Wings Capital-ize on mistakes, win in Washington 4-2

[yave1964]

Sorry about the pun.

What a game. It started of course in the first period with an absolutely wretched call, Braden Holtby tripped over mid-air, Drew Miller took advantage and fired in as easy of a goal as you will ev

er see but Glendening was called for tripping Holtby, although he was 5-8 feet away. Glendening must have been using mind control. I can think of no better reason than this for the NHL to implement some sort of coaches challenge than wretched blown calls like this.

The Capitals defense played a regressive game, they backed into their zone, never challenging the puck carriers most of the night. The Wings had to have had control of the puck at a 2-1 ratio for the evening. Guys like Brouwer, Chimera and Tom Wilson were hitting and backchecking, honestly so was Ovechkin, but most of the Capitals forwards were not helping out. Very uncharacteristic for a team coached by egg head.

Abdelkader. God i used to curse him, i hated him, never thought he would develop. But truthfully he has turned into a quality player. The man was a beast, stealing the puck left and right, setting up Nyquist on a gorgeous goal in the second and then scoring twice in the third. Just a great game.

And speaking of steals, who tracks this stuff? The Wings were credited with only 6 takeaways, but they took the puck over and over right off the stick of the Capitals players. For instance on one of Abdelkaers goals he literally flicked the puck off the stick of Burakovsky and immediately fired it in. Yet Burakovsky was not listed with a giveaway. That is why those type of stats are so unreliable.

Zetterberg 2 assists and a plus 3. Datsyuk, with the Wings having a late power play killed 40 precious seconds with the puck on his stick most of the time before firing in the dagger on a cool shot thru traffic. Darren Helm continues to look lost, as does Tatar. Maybe the two of them belong on a line together to try to bring each other out of their funk.

Great win, textbook Wings game from the old days, possession of the puck all night. 5-2-2 12 points and climbing!!

[mojo1917]

Sorry about the pun.

 

It was the only reason i read the post !

bravo !

I General Lee don't like Civil War Jokes.... Hi Yo !

What does the Mermaid wear to math class ?  Her Alegbra !

 

tip your servers.

[yave1964]

@mojo1917

lol!!

[WingNut722]

 

What does the Mermaid wear to math class ?  Her Alegbra !

 

 

My wife is a middle school math teacher, and as such, has a whole stack of math puns.  I'm very tempted to have her catalog them all so I can fire them in here!

 

"What are you doing with that graph paper?  You must be plotting something..."

[WingNut722]

Glendening must have been using mind control. I can think of no better reason than this for the NHL to implement some sort of coaches challenge than wretched blown calls like this.

 

I skimmed the NHL rule book and I didn't find any notation that prohibits the use of Jedi mind tricks during game play.  So yes, it is definitely a blown call.

 

On the subject of Coach's challenge, I believe it would be very easy to implement.  If the Coach loses the challenge, his team is assessed a bench penalty for delay of game.  

[yave1964]

I skimmed the NHL rule book and I didn't find any notation that prohibits the use of Jedi mind tricks during game play.  So yes, it is definitely a blown call.

 

On the subject of Coach's challenge, I believe it would be very easy to implement.  If the Coach loses the challenge, his team is assessed a bench penalty for delay of game.

That is EXACTLY what my wife has said for a couple of years. The only question is what can a coach challenge? Goal calls only? Any play? That i think is the question.

[SpikeDDS]

And speaking of steals, who tracks this stuff? The Wings were credited with only 6 takeaways, but they took the puck over and over right off the stick of the Capitals players. For instance on one of Abdelkaers goals he literally flicked the puck off the stick of Burakovsky and immediately fired it in. Yet Burakovsky was not listed with a giveaway. That is why those type of stats are so unreliab

Good comment, @yave1964.

I'll betcha if Datsyuk had done it that it would have been called a takeaway.

[SpikeDDS]

That is EXACTLY what my wife has said for a couple of years. The only question is what can a coach challenge? Goal calls only? Any play? That i think is the question.

I vote for goaltender interference being challengeable! (Will never happen, because it's a judgment thing.)

[WingNut722]

That is EXACTLY what my wife has said for a couple of years. The only question is what can a coach challenge? Goal calls only? Any play? That i think is the question.

 

If the coaches are permitted to challenge any blown whistle, then that would include pretty much any and all goal calls as well as all penalty calls.  The catch is the play must be blown dead.  A missed call would not be challengable (if that's a word).  It's worth a shot.  It's a trial period.  I think the Board of Governors and the Players Union would be on board with that.

[SpikeDDS]

If the coaches are permitted to challenge any blown whistle, then that would include pretty much any and all goal calls as well as all penalty calls.  The catch is the play must be blown dead.  A missed call would not be challengable (if that's a word).  It's worth a shot.  It's a trial period.  I think the Board of Governors and the Players Union would be on board with that.

Problem is that if you're going to use other sports' challenge systems as a foundation, then the replay is going to have to show sufficient evidence to reverse a call. Well, take the goaltender's interference call on Abby against Carey Price in Montreal for example. If you and I look at that contact, Carey Price seems to initiate it, but I'm not sure with rules like other sports have if that alone would be enough to reverse that call, because the amount of contact allowed is a judgment call by the officials. It SHOULD be reversed, but I don't know if it WOULD be.

 

And to take a risk of a 2-minute penalty for delay of game to take that chance seems rather costly, particularly since if you lose the challenge, you've already got 2 minutes for goaltender interference plus you now have another 2 minute penalty for delay of game.

 

I suppose you'd have to make it a double-minor, because there's no way that should allow a 5-on-3. Otherwise, there's no way anyone would hardly ever throw a challenge unless, like in that instance, it would have made the difference on a goal.

 

The parameters of what is considered goaltender interference would have to be MUCH more well-defined if you were gonna make that work. Not sure if it would work in practice, even if it sounds like it might in theory.

[jammer2]

  I see the Wings called up Mrazek to fill in for the injured Monster....should be interesting to see how he responds, I assume he will play in back to back situations.

[WingNut722]

@SpikeDDS

 

In the example you set (Abby in Montreal), I don't think the Goaltender Intererence penalty would be assessed if the challenge was lost.  The "penalty" in that instance was that the goal was waved off for incidental contact.  So if the challenge failed, the call on the ice would stand, the Wings would be assessed the bench minor, and play would continue.  Abby wouldn't be in the sin bin for interference.  Understanding that these calls are largely judgmental based on the views of the refs, they are still made by snap decisions.  Given the chance to review several camera angles in slow motion would provide ample evidence to uphold or overturn a call, I feel.  The caveat though, would be that, in the event sufficient evidence is NOT available, then the call on the ice would stand.  Although maybe there would be a contingent that the bench minor would not be assessed

 

@jammer2

 

The Detroit Free Press called him "brash" with "nerves of ice."  Pretty big stuff.  He's done some terrific goalteding the past couple seasons.  However, I was at the Joe when he was in net against the Isles last season and got boo'ed off the ice for dropping 3-0.

[yave1964]

@SpikeDDS

 

In the example you set (Abby in Montreal), I don't think the Goaltender Intererence penalty would be assessed if the challenge was lost.  The "penalty" in that instance was that the goal was waved off for incidental contact.  So if the challenge failed, the call on the ice would stand, the Wings would be assessed the bench minor, and play would continue.  Abby wouldn't be in the sin bin for interference.  Understanding that these calls are largely judgmental based on the views of the refs, they are still made by snap decisions.  Given the chance to review several camera angles in slow motion would provide ample evidence to uphold or overturn a call, I feel.  The caveat though, would be that, in the event sufficient evidence is NOT available, then the call on the ice would stand.  Although maybe there would be a contingent that the bench minor would not be assessed

 

@jammer2

I remember that game, NOT Mrazak's fault in any way shape or form. The Isles scored early, the Wings took the night off and the rookie goaltender took the L when the team frankly quit.

I like the kid, I watch a ton of Griffins games, he seems disinterested as if he is pouting this year about returning for a third year to Grand Rapids and has a chip on his shoulder. I think he is our netminder of the future. I was kind of surprised the Monster was resigned, not disappointed just surprised. I think Mrasak deserves the opportunity to play and belongs in the NHL. That said, based off Gustafsson and Howard's injury history, it is nice having three quality goalies in the organization. By the end of the year all three will play an important role.

 

The Detroit Free Press called him "brash" with "nerves of ice."  Pretty big stuff.  He's done some terrific goalteding the past couple seasons.  However, I was at the Joe when he was in net against the Isles last season and got boo'ed off the ice for dropping 3-0.