Thursday, April 16, 2009

Take A Look At This....

Let's brew some controversy bright and early this morning. And why not, it's half the fun! We're going to do the whole Toronto thing here with two controversial goals, the one being Scott Gomez's 1st period tally, and of course, Sidney Crosby's 1st period PP score.

First, let's take a look at Scott Gomez's goal at 7:49 of the 1st period. Thank goodness the NHL video shows the entire play. We'll break it down after the video plays.

At the 7 second mark of the video, take a look at the top left corner of your screen. Tomas Fleischmann let's off the shot on a pretty standard 3 on 2, turns and begins to skate up ice after his shot was blocked, only to be leveled by a Nik Antropov shoulder. Interference? Maybe, maybe not.

Now move it up, to see Scott Gomez carrying up the near side wall, and suddenly Mike Green falls at the blue line. Oh yes, that was Sean Avery slipping behind him with essentially a slewfoot, giving Gomez the easy path to Theodore. Now if you let the 1st one slide, what in the world is your excuse here? "Accidental contact"?

In a total of 4 seconds, 2 blatant interference penalties. No calls. Good work Mike Leggo and Tim Peel. What a joke.

Now the 2nd of the controversial goals comes from none other than one of the most polarizing players in the league, Sidney Crosby. It's the first part of the full highlights.

Now I'm sure Denson will disagree, but if that isn't a distinct kicking motion, then I don't know what is. But wait, there's more!

Here's what Toronto said about the play from the "Situation Room"...
Video Review - Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh - 4:41 of 1st period ... Play was reviewed to determine if the net was in proper position and if there was a distinct kicking motion ... Review determined that Sidney Crosby touched the puck with his stick prior to puck crossing the line and the net was on its pegs - good goal.
But if you take a look back at the video, why did referee Don VanMassenhoven say the puck was not kicked in with a distinct kicking motion, if the guys on the phone in Toronto said he touched it with his stick? Wouldn't that make it a moot point if he kicked it? By the video we have, you can't tell if he hits it with his stick (hopefully a Pens fan will draw up a Paint diagram showing how he had to for it to be a goal), but Toronto does have multiple angles, so they should know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what do you all think? Let's get some fanboy response, from the Pens and Rangers defense team, some pissed off Caps and Flyers fans, and maybe some objective people in between?

13 comments:

Geoffrey Benedict said...

He kicked it to his stick for a slight redirect. But it was Biron who clearly kicked it in.

But really, isn't it just more proof that everyone hates the Flyers?

Tom said...

I'll give Crosby the goal...

... but that slew-foot is garbage. I'd be PISSED if I were a Caps fan.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter if it rebounds off Biron and into the net, Crosby kicked it. The initial direction of the puck towards the net by an opposing player cannot be a kick and result in a goal. He didn't touch it with his stick, he kicked it.

The Antropov hit is a little eh, cuz he's turning to try to get back up ice, but he does put a bit of a shoulder into Fleischman, but the slew foot by Avery is complete garbage... exactly what should be expected from a player of Avery's caliber.

Denson said...

Crosby obviously willed the puck into the net.

Avery's slew foot is a work of art. It's ridiculous because you know he knew exactly what he was doing. He's not going to get away with every dick thing he does...unfortunately for the Caps this was one that lead directly to a goal...I mean even if they didn't see the slew foot, he still impeded his space enough for interference.

Vance said...

Crosby has secretly been training with Yoda Tattoo Guy to further develop his force powers.

But the question is; was it a kick or redirection? It's not like a game of He Said - He said, they were talking on the phone, and their stories are different? That strikes me as odd. Further proof of Jedi Mind Tricks? You tell me.

And by the way, how do you even spell slewfoot? Is it even a word or do we all just use it without even knowing? Like...douchebag, is that one word or two? Oh, life's conundrums...

Gary Scares Me said...

I couldn't watch the game last night because I was working. However, when I was reading articles this morning about the game, I didn't read one about a Flyers player complaining that he kicked it in, nor did I read anything about the goal being 'controversial'. I just thought it was a normal goal until I saw the replay and Vance informed me of it.

What I'm saying is, being who Sidney Crosby is, and getting as much attention as he does (whether it is positive or negative), you'd think I'd read SOMETHING about the 'controversial goal'. I think the lack of attention given to this goal in and of itself is an indication that it was a good goal. Additionally, what I gained from the replay is that Toronto didn't even spend much time looking at it. And also, the puck was directed straight forward, and it ended up going around Biron's right leg pad and into the net, indicating that it hit a stick before going into the net.

Vance said...

Oh yeah, all those Philly websites you visit right Gary? ;)

Chris said...

It wouldn't matter if the kicking motion were more obvious than what actually happened, just the fact that it was the Golden Child (as Slaski so eloquently calls him) makes it a good goal regardless.

Gary Scares Me said...

When I say I've read articles, it's not just the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I read the recaps on TSN, ESPN, Sportsline, NHL.com, etc--with the exception of maybe TSN, cause Crosby is their boy, these sites are neutral, and nothing was made of it.

And who cares really? All that I've read is that the Pens dominated the play from start to finish. I mean, the game wasn't 2-1, it was 4-1, and the Flyers didn't even get on the board till 8 min left in the 3rd. Did that goal really matter that much?

Gary Scares Me said...

Also, I hate both the Craps and the Rags, but that was a penalty on Antropov. As far as Avery, he's really freakin good at what he does, cause if Vance wouldn't have pointed that out, I would've just thought they got tangled up accidentally. I dunno if you can blame the refs on missing that call. More importantly, though, he should've never gotten the opportunity to take down Green, cause Antropov interfered--and that was an easy call to make.

Vance said...

pssst....wouldn't the ESPN, Sportsline, TSN, and NHL.com recaps all be the same AP story? Just sayin.

Anonymous said...

Um, slewfoot? Seriously? The NHL rule book defines what a slewfoot is, and this was nowhere close. It was two guys crossing at the blue line making incidental contact (and very light contact, at that). The Antropov hit was *way* more blatant.

Trust me, I'm neither a Rangers fan, or an Avery fan (is there any such thing?).

Did he do it on purpose? Probably. Was it a penalty? No. Good non-call refs.

Spec7ral said...

SEAN AVERY RULES!!!!

 
Fact: BanginPanger is not meant as an insult to the one and only Darren Pang, nor do I claim to be him. The views and opinions presented on BanginPanger are of my own, and no other namesake of the site, the NHL, Buffalo Sabres, Washington Capitals, or anyone else.