beholder, I suppose. I agree that it was fine to talk about it during the too-many-men period, and certainly if Pittsburgh had scored or gotten a PP out of that possession it would be a real issue. But it ended up not having have any consequence, and it just felt like he kept talking about it for the rest of the game. He kept saying that the non-call was an opportunity that Pittsburgh took advantage of. The logic of this seems a bit strained to me -- since there was no call, Detroit didn't get a power play, so they didn't score a PP goal, so Pittsburgh had an opportunity...But this doesn't seem any different to me from 20 other non-calls that occur during the course of any game. Not a big deal either way, IMHO. To me the story of this game was Pittsburgh getting a few more calls, Fleury playing a bit better and Osgood playing a bit worse. And Malkin is really an absolute beast right now. Good Post I couldn't find the YouTube video, but remember last year (2007-08) when Derek Roy somehow got completely behind the defense and received a breakaway pass that he score off of. I think it was a Flyers game. They showed on the replay that Timmy came toward the bench for the change, saw the play change direct and cut back into the defensive zone. Roy came on as he approached and didn't see Timmy turn back. It was clearly too many men and the other bench was screaming about it after the goal. No review. Edit: here's the SabresTV link. It doesn't show the botched change as well as the video that I remember watching on YouTube (I think it had the review after the play.) You can sort of see Timmy start heading to the bench and then as Max starts up the far side, you see him start back toward the bench. Roy, of course, was already behind the D. Great example. I just got to say that I :wub: all my Hockey posting buddies here. Never seen a site with such a great combination of sarcasim, humor, wit, knowledge, facts and astute commentary. Could a reality TV show be in our future.... GO Pens the anti carpet bagging Hosers...... Although they do whine a wee bit too much for my liking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Good PostGreat example. I just got to say that I :wub: all my Hockey posting buddies here. Never seen a site with such a great combination of sarcasim, humor, wit, knowledge, facts and astute commentary. Could a reality TV show be in our future.... GO Pens the anti carpet bagging Hosers...... Although they do whine a wee bit too much for my liking.... I'm writing the book. Still looking for a title. Maybe "Text, tweet or blog, still a Sabres Fan" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Good Post Great example. I just got to say that I :wub: all my Hockey posting buddies here. Never seen a site with such a great combination of sarcasim, humor, wit, knowledge, facts and astute commentary. Could a reality TV show be in our future.... GO Pens the anti carpet bagging Hosers...... Although they do whine a wee bit too much for my liking.... Fanarchy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_Dudley Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 I'm writing the book. Still looking for a title. Maybe "Text, tweet or blog, still a Sabres Fan" After seeing yours for PA in the other thread, I don't want to know all your pet names for regular posers here :rolleyes: Or Do I :bag: Fanarchy? Ehhh, not quite the same as one that would follow the width, breadth, political, personal and social make up of individual fans that grace this site. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 After seeing yours for PA in the other thread, I don't want to know all your pet names for regular posers here :rolleyes: Or Do I :bag: Ehhh, not quite the same as one that would follow the width, breadth, political, personal and social make up of individual fans that grace this site. ;) Man your eyes are brown. If we're all adopting Indian names, my pet name for spndnchz would be Hides PeePee in TeePee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R_Dudley Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Man your eyes are brown. If we're all adopting Indian names, my pet name for spndnchz would be Hides PeePee in TeePee. Yeah I'm full of it.... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 After seeing yours for PA in the other thread, I don't want to know all your pet names for regular posers here :rolleyes: Or Do I :bag: Ehhh, not quite the same as one that would follow the width, breadth, political, personal and social make up of individual fans that grace this site. ;) Who's got width? width good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Man your eyes are brown. If we're all adopting Indian names, my pet name for spndnchz would be Hides PeePee in TeePee. U make me laugh, but so does my cat. I miss hockey. Here. In B-lo. Where's July 1? :chris: :chris: Arrrrrggggggg :chris: :chris: :chris: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Highest ratings http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=424850&cmpid=rss-.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Highest ratingshttp://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=424850&cmpid=rss-.com There was nothing better on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Glad Pitt showed signs of life in Game 3. My son was hooting and hollering when they got the GWG. Is this the game Datysuk comes back? Amazing to look at how good these Wings are and know that they still have an Ace to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 There was nothing better on... There was Brian Williams of NBC eating a burger in the West Wing. Riveting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Pittsburgh's first goal was offside. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Wings Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 I missed some of the first period, but I'm waiting for the obligatory too many men on the ice penalty on Pittsburgh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 5, 2009 Report Share Posted June 5, 2009 Fanarchy? After seeing the VS trailer for a show with the same name, I wouldn't go with that name. oof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.