Sunday, December 13, 2009

Colorado vs Calgary - Game Thoughts

I got the Sportsnet feed and boy are my ears tired. I'll give it to them that Miikka Kiprusoff was great so a good chunk of the hyperbole was deserved, but when you say "Good cross corner shoot in" when ol' pissy-pants Jerome Iginla dumps the puck might be using adjectives when you shouldn't be.

The amount of penalties called in the first period was ridiculous. You'd think I'd be happy that most were against the Flames but did you see the Avalanche powerplay? Many a kitten died for that performance.

Ryan Stoa was apparently in the lineup tonight. Who knew?

At least he had more ice-time than David Koci who clocked in with a 2-second shift. The end of that shift involved him getting clobbered by Brian McGrattan so you could say he earned his money.

With Justin Merseer - sorry, Mercier - getting Koci-like ice-time of nearly three entire minutes, this could be a tired Avalanche squad if Marek Svatos and/or Milan Hejduk are out for an extended period.

With 800 right-wingers on the injured list, it's nice that Chris Stewart is stepping up to what people were expecting of him. I've been more impressed with Stewart than Matt Duchene the last few games.

Dater's talking about his reverse jinx on Twitter. How about this one - I laid 20 bones on the Flames winning tonight. You're welcome.

1st post! I mean, 1st place!

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Colorado @ Columbus - Game Thought

That's right, I only have one thought on the win against Columbus. And it nearly caused my head to asplode.

With about 15 seconds left in a 3-2 hockey game, Columbus appeared to tie the game with a Jason Chimera wraparound. However after one glance at the replay, it was clear that the puck did not go between the posts. Instead, it went in under the side of the net after it got jostled by Scott Hannan.

Or at least, I thought it only took one glance. The Columbus announcers however spent the entire review period calling it a good call. Their rationale, which they stated with exuberance nearly a dozen times? To paraphrase: "That was a goal. The net was dislodged, not displaced. And there's a difference. The net can be dislodged, and it's still a goal. Displaced? No goal. But clearly, the net was only dislodged."

When the ruling came back that it was no goal because the puck didn't go between the pipes there was five seconds of silence followed by this exchange:
Announcer 1: That's their rule.
Announcer 2: Why?!
Announcer 1: Because it did not go between the two posts is what they're saying.

Those tricky, century old rules are a bitch, eh? They then talked about it some more and even tossed in that there should have been a minor penalty what with the way the net was dislodged. They clearly decided to throw out the dislodged vs displaced logic there but logic is only useful when it's convenient, right?

I feel like I rag on announcers more than I give them credit, but this was flat out awful. They should feel embarrassed at not having understood what it takes to score a goal. You know, the most important part of the game they're calling...