VeeshanVault

Hurricanes in 5, only because they will purposely lose one to bring it back to Raleigh ftw.

Canes in 7, and I only say that because the last two teams who beat the Red Wings (Ducks/Flames) went to the finals and lost in 7 games.

Also, because I wish the same agonizing defeat on the Oilers.

Xouqoa wrote: Also, because I wish the same agonizing defeat on the Oilers.

I'll drink to that! Death to the team trying to keep the Trap alive!

Xouqoa wrote:Canes in 7, and I only say that because the last two teams who beat the Red Wings (Ducks/Flames) went to the finals and lost in 7 games.

Also, because I wish the same agonizing defeat on the Oilers.

Bump, just in case I end up being right so everybody can see and go 'omg xou is so smrt!'.

Xouqoa wrote:

Xouqoa wrote:Canes in 7, and I only say that because the last two teams who beat the Red Wings (Ducks/Flames) went to the finals and lost in 7 games.

Also, because I wish the same agonizing defeat on the Oilers.

Bump, just in case I end up being right so everybody can see and go 'omg xou is so smrt!'.

Don't worry, the world is not in danger of anyone saying that

OMG XOU IS SO SMRT!

Xouqoa wrote:OMG XOU IS SO SMRT!

That doesn't count...

Canes win, what a fucking game 7....

They owned the Oilers this game. Edmonton just sat there looking confused half the game. I'm not sad Carolina won. They have lots of guys that deserved the cup (Brind'Amour, Weight, Ward, Staal)

OMG XOU IS SO SMRT!!!1!!11!


is it true he's Stargi's mom?

Gratz Canes =)

Good game eventhough the wrong team won.
The officiating was excellent... I love it when they just let the teams play.

I flipped channels for a second at the end of the first when they were watching the replays of whether or not the Edmonton defenseman had trapped the puck right at the goal, or if it had gone in or whatever. When I got back they merely declared it "no goal" and resumed play. What did they determine about that one that made them forego a penalty shot? It was hard to tell from the angles I saw, looked like it could have possibly been either under the goalie's skate or under that defenseman's shoulder.

They just let them play on, then a while later they found a good replay of it that shows the puck in the goal by more than a few inches under staios.

I think the penalty shot call was a mistake by the ref. He was high-sticked in his own zone (usually not the criteria for a penalty shot). As for that goal (or no goal) situation, I saw about 5 different angles, each of them inconclusive.

When I got back they merely declared it "no goal" and resumed play. What did they determine about that one that made them forego a penalty shot? It was hard to tell from the angles I saw, looked like it could have possibly been either under the goalie's skate or under that defenseman's shoulder.

Since there was a delayed penalty on the play, the moment an Edmonton player touched the puck the play would be dead.

Since there was no conclusive angle showing that the Edmonton player closed his hand on the puck in the crease, there was no penalty shot.

Even if the puck went over the line, it would have been after the Edmonton player touched it... so it would have been a dead play regardless of the exact moment the whistle was blown.



I doubt that the American commentators have that much knowledge of the rules so their failure to communicate that to the viewers is understandable.

Lynks wrote:I think the penalty shot call was a mistake by the ref. He was high-sticked in his own zone (usually not the criteria for a penalty shot). As for that goal (or no goal) situation, I saw about 5 different angles, each of them inconclusive.

A penalty shot is awarded when a player other than the goalie intentionally (usually closing the hand on the puck) freezes the puck in his own crease.

A penalty shot is awarded when a defensive player interferes with a player on a 'clear' breakaway.

The second one is obviously open to interpretation by the referee.


A high stick comitted by a player their offensive zone would never result in a penalty shot.

Ahhh, I misheard the commentator then. I assumed the penalty shot was for the high stick, not for putting his hand over the puck. If thats the case, then the penalty shot still would of been cancelled because the penalty was already called.

They can't just touch it, they have to have control of the puck.

If you watched the game on NBC and heard the same commentators i did, then i don't know how you would draw the conclusion that the penalty shot was from the high sticking.. No one but the goalie is allowed to touch the puck inside the crease in the way that Staois did. I also don't feel any edmonton player had "control" of the puck, which is the only way the play can be called dead... not just by contact. The player has to intentionally make contact with the puck in order for the delayed penalty to be called.

The game was excellently called however, and i enjoyed watching this full contact game. The refs just let the players play it out, and although Edmonton was out played, the game was an amazing watch... Blue to blue constantly, and some amazing saves from both goalies. That was deffinately a game worthy of Stanley Cup proportions. Im glad i got to watch that game, i missed several games due to work.

All in all im happy Carolina won. From watching Brind'amour and Recchi back from their Flyers days, i feel this is a well deserved and much needed win for them. And i loved watching Brind'amour get the cup first.

Ward was amazing in goal, and deserved the trophy. 22 years old, what an amazing feat.

Edmonton didn't play as well as they should have, but they still would have beaten any other team out on the ice that night.. Carolina just played an amazing game.

Clatis wrote:They can't just touch it, they have to have control of the puck.

That's open to interpretation.

Clatis wrote:They can't just touch it, they have to have control of the puck.

No shit. Staios pulled the puck out of the air which should of stopped play because of the penalty.

miir wrote:

Clatis wrote:They can't just touch it, they have to have control of the puck.

That's open to interpretation.

Well, it won't stop if it bounces off you. Falling over the puck = controlling it.

miir wrote:

Clatis wrote:They can't just touch it, they have to have control of the puck.

That's open to interpretation.

Delayed penalty: A penalty that is not called against a player until his team gains possession of the puck.

ESPN Hockey Rules Glossary

Possesion -

Physical control of the ball or puck by a player or team.

Dictionary.com


Damn Miir and his ninja edit.

No one but the goalie is allowed to touch the puck inside the crease in the way that Staois did. I also don't feel any edmonton player had "control" of the puck, which is the only way the play can be called dead... not just by contact. The player has to intentionally make contact with the puck in order for the delayed penalty to be called.

While the puck is in the crease, any player (besides the goalie) can:

Touch the puck with their stick.
Kick it with a skate.
Bat it with thier hand or any other part of their body.

However, they cannot freeze the puck with any part of their body.


The replay showed (not clearly) that the Edmonton player changed the direction of the puck but he didn't clearly place his hand over the puck to freeze it.
Changing the direction of the puck is a clear enough indication of control.
At that point the play would have been called dead.



If Edmonton didn't (as you say) have control of the puck, it was certainly sitting behind the goalie out of view from the referee for long enough time that the whistle should have been blown anyway. It is the refs discretion to blow a play dead when they lose sight of the puck.

Im not challenging the call because of the facts presented at the time, but its actually quite clear about 15 minutes later when NBC showed the replay, that the puck was not touched by Staois and it was in the goal.. The only clear case of contact ( though not possession ) was when it hit one of the sticks of an Edmonton player while it was in the air over the goalie.

It should have been a goal: the play was not called for either the ref losing sight or Edmonton gaining control and at least one camera angle could show white between the puck and the red line. IMO the question is whether the NHL had access to that camera. In the end, it didn't matter: goal or no goal, the 'Canes still won, as they deserved to.

Grats to guys like Brind'amour and Wesley who've had long careers and finally got to taste the champagne.

I thought one ref thought he saw Edmonton 'control' so the other in fact could not call the penalty shot foul.....but then Im an American and know nothing of teh hockey