Much like Barack, I called BMFS last night to concede. Joffrey Lupul* scored a power play goal for a case of tastykakes in overtime which, surprise surprise!, also won the game and the series. (And, yes, that asscheese Flyers announcer did manage to squeeze an ad into the overtime series winning goal. I heard part of it before turning the TV off.)
I could write 5,000 words on the refs, or the missed chances by the Caps, but honestly it was a great series, so why cheapen it? The Caps played fantastically last night and, I thought, out-played the Flyers for the third game in a row. Unfortunately, that, a bucket of pills, a giant tazer and a dildo will allow you to analy violate a bull elephant.
And speaking of analy violating bull elephants, Martin Biron (or "Mart'n Byron" as I heard a Flyers fan refer to him during Game 2) was terrific. In fact, both goalies were outstanding. Biron got beat on a backdoor rebound and on a 70,000 mph slapper from the greatest goal scorer since Gretzky. Can't really fault the guy for either one. His Caps counterpart, Huet, may have been even better over the course of the series. Last night he gave up two goals, one on a slapper that literally just snuck through his pads and rolled ever... so... slowly... into the goal, and one on a rebound/scrum in front of the net.
The third goal (which was actually the Flyers second of the game) came after he was knocked out of the net by one of his own players who had been shoved into him by a Flyer. By any reasonable assessment, it never should have counted (in fact, it should have been a penalty against Philadelphia). But, I'll save that rant for another time.
Both teams played an incredible series and I think it was just about dead even regardless of who scored in OT. Unfortunately it was the Flyers, so they get to move on, while the Caps ponder what could have been. Despite the loss, it was a great season for DC hockey. Hopefully the Caps can have a healthy and successful off season and come back next year ready to dominate.
As for me, I didn't get much sleep last night, so hopefully that helps to explain the limited humor in this post. More later as my drooping eyelids (and job) permit.
*(Sounds like some sort of VD to me..."I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson, but you're culture came back positive for Joffrey Lupul."..."No!!!")
6 comments:
First of all, it's "Lupul". It's a palindrome.
Also, after about 7 beers last night, something fairly relevant hit me: what penalty do you call on Thoresen on that second goal? Goaltender interference? He never touched the goalie. Just plain interference? He had the puck.
I'm no expert on the NHL rule book, but I'm fairly certain that some rule must exist which prohibits the shoving of an opposing player into an opposing goalie. If no such rule exists then the NHL better create one because that’s a massive oversight on their part.
Here's the official explanation on the Flyer's second goal from the league:
– Washington’s Shaone Morrisonn plays the puck and Philadelphia’s Patrick Thoresen lays a legal body check on Morrisonn. No Philadelphia player makes contact with Washington goaltender Huet (Rule 69). This play is not reviewable.
Notice how this doesn't jive with bmfs's comment above, as he contended that Thoresen had the puck. Nope, sorry, the NHL says that Morrisonn had it. Which, he didn't. To be honest, I'm not sure either player possessed the puck at that point in time.
Not that any of this actually matters of course.
*Fixed the spelling of "Lupul"
bmfs - tell me if this is wrong (it very well could be):
From www.nhl.com/rules/rule67.html:
"A minor penalty shall be imposed on an attacking player who deliberately checks a defensive player, including the goalkeeper, who is not in possession of the puck."
Sounds like that could cover Thoresen's actions, no?
No, I don't think it does. If Morrisonn has played the puck, by rule 67, that disqualifies a call of interference on Thoresen against Morrisonn. And Thoresen did not deliberately check the goaltender - or even touch him - so he's not in violation of rule 67 there either.
Also: I was unclear about puck possession in the first comment - it doesn't matter who's got the puck, Morrisonn or Thoresen. If the puck is present, it's presumably not interference. ("Possession" = touching the puck, eg, when a the whistle is blown on a delayed penalty.)
Post a Comment