Robbed again: Wings 2, Sharks 3

I did catch the game last night, but didn’t take notes so I won’t be doing a full summary. I just have a few comments.

The title of this post refers to a play that took place at 3:13 of the first period. On this play, Mathieu Schneider scored a goal from the left wing after manuevering around the Sharks defense. It was a great goal but it was called back. Do you know why? You can probably guess, since it’s happened twice before this season. The referee immediately waived the goal off because Tomas Holmstrom was ruled to be in the crease.

Okay. Maybe he was. Let’s watch the replay: no, he’s not in the paint now … or now … or now … there’s the puck going in … and he’s still not in the crease.

Hmm. Maybe it was contact with the goaltender. Let’s watch again: there’s Toskala at the top of the crease with his glove hand on Homer’s back … he’s practically out of the crease … now he’s backed up and Homer’s near the edge … they’re not touching at all … there’s the puck again. Going into the net. A goal. Right? Wrong.

I swore that if the Wings lost by a goal, I’d be pissed. Well, they did and I am. The other times this season the Wings have been denied a goal due to contact or presence in the paint, I thought they were BS calls but I could see why the official called it that way. Last night, however, there is no way that goal should have been called back. Absolutely no way.

The League needs to clarify the rule. When I, as a long time fan, have no idea why a goal was called back, there’s a problem. They also need to fix the replay policy. There is no way it’s okay for a goal to be overturned like that and if they reviewed every goal and the booth had the power to counter the verdict on the ice, you wouldn’t have actual goals being taken away. It probably wouldn’t be a perfect system but it’d sure as heck be better than what we have now.

I’d hate for something like that to happen when the games actually mean something.

Anyway, as nice as it would have been to have had that goal, I don’t think I can really say that they lost only because they didn’t have it. Frankly, the Wings did not play that well last night. The defense was no where nearly as tight as it has been and the Sharks had Joey MacDonald making some very, very good saves for much of the game. They gave up 35 shots, the most they’ve allowed all season, 19 of which came in the third period.

Dan Cleary’s turnover at the end of the game was tragic, but was just one example of the many times the Wings turned over the puck during the game last night. Once again, they hung MacDonald out to dry defensively and it’s only because he played so well last night that the game was even close. Even if that goal had not been turned over and the Wings had won, it’d have been due to Joey’s play.

One thing that did look better was the power play, which got one goal. I’m glad but they can’t forget to play well defensively as well.

They get a little bit of a reprieve on Tuesday with the Blues. Let’s hope they can spoil Brett Hull’s Retirement Night.

Comments

Megan says:
December 3, 2006 at 8:29 am
Joey McDonald won that game for them, and they still managed to lose.
firebird_995 says:
December 5, 2006 at 8:33 am
I totally agree that they should be able to take replays up to the booth. There was nothing wrong with that goal. I remember when I first started watching hockey that if a foot was in the crease, contact or no contact, the goal was disallowed…But didn't they fix that rule? Didn't they change it so that contact WOULD have to happen for the goal to be disallowed? I think that's what I remember…but with the "new" NHL maybe they changed the rules back or something. But still, Holmstrom was NOT in the crease and the only contact was Toskala ON Holmstrom, not Holmstrom on Toskala. That goal should have stood.
In order to fix that problem…I also remember back in the day that the refs would go over to that little spot by the penalty box, where a guy would hand them a phone through a little hole in the glass. On the other end of that phone would be a little guy in the video review booth that would confirm or overrule calls. I don't see that anymore…What happened to that system?
Also, I'm not sure, but I do know that in football the coaches can challenge plays (like 2 challenges or something and they take that out of the timeouts…) I think it would be great if they did this for Hockey as well (if they don't have that already…but I imagine if they did then Babcock would have done it.) I remember them saying that plays that "went up to the booth take too much time out of the game. It's not fair for the fans" or something that that. However, fans don't deserve an unfair call. The deserve a fair game, and they shouldn't have a problem if it only takes five minutes or less to do. So I say we should combine the "going to the booth" rule and the "challenge" rule.
-firebird995
Matt Saler says:
December 5, 2006 at 2:07 pm
What boggles my mind is that the NHL seems to think the Holmstrom call was a good one:
“We’ve handed out lots of (goaltender interference) penalties this year and we’ve taken down goals when it’s clear goalies have been tampered with,” Murphy said, using Red Wings forward Tomas Holmstrom’s disallowed goal Saturday against San Jose as an example.
“We’ve always maintained goaltenders should be free to do their job ‘in the blue’ (i.e., the crease), and that’s something (director of officiating) Stephen Walkom emphasizes with the officials on a weekly, even daily basis.”
What a load of BS.
You're exactly right, Firebird. A replay system may slow the game down but it should result in fair calls as compensation.

GameDay: @ San Jose (26-14-0, 52 Pts) 10:30 ET at On the Wings says:
January 4, 2007 at 2:22 pm
[...] Tonight is the fourth and final game between these two teams this season. The Sharks lead the series 2-1, with wins coming on October 19th (5-1) and December 2nd (3-2). The Wings won the October 25th meeting 2-1 in Detroit. [...]