GDT Game 2: 4/15/16 | 7:00PM CST | v Hawks | NBCSN/FSMW/Y98

[Portland Blues]

F@^K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[theohall]

For the record, that was the first time this season I've seen a goalie clearly hit in the crease and the goal counted. Not only was he hit, he was hit 3 friggin' times before the goal went in.

Toronto and O'Rourke screwed us. BS line from the league about "the puck went in before any interference".

Time for the Blues to man-up for Game 3 and beat the crap out of these jerk who needed the refs to help them win.

[not_a_wings_fan]

And no one thinks there's a bias in play here? Our goal was disallowed and theirs stood.

(Frank) this league.

Fraser would have made the right call... guys with hair like his had to.

[Portland Blues]

As hard as it was to lose that one it was almost worse hearing Eddie display his "O Face" over the change in the game...

[fargoblues]

Offside call was right. Fabbri call was BS. Ladd goal was unbelievable BS

[JCShutout]

So... unbelievable amount of bullshit. Just... ... I don't even know.

[flyingnote38]

Offside call was right. Fabbri call was BS. Ladd goal was unbelievable BS

1) not sure about this. it sure looked to me on the final image they showed (Hawks broadcast here in Chicago), while his left foot was off the ice, Lehtera's right foot wasn't yet ON the ice and didn't hit the ice until after the puck entered the zone.

3) Worse than Ladd, Shaw. Makes contact with Elliot at least twice before shooting the puck, which by that point was outside the paint.

bad enough the Blues' bad playoff habits reappeared -- sloppy icing at the end of the second which leads to a goal with just seconds left, but.................I'm just disgusted by the last 7 minutes of this game.

[theohall]

League review is claiming Shaw was pushed into Elliott. What a friggin' joke. That's per Kerry Fraser and his contacts. I'm busy bitching on Twitter.


Thanks alcohol and flash chat folks

[theohall]

And no one thinks there's a bias in play here? Our goal was disallowed and theirs stood.

(Frank) this league.

Fraser would have made the right call... guys with hair like his had to.

Fraser claims the Hawks' 2nd goal was good. So try some other dudes hair.

[cardsfan04]

Disallowed goal: I think he was offside, but I don't think it was at all conclusive from any of the angles that I saw.

Allowed goal: the shove on Elliott is pretty obvious. Wasn't a huge shove and didn't warrant a penalty. But the shove is still pretty obvious. Should have been disallowed. That it came a couple minutes after the disallowed goal is just super frustrating.

I don't think it's a bias issue. I think officiating is just really bad.

[heff]

I tried to sleep as soon as possible. Woke up angry. Reading this morning = http://i.imgur.com/sfDqYVH.jpg

I had managed to forget about the Fabbri penalty... which is probably the biggest ref screw up. Though I still think Elliott was interfered with.

[Toasted Oates]

I know "technically" they didn't before last night, but let's face it: Blues needed to win @ United Center anyway. Now it's a best of 5, they've got home ice. If that team will be dethroned, you're gonna have to do it on their turf.

Blaming the officials is a cop out. If these Blues are going to be different, they'll need a heavy dose of amnesia. 55 played a hell of a game, but he had a goal in his stick w/ about 4 minutes left in the 3rd. Couldn't bury it.

The dreaded icing @ the end of the 2nd leads to a Lehtera/Toews dot matchup. Shaw gets traffic, Keith lifts it on goal.

Having said that, the offsides challenge is dumb. You can't challenge a play that looked onside but is called offside. But you can challenge a play that looked offside but what left alone and only after the other team buries a goal. Crawford makes the save, there are no worries. Dumb.

The Fabbri embellishment call was....unfortunate. But I just expect the officiating to be bad and I would expect the players do as well. Can't control it.

Is it 2 o clock Sunday yet?

[goon attack]

it's horseshit that we are even supporting the idea that the Ladd goal shouldn't have counted. of course it should count because the rule of goalie interference is freakin' dumb. Players should be able to crash the freakin' net.

And the review/cameras on the blue line is freakin stupid as hell. Unless a play is CLEARLY offsides to the human eye, it shouldn't be an issue.

What's next, we will have camera review to prove someone's lips were moving to prove they were talking trash and receive an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty? Maybe get professional lip readers to decipher what's being said out there?

How about we review every dump in to prove it the player reached the red line? How about we review every motherfucking faceoff to make sure the visitor's stick was on the ice first?

This league is catshit.

[flyingnote38]

I know "technically" they didn't before last night, but let's face it: Blues needed to win @ United Center anyway. Now it's a best of 5, they've got home ice.

Its hard to beat the Hawks 4 times in a 7 game series; even harder to half to beat them 5 times. Here's the Hawks' record by game in the playoffs under Q (updated to include last night):
Game 1 12-9
game 2 13-8
game 3 6-14
game 4 13-7
game 5 14-4
game 6 14-1
game 7 2-2

game 3 is a must win for the Blues, but realistically they need to win both of the next two games in Chicago. Would not want to be looking at a Game 6 in Chicago with the Blues facing elimination (btw Blues under Hitch facing elimination 0-5)

The dreaded icing @ the end of the 2nd leads to a Lehtera/Toews dot matchup. Shaw gets traffic, Keith lifts it on goal.

immediately brought to mind Chris Stewart's lazy back check that led to a late second period goal from just inside the blue line on Elliot in game 6 against LA 3 years ago.

Having said that, the offsides challenge is dumb.

Here are the issues I see. Firstly, a coach shouldn't be able to simply 'take a flyer' on a challenge. Any goal late in a close game will be challenged in this way, not because they've reviewed the video and thought it was off-side, but simply because what's the downside? Losing a time out? Vs maybe lucking into a vacated goal? I bet Q was surprised it was ruled "no goal."

Secondly, I think the NHL needs to be more explicit in how the rule will be called. Video review will subject close plays to frame by frame dissection. The Hawks broadcast during the review made a big deal about whether Lehtera's trailing foot (left) had left the ice or not, but this is actually irrelevant based on the wording (it does seem to be how they call the rule). The actual wording (relevant part bolded) reads analogous to the 'plane of the goalline' concept in football.

83.1 Off-side - Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck
into the attacking zone.
The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be
the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player
is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of
the blue line involved in the play.
A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or
on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses
the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick.
However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the
line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he
had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the
blue line.
It should be noted that while the position of the player’s skates is
what determines whether a player is “off-side,” nevertheless the
question of an “off-side” never arises until the puck has completely
crossed the leading edge of the blue line at which time the decision is
to be made.

[cardsfan04]

I actually don't mind that they can review offside calls. If they have the ability to get a call right, they should. To me, the only issue there is whether it was conclusive or not. That it took 5 minutes to make a decision makes it hard to believe that it was conclusive.

[Kerfuffle]

I actually don't mind that they can review offside calls. If they have the ability to get a call right, they should. To me, the only issue there is whether it was conclusive or not. That it took 5 minutes to make a decision makes it hard to believe that it was conclusive.

Offsides is not a judgement call though - you either are or you are not. It was very close and needed to be examined from multiple angles and therefore it took awhile but the right call was made.

[cardsfan04]

I actually don't mind that they can review offside calls. If they have the ability to get a call right, they should. To me, the only issue there is whether it was conclusive or not. That it took 5 minutes to make a decision makes it hard to believe that it was conclusive.

Offsides is not a judgement call though - you either are or you are not. It was very close and needed to be examined from multiple angles and therefore it took awhile but the right call was made.

I'm not suggesting they made a subjective ruling. I'm suggesting the replays we have seen aren't conclusive. It's hard to tell when the puck crosses the line and whether Lehtera's skate is on the ice.

The NHL may have better angles than what we have seen. And, if they do, so be it. They should get the call right if they have that ability. But, every angle I've seen has left me thinking, "He might be offside, but I can't really tell for sure." In fact, I think he probably was offside, probably being the keyword and below the standard needing to overturn.

With as terrible as NHL officiating is, I'm only willing to acknowledge that they could have a better angle. I won't assume that they got the call right on an angle I haven't seen.

[not_a_wings_fan]

So I see where he's shoved into Elliot, and that's the first contact. Good call no foul there.

However, when he extends his arms and hands into Elliot's mask while shoving his pad into the net, that would be a foul.

The rule says the player needs to get out of the way and make an effort to avoid additional contact. Go read it.

It's not a goal.

I have this series tied Blues 1, Zebras 1, with the blackhawks yet to win a game.

[cardsfan04]

Andrew Allsman tweeted a couple of pictures that seem to contradict the reasoning for the goal being allowed. I thought it was interference last night, but thought Kerber/Chase nailed it after the game saying the real issue is that there isn't consistency from referee to referee (which is a very good point). Now, I just think it was a bad call. Oh well I guess. Bad calls happen a lot.
https://twitter.com/allsmandrew/status/721367427779588096 https://twitter.com/allsmandrew/status/721379320405618689

[fargoblues]

So I'm over game 2. On to the next.



Some observations:

* am I the only one that sees opportunity in playing a non Backes line against the Kane line? Kane and crew are downright brutal defensively and either of the two Blues scoring lines are still responsible enough to backcheck. Why doesn't hitch dictate instead of responding? He's playing right into q's hands here. The Blues need more goals. Period.

* Colton (Franking) Parayko. That is all.

* Amber Alerts: Lehtera, Stastny, Steen (still injured I'm sure), fourth line.
* if Reaves gets any ice time he should be absolutely destroying bitches out there. If he's not getting the ice time then skate someone else. Why not roll the fourth line with the occasional tarasenko or fabbri or brouwer out there?